Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
Instead, other methods are used to work out a fossil's age. These include radiometric dating of volcanic layers above or below the fossils or by Knowing when a dinosaur or other animal lived is important because it helps us. Well in order to date dinosaur fossils we must use a technique of radiometric The reason carbon dating doesn't work for more than 50 to years is. But what happens if you date them using carbon dating, which is Carbon dating works by measuring the amount of carbon
This is mainly due to the nature of bone, which is a very porous material. Certain parts of bone look like a sponge under the microscope. Many dinosaur bones are hard as rock because the original material has been replaced with a silicon material such as quartz. These are "mineralized" or "fossilized". We have found un-mineralized dinosaur bones. We then scrape the outer surface off to get rid of surface contamination, and date the inner remaining material.
One can date just the purified bioapatite, the total organics, or the collagen, or a combination of these, as we did in several cases. This is a remarkable find because collagen, being a soft tissue present in most animals, is supposed to decay in a few thousand years.
Collagen is the main protein found in connective tissue of animals. It can make up from 1 to 6 percent of muscle mass. Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana, and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon testing.
Both bones were tested by a licensed lab for presence of collagen. Both bones did in fact contain some collagen. The best process Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was used to date them. Total organic carbon and dinosaur bioapatite was extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants, and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained.
They were similar to radiocarbon dates for ice-age megafauna such as Siberian mammoths, saber tooth tigers of the Los Angeles LaBrea Tarpits, sloth dung, and giant bison. We usually prefer AMS dating because of its inherent superior accuracy, but use the conventional method when large samples are available in order to completely rule out contamination. This is recommended by a carbon-dating laboratory specialist. Robert Bennett, physicist and co-author, agree that "the AOGS-AGU assembly encourages presentation of reliable data even though the topic may be controversial.
This is a very wise policy for the advacement of science and the education of people everywhere. Thus, we encourage our colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones from museums and university fossil repositories around the world, as well as testing for C in scrapings from dinosaur bones as they are excavated. We are anxious to see their results presented, just as we have done. Also, we call on the news media and citizens everywhere to urge paleontologists, curators, university faculty, and government scientific agencies to encourage and support further testing for C content in dinosaur remains.
Carbon dating dinosaur bones
Scientists need to know the actual chronology of the Earth and the age of the fossils. Waldemar Julsrud, a German hardware merchant in Acambaro, Mexico, was riding his horse on the lower slope of El Toro Mountain on a sunny morning in July Suddenly he spotted some partially exposed hewn stones and a ceramic object half buried in the dirt.
He dismounted and dug out of the ground the hewn stones as well as a few ceramic pieces. Julsrud, who was archaeologically astute, immediately realized that these ceramic pieces were unlike anything that he had seen.
The objects he held in his hand were distinctively different than any other known Indian culture. When a few ceramic fragments were found there, Julsrud hired diggers to excavate.
This discovery brought world wide attention from archaeologists who at first mistakenly defined them as Tarascan, but later they were correctly identified as a whole New Indian culture - the Chupicuaro.
Julsrud at age sixty-nine was on the brink of making a discovery that may prove to be the greatest archaeological discovery ever made. He hired a Mexican farmer, Odilon Tinajero, to dig in the area where the ceramic figurines were found and bring him any other similar objects.
Soon Tinajero had a wheelbarrow full of ceramic pottery that had been excavated on El Toro Mountain. Charles Hapgood notes that "Julsrud was a shrewd businessman and he now made a deal with Tinajero that is very important for our story.Dinosaur Bones Carbon-14 Less Than 40,000 Years Old
He told Tinajero that he would pay him one peso worth about 12 cents for each complete piece he brought in. Among the thousands of artifacts excavated were items that turned Julsrud's mansion into "the museum that scared scientists.
The objects were made of clay and stone, varying in size from a few inches long to statues three feet high, and dinosaur objects four to five feet long. In the collection, that now numbered over 20, objects, not one could be found to be a duplicate of another. Each of the clay pieces had been individually made, without molds, skillfully sculptured, and carefully decorated.
Several hundred of the figurines were scientifically identified as representing many species of dinosaurs, including duck billed Trachodon, Gorgosaurus, horned Monoclonius, Ornitholestes, Titanosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus Paleococincus, Diplodocus, Podokosaurus, Struthiomimos, Plesiosaur, Maiasaura, Rhamphorynchus, Iguanodon, Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, Dimetrodon, Ichtyornis, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Rhynococephalia and other unknown or as yet unidentified dinosaur species.
- Related Questions
- Expert Answers
- The research by Miller et al.
These remarkable dinosaur figurines threaten orthodox concepts and time scales in many fields of study. Sanderson was amazed in to find that there was an accurate representation of the American dinosaur Brachiosaurus, which was almost totally unknown to the general public at that time.
Sanderson wrote about the figurine in the Julsrud collection. It is about a foot tall. The point is it is an absolutely perfect representation of Brachiosaurus, known only from East Africa and North America.
Can We Use Carbon 14 Dating On Dinosaur Bones
There are a number of outlines of the skeletons in the standard literature but only one fleshed out reconstruction that I have ever seen. This is exactly like it. InArthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr. The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2, B. In a letter dated September 13,addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said: Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method.
I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples. Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces.
They asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old. A thermoluminescent technician admitted that no other ceramics existed, in his experience, that produced regenerated light signals, and no other thermoluminescent dating of ceramics had ever been done by utilization of a regenerated light signal.
In short, the excuse was a hocus pocus, laboratory trick to avoid the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived together. John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures. Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud-type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro, and inin Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Bortulot determined the pieces' upper limit age to be 2, years old, thus, invalidating the Masca report which claimed the objects were made thirty to one hundred years ago.
John Tierney took a half dozen samples of Julsrud ceramics of different clay composition to a team of experts at Ohio State University. They consisted of Dr. Caley among the world's most respected archaeological chemistsand Dr. Ehlers mineralogist in the geology department at Ohio State University. The team reported that they could not believe the artifacts were made in modern times, nor could they believe they were made by some amateur who tried to perpetuate a fraud.
Upon my notifying them that they had authenticated Julsrud artifacts, they lapsed into a profound and apparently permanent silence.
Video released the program "Jurassic Art", which contained an Acambaro segment that was originally supposed to have been part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man.
Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones?
Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples of Julsrud-type ceramics a human figure and a dinosaur figure to an independent Carbon laboratory.
Startling results came back. Steede tap danced around the implications, embarrassingly embracing the human figurine as credible, while waltzing past the dinosaur figurine, claiming the laboratory test must not have given a true reading. In reality, the dinosaur figurine created too much tension for orthodox science and Steede had to find an out. Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand.
They then sent it to a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. To get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in the dating for general chemical analysis purposes, 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. Thus, it appears that Miller et al.
This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now. What exactly 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 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: At a horizon of 40, years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: If they assume that the ratios in the past were the same as they are today, then they can estimate how long ago those creatures died.
If the ratios are in equilibrium, then this would be a safe assumption. They can only solve their equations if they assume that the production rate of carbon to carbon in the upper atmosphere is constant.
In order for the two to be produced in equilibrium, the atmosphere would have to have been stable for 50, years or more. Evolutionists assume this to be true. Libby, who discovered the method, wrote: March 4, ] But if there were any kind of recent catastrophe — such as a global flood, for example — the atmospheric ratios of the two carbon atoms would probably have changed over time, and would still be changing even now.
In fact, we know the ratios are changing now, and have been over time. But some scientists have applied carbon dating to dinosaur bones. If we apply the standard assumptions that scientists typically apply when using carbon dating, we come up with these simple results: If this is not correct, it could mean the dating method is flawed because the assumptions are wrong, and all dates gathered using the method are suspect. It could also mean the bone specimens were contaminated which is highly unlikely.
In this particular case, the dinosaurs were dated to between 10, and 25, years old. But since the age predicted by the method is wrong i.
But the differences arise because of the underlying presuppositions about the past of the two groups.