Have dinosaur bones been Carbon-14 dated and what are the results?
In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years. Now I don’t think they are even that old, but that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.
But there are other problems. In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Philip J. Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.” As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”
In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?
And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery. Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.” As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?
Since all the carbon 14 is gone in 50,000 years, it certainly can’t be used by evolutionists to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago. There would not be any carbon 14 left in the sample to measure. That’s why knowledgeable evolutionists never claim that carbon 14 is used to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago. But that doesn't mean that, according to scientific methods, the bones of dinosaurs are younger than 5775 years (the Biblical age of the earth). The age of dinosaur bones can be estimated by using other methods.
According to published content at the URLs at the end of this comment, dinosaur bones (not fossils, but actual bones) have indeed been dated, using both carbon 14 and carbon 13. They came out young.
No. Radiocarbon dating involves dating the using the carbon-14 isotope. After about 50,000 years (about 10 half lives), there is not enough carbon-14 to measure in organic matter. Dinosaurs lived MUCH more than 50,000 years ago (from about 230 to 65 millions years ago). Besides, most dinosaur remains are fossilized - the original organic material has been replaced by minerals.
Probably.... but really why would you? Dinosaur bones are fossilised - the original material is replaced (clearly). Carbon dating is based on the C14 the living organism took in from the atmosphere. Fossil bones contain no record of this. They consist of mineral that has replaced the original bone.
But if you did.... well C14 is produced very slowly underground by uranium - thorium decay. Thus, you might find some fossil bones with very small traces of C14, maybe just above the background radiation detection limits of the machine, ie. "date" to slightly younger than 60,000 years. Maybe "younger" if it's contaminated with recent biological material.
As others have said, uranium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon and multiple other forms of radiometric and non-radiometric dating very consistently establish that the stratigraphic context of dinosaur bones is far far far older than this - ~60 million years for the youngest bones.
Yes they have and they have been returned as dated 2200 years to 35 k years or so..
Dinosaur bones cannot be carbon-14 dated. For one thing, they aren't made of biological materials - they were long ago replaced by rock.
What happens is that the bones are covered in some way by, say, silt from flood or lakebed. Then the bones dissolve. Then water, containing minerals dissolved within, deposits those minerals into the space left by the bone. Ta-da - Rock replaces bone.
DO YOU SEE THE TWO SIDES TO THIS?
SOME CLAIM LEGITIMATE DINOSAUR BONES HAVE BEEN FOUND SO CARBON 14 DATING CAN BE DONE ON THEM, AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN UNDER 50,000 YEARS.
THEN YOU HAVE THE FACT OF “DINOSAUR” BONES THAT HAVE BEEN MINERALIZED - A LONG TIME AGO REPLACED BY ROCK…..AS THE LAST COMMENT….TA-DA—ROCK REPLACES BONE.
CAN BOTH OF THESE FACTS MAKE SENSE; CAN THEY BE PUT TOGETHER SO BOTH ARE TRUE?
YES THEY CAN—— BUT THAT LATERE.