Contamination dating radiocarbon
These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".There is a lot of discussion about this issue on this internet, so I think this question may be worth addressing seriously.This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.
Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as “bones” did not contain any collagen. 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 ).A research team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old.Let's look at their research methodology in detail (indicated by bullet points): Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. 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.He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid 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.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.