Radioactive carbon dating of fossils

06-Sep-2016 14:52 by 4 Comments

Radioactive carbon dating of fossils - dating hull uk

He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.

"Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.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.The main point 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 methods, at some age which is a lot below the 'usual' i.e.The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method.And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old. Its half-life ($t_{1/2}$) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away.

The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years.

If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon-14, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still Carbon-14 in the bones. Do these data indicate that a more accurate method needs to be derived?

What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? From the source linked above: Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.

It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically.

The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 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.