Home | Events | Scholarships | Articles | AlphaNOVA | Newsletter | Resources | Donate

DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONE FRAGMENTS:

The dating of dinosaur fossils is not as simple a matter as the media and mainstream science would like us to believe. There are no magical dating machines generate a report which reads 70 million year old; rather most dating of fossils is done by dating nearby lava flows or other igneous or metamorphic rock assumed to have lost all daughter products and been "set" at the time of the dinosaur or other fossil formation. Then stratagraphic correlation is used to reconstruct the sequence and time. The only method that dates the fossils themselves is carbon dating but evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are too old for carbon dating. This begs the question, are they really that old? In 1970, Professor Robert Whitelaw of Virginia Polytechnic Institute examined the radiocarbon data reported in the journal, Radiocarbon. He was surprised to find that several of these came from specimens which would be considered several million years old by evolutionary dating. Examples are:

Radiocarbon dating is not possible beyond 50,000 years, yet these dates were within that limit. Since Creationists believe the earth's atmosphere is not more than several thousand years old, the basic assumption of carbon dating that the C-14 (radiocarbon) specific production rate in the upper atmosphere had stabilized long ago can not be trusted. It can be argued that at the time of the Creation, some 6000 to 7,000 years ago, a plant specimen that died would probably showed almost an infinite age but that the agreement between actual age and measured age would come closer and closer with time, but would be very divergent as we go back in time.The specific production rate of radiocarbon has doubtless varied drastically as have other factors; radiocarbon dating done in the evolution-based laboratories ignores this fact and uses the current rate for all specimens, modern and ancient. Bone fragments from the 30 ft. long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur were excavated by members of CEM (Creation Evidence Museum) of Glen Rose TX and CRSEF of Columbus OH.  These were subjected to the radiocarbon dating process at three different laboratories.  The table below lists these dates and those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. The dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 Radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.). Evolutionists insist these bone are between 65 Million and 150 Million years old.

Because the AMS appears to be the choice of radiocarbon dating experts today and, because the AMS is assigned very low +/-deviations we tend to believe the lower dates as true values for the radiocarbon dating process. But, of course, these are not the true dates.  The true dates are still elusive. However, reducing the dinosaur age by 1,000 times or 10,000 times is no small discovery.

THE SOURCE OF CARBON IN DINOSAUR BONES AND POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION WITH YOUNG CARBON:

Dinosaur Bone is not totally replaced, it still has the actual material remains. Of the once living tissue other paleontologists have noted that dinosaur bones as a rule are "carbonized on the surface and throughout the lamellar outer layers" (12). "Kerogenous hydrocarbons" are often present in the central pores and Haversian canals according to the same source. When a cross section of an Acrocanthosaurus bone fragment was sectioned and mounted metallographically in 1989 we also noted that the pores were black, which we assumed to be carbonized material. Although there is little or no collagen in the bones as observed by radiocarbon dating labs the organic matter present in the bones are obviously biogenic in nature; that is: the source of the carbon is the dinosaur tissue and other organic matter buried with it.

Hashed up plant material is often buried with dinosaurs so perhaps we should arrange more excavations where we can acquire our own samples of both bone and vegetation.

Since four of the dinosaur dates were less than 17,000 B.P. we saw no reason at this time to repeat the experiments on the more sensitive and more expensive AMS. These dinosaur bone fragments for four separate dinosaurs came from the Colorado-Utah region and include the Allosaurus and the Camarasaurus. All the bone fragments dated have contained carbon-14.

Indeed, the bones of dinosaurs buried and compressed in a fresh state and encased in their rocky tombs gives mute testimony to a catastrophic demise and burial. The Acrocanthosaurus was smashed to a thickness of 15-20 cm and the spiral fracture of some of the bone indicts a fresh state when broken and buried. Some portions of others dinosaurs were also found here. The presence of carbon in the surfaces and pores of many dinosaurs is therefore not surprising. However, could large quantities of carbonates containing modern C-14 migrate through the clay to the dinosaur bones to give false readings? Our laboratory studies of clay samples from adjacent to and above the dinosaur burial site along the Paluxy River say no.

The carbon content of the surrounding clays decreases with increasing distance from the bones, confirming that the dinosaur is the source of the carbon present in the bones. Samples were taken to two different labs in 1991, which confirmed earlier data obtained from one lab in 1990. Also clay is well known for preventing seepage of ground water through to underlying surfaces. Furthermore the carbon content in the clay was so low (0.5% adjacent to the bones reducing to 0.1% three feet away) that it can be said that the clay also prevented the carbon of the dinosaur from migrating very far from the bones; or, put another way - carbon migration proceeds away from the bones. This seem to indicate that carbonate containing water could not have pass though the layer since even the organic decay products of the dinosaur have remain largely undisturbed

Another possible C-14 contamination is from the samples themselves due to modern bush or three rootlets however the field examination of the excavation area shows no rootlet reached that far because of layers of limestone and sandstones The labs assure us that "contamination is unlikely". The pretreatment procedures are designed to remove rootlets, carbonates, and alkali-soluble humic material, all of which could add modern or old carbon to the sample; carbonized wood in this case.

The dating procedure used on the bones was a bio-apatite method, which was our only option at the time because of the lack of large amounts of bone protein or more reliable material. Bones were washed with dilute acetic acid, and crushed to less than 1 mm in size. The bone powder is then digested in cold dilute acetic acid with constant agitation for 24 hours to remove normal carbonates. The sample is then hydrolyzed under vacuum with HCL to dissolve bone appetite and evolve its carbon dioxide for analysis. Of course all of the above is being done primarily for specimens buried in dirt not in rock strata protected by compacted clay (volcanic?) that would tend to prevent even water percolating through the cretaceous rock strata. That the clay has indeed offered such great protection is evident from the fact that the underlying fossil ichnites (dinosaur footprints and other tracks and raindrop depressions) are so beautifully preserved. When exposed to air without the protective clay layer they erode rapidly, sometimes in weeks of months.

The scientists who learned from reporters that we used their facilities to date cretaceous fossils directly, or, obtained fossil bone fragments from their museum commented harshly in news articles at the time .The museum curator said "Carbon dating dinosaur bones is ludicrous, and the fact they yielded numbers is meaningless."

"While paleontologists use several methods in dating, part of the disparity rests in the need for researchers to make some assumptions about the gross age of bones so the appropriate test method can be used. Carbon-14 dating and mass spectroscopy dating are best for specimens up to 50,000 years or so," said another.

"If a scientist believes the bones are millions of years older, the usual procedure is to date the age of the surrounding rock strata using potassium argon dating, all of which measure the amount of decay of those elements." These are some of the more kind remarks noted in major AP releases.

 In other words to date a fossil you need to know how "old" it is first. How is that for objectivity! The selective use of dating methods and the underlying circular reasoning of evolutionary geology speaks for itself. Meanwhile the carbon dating of fossils seems to indicate a recent flood catastrophe is a viable working hypothesis for the formation of many of the Earth's features. Further research is still needed but it appears global patterns of young C14 dates will continue to be a thorn in the paw of evolutionary geology. 

References:

(1) Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures by Pierre Y. Julien, Yongquiang Lan and Guy Berthault, Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 1993,1, 164, a 5, pp. 649-660, in French, and video tape, Experiments in Stratification (order from www.answersingenesis.org -English).

(2) Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data, Lithology and mineral Resources, Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 5, 2002, Guy Berthault, in English

(3) Geological Dating Principles Questioned -Paleohydraulics: a new approach Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, China, vol. 22, No. 3, August, 2002, Guy Berthault, in English. (www.geology.ref.ac/berthault).

(4) Prize winning video, Evolution, Fact or Belief -- Interviews with five leading world scientists in their fields of molecular biology, chemistry, paleontology and sedimentology (1800-736-4567) showing that evolution is a belief system not a fact.

(5) The Paluxy Footprints Revisited, Wilbur Fields et. al. ICC Conference, 1990, p. 155-173 plus supplement pp. 371-374, Vol. 2. (6) Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and other evidences for human-dinosaur coexistence), Robert Garbe et. al. 1992 Conference on Creation, August 1992, Minneapolis, MN.