Carbon 14 not used for dating dinosaur

In the paper, they consider whether it was a bad day at the lab that did the testing, leading to uniformly biased results.That is highly unlikely to be the case, they argue, since four other labs have published radiocarbon presence in specimens thought to be millions of years old.Those reports compare favorably to the new results, yielding radiocarbon ages in the same finite range.Strikingly, it doesn’t matter if the specimens are labeled Cenozoic, Mesozoic or Paleozoic: each era spans the range of radiocarbon “ages” resulting from the tests.Unexpectedly, all 16 samples submitted for measurement contained C-14.We found measurable amounts of C in all 14 of our dinosaur and other fossils.No such trend was found; moreover, the dates obtained were consistent with an earlier published result from a fossil 3,000 feet below the surface, well below the water table.Since the radiocarbon ages are orders of magnitude younger than believed, and consistent in upper and lower limits regardless of locale of assumed era, the authors conclude that all the geologic strata with their fossils must have been laid down in a short period, as described in the Genesis flood account.

It was not the goal of the project to date the specimens, but just to see if any radiocarbon remained.Moreover, we found surprising consistency in these data, which range from approximately 17,850 to 49,470 radiocarbon years as indicated in Figure 1.It should be understood that “radiocarbon years” do not necessarily indicate true ages of specimens, because calibration depends on assumptions about atmospheric conditions prior to dates that can be cross-checked against archaeological records (cf.“We also compared radiocarbon results acquired at five different laboratories, ruling out lab-induced contamination,” he says.Lab technicians know the procedures to remove contaminating carbon.