Radioactive carbon dating game
Contamination of this kind amounting to 1 percent of the carbon in a sample 25,000 years old would make it appear to be about 1,500 years younger than its actual age.Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,000-year-old object by almost 50 percent.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.Furthermore, it appears less than certain that the carbon found in the bones actually had anything to do with them being dinosaur bones.This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.
In this answer, I will try to go through this story in great detail, (hopefully) exposing the reasons why this work is not taken seriously by scientists.
Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs.
"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.
Sign up for INFObytes and receive an MP3 (audio presentation) called Genesis, The Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue by Dr Emil Silvestru—free for you to download!
Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.