Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology examined these results and concludes that there is nothing whatsoever extraordinary about them.The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages (including the 3.4% carbon!Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements.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.That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants.
Visit Stack Exchange The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method.
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.
In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they were taken from were determined to be 99 million years old, as shown in this paper by Kowallis et al.
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.
He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.