How were fossils dated before radioactive dating datagridview database not updating
mainstream accepted date for the age of these bones (several dozens of million years old).
The age that these groups claim to find is usually on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old.
Now, it is known that $^\text$ decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. would not have been able to obtain this sample, had they been honest about their intent.
This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.
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.
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.
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.
Stack Exchange network consists of 170 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Visit Stack Exchange The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method.