18-Nov-2019 13:00

The claims are really quite spectacular, when taken at face value, and therefore should be examined thoroughly.

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.

The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years.

If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants.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.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.A research team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old.