Wiki carbon 14 dating Hotchaat direct
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".
There is a lot of discussion about this issue on this internet, so I think this question may be worth addressing seriously.
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.
Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,000-year-old object by almost 50 percent.At a horizon of 40,000 years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: such a specimen may contain only a few thousand 14C atoms.Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements.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.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.
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.