Radiocarbon dating fossils
No, the University of Georgia had extended the maximum limit up over 50,000 years, and the ages were all well below this. After all, even though these ages are much younger than conventional ages, many creationists believe life on earth to be much younger than even the reported carbon-14 ages of these dinosaur fossils.This question will be dealt with in a later section of this article.
Notice the titles of 4 and 6 correspond in both lists, which in the opinion of some, hints strongly that the list with number 5 present was an original list." href="#footnote5_ny0mhb7"Why is the information presented in the paper important?If the accepted ages of millions of years for dinosaurs were to be found to be in error, this would be a problem to evolution.The dinosaur dates reported below and discussed in the AOGS 2012 paper discussed throughout this article, included triceratops, hadrosaur, allosaurus, and acrocanthasaurs.Carbon-14’s half-life is too short to measure dates over a million years ago.In fact, if the entire earth were solid carbon-14, in a million years so much would have decayed that there would not be even a single atom of carbon-14 left.The carbon-14 decays at a known rate, but since it is being replenished while the animal is alive, only after the animal dies is no carbon-14 added.
Of course, this assumes that carbon-14 is not inadvertently added to the dead animal’s remains.
However, the abstract of the Miller presentation was removed from the website for the conference. Double-click on the box for Wednesday, Room Leo 2, BG02.
You will see presentation 5 is missing between 4 and 6.
So, you might ask, why is this article about carbon-14 dating of dinosaurs?
Wouldn’t the dinosaurs be too old for carbon-14 dating to work on them? That statement would be true if the dinosaurs were really millions of years old.
Compared to the conventional theory of dinosaurs’ being at minimum 65 million years old, the time it would take soft tissue to degrade and the 4 The ages for the dinosaur fossils presented in this paper were far younger than the conventionally accepted ages.