What about Dinasours, are they really 65 million years old.
Just about all of children’s books related to dinosaurs contain dates that go back to 60 or more millions of years old.
Let's take a closer look:
An allosaurus from the Morrison formation, late Jurassic, found in 1989 was dated by the University of Georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry. The age was found to be 31,360 ± 100 years old.
• Another Hell Creek formation dinosaur, found in 2004, a triceratops, was dated by the University of Georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry in 2009 as 24,340 ± 70 years old.
• An apatosaurus was found in late Jurassic strata of the Morrison formation, and excavation was done in 2007 and 2009. In 2011 the University of Georgia dated the fossil to 38,250 ± 160 years old. (PlaistedConclusion: The Dinosaur Bones Are Young
So the young C14 dates can’t be due to radiation. They can’t be due to contamination. They also can’t be the result of differing atmospheric conditions. It must be then that these bones are really young.
However, this conclusion is not likely to be accepted by the scientific community. There is tremendous inertia in science. Those who propose radical changes risk damage to their careers and ridicule. Evolution needs long ages, so the scientists have to defend long ages or else give up evolution, which they do not want to do or are afraid to do. They say that organic matter in the fossils has to be old because evolution requires it and "we know that evolution is true". This is an argument that is used to justify the old dates. (Plaisted, David. Ph.D 2017)
Other pieces of fossils such as wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers which are generally given ages of between 32 to 250 million years old, all contain a considerable amount of radiocarbon, equivalent to 20,700 to 44,700 years old.
Additionally, sampled pieces of coal from U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian era that are supposedly between 40 to 320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to 48,000 to 50,000 years of “age”.
“Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years”. http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/carbon-14-dating-fossils
Regarding findings of dinosaur fossils with protein, and hemoglobin in blood cells of fossil specimens
A science research journal, The Journal of Proteome Research expressed that,
“Schweitzer, her postdoc Elena Schroeter, and colleagues report that they did a complete makeover of their 2009 experiment to rule out any possible contamination. ...Schroeter even went so far as to break down the mass spectrometer piece by piece, soak the whole thing in methanol to remove any possible contaminants, and reassemble the machine. ...Just how those collagen sequences survived for tens of millions of years is not clear. “About the only thing that is the same [as the 2009 experiments] is the dinosaur,” Schweitzer says. ...”
“Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s team is going beyond collagen. In a 2015 paper in Analytical Chemistry, her group reported isolating fragments of eight other proteins from fossils of dinosaurs and extinct birds, including hemoglobin in blood, the cytoskeletal protein actin, and histones that help package DNA”.Plaisted added that Schweitzer’s team investigation went even beyond collagen. “ In a 2015 paper in Analytical Chemistry, her group reported isolating fragments of eight other proteins from fossils of dinosaurs and extinct birds, including hemoglobin in blood, the cytoskeletal protein actin, and histones that help package DNA”.
Thus showing that these and many other findings of dinosaur fossils with protein in fossil specimens, could survive in bone for millions of years puzzling experts in the field who have trouble seeing how proteins could survive millions of years, if dinosaurs were really that old.
Another method of dating is by means of Left and Right orientation of Amino Acids. This is commonly referred to as racemization.
“Many fossils have been dated both by racemization and by C14 dating. The conventional time scale assumes that racemization occurs slower and slower as we go back in time. If we assume that racemization occurs at a constant rate, which is a reasonable assumption, then we get a time scale that is more compressed even than the C14 time scale. This would imply that any date within 50,000 years by C14 dating is really at most 18,000 years, and even any date within a million years by conventional dating is really at most 18,000 years”.
Thus, regardless of how you look at this issue, it is evident that dinosaur bones are at most not more than 18,000 years old. This number could be even less if the Earth's magnetic field was stronger at one time, as evidence clearly shows.https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/p/is-earths-magnetic-field.html
Are Young Carbon 14 Dates Due to Contamination?
One response of evolutionary scientists to the relatively young C14 radiometric dates is to say that they are due to contamination of the bones by modern carbon, having a higher proportion of C14.
However, arbitrarily, other times they accept C14 ages in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 years as valid. It is important to emphasize that during these measuring experiments, “ extraordinary methods were used to eliminate all possible contamination when measuring the C14 in these supposedly ancient bones.
The question is how can fossilized tissue survive 65 million years of decay ?
Plaisted in his article under the subtitle of
“Preservation of Bone and Tissue”
added “Based on current tests, it appears that many and perhaps all fossils with organic matter have young carbon 14 dates, and also that a significant number of dinosaur fossils have soft tissue. Thus many dinosaur bones with soft tissue should be typically found in similar environments as dinosaur bones with young C14 dates. However, it turns out that an environment that can preserve both bones and soft tissue has to be dry".
If such dinosaur bones with soft tissue had been wet for a significant length of time, bacteria would have consumed the remaining proteins and there would be no soft tissue left. That’s how bacteria get their energy, by breaking down proteins and other organic substances into simple substances that are water soluble, and burning the carbon in them. This is how nutrients are made available to plants. But Mary Schweitzer has shown that the proteins are still there in the dinosaur bones. Thus these bones must have been dry since their burial. If this is so, then how could they be contaminated? Contamination would have to come through water flowing through the bones”.
Expert agree that soft tissue and or bones do not survive long in damp conditions, “except under highly unusual conditions such as in peat bogs where soft tissue can survive in highly acidic anaerobic conditions and low temperatures”.
Even then, under such acidic conditions, bone would be rapidly dissolved. Now, since these soft tissues and bones of dinosaur are pretty much intact, they must have been kept very dry since their burial, 65 million years ago. This is something that could only take place if a curator or caretaker would have carefully protected them under all types of weather and circumstances, including an historical proven factual world wide flood which took place only a few thousands years ago.
(Plaisted, David. Ph.D 2017) Then, concludes,
“The Dinosaur Bones Are Young”
“the young C14 dates can’t be due to radiation. They can’t be due to contamination. They also can’t be the result of differing atmospheric conditions. It must be then that these bones are really young.
However, this conclusion is not likely to be accepted by the scientific community. There is tremendous inertia in science. Those who propose radical changes risk damage to their careers and ridicule. Evolution needs long ages, so the scientists have to defend long ages or else give up evolution, which they do not want to do or are afraid to do. They say that organic matter in the fossils has to be old because evolution requires it and we know that evolution is true. This is an argument that is used to justify the old dates”.
This brings us to the age of the earth.
Secular science tells us the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The oldest book in history of man tells us the earth is rather young. So, which one is correct ?
Dan Reynolds PhD, said in 2017,
"The scriptural evidence for a young earth is unequivocal, overwhelming, and scientific support continues to emerge (dinosaur soft tissue, radiocarbon throughout the fossil record, accelerated nuclear decay, rapid geological processes, etc.)... ".http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/creation-hermeneutics-role-science. Accessed November 20th, 2017
You may arrive at your own conclusion from these written and observational facts. In due time the real truth about which statement is correct will come to light unequivocally.
Our conclusion:
Are dinosaurs 65 million years old as children are naively led to believe? The facts speak otherwise.
References
Plaisted, David. Ph.D. 2017. “Carbon 14 Dating of Fossils.” http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/carbon-14-dating-fossils.
Copyright Computer Integrations, Inc. ©, 2017
No part of this article may be reproduced or copied without the author’s exclusive permission
