Methods dating dinosaur bones
It's important to note that the authors concluded: "There was no statistical RC difference between the bones and that of the organic material and dating of mammoth bones is [thus] reliable." S. Examples of other magafauna RC dates include 50 mammoths buried together near Hot Springs, South Dakota, USA. All contain some corrected percent of modern C-14 (PMC'S). C-14 dates for carbon-containing material from the Chesapeake Bay or Chicxalub core samples would be useful for comparison.
Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science.Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America.Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) dating of dinosaur bone bio-apatite from 170 grams of bone fragments and milligram surface scrapings of an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur gave ages of 25,750 ± 280 and 23,760 ± 270 respectively.No collagen was detected and only bone bio-apatite was RC dated.
Bone bio-apatite can be unreliable due to potential contamination from calcium carbonate replacement containing modern or dead carbon [unless carefully pretreated]. of clay above the bones by Wayne and Doug Wilder indicated no contamination as carbon [from the flesh] apparently migrated away from the bones with 0.5% C immediately above and only 0.1 % C, 30 cm. The K/Ar dating of tektites from Indonesia, Thailand, Indochina and Philippines agreed.well above the bone strata; this suggests that the RC date for the bones was reliable as clay acts as a barrier. Significant age discrepancies between C-14 and other radiometric techniques In spite of sometimes erratic C-14 dates, there are far more controversial dates when C-14 datable material or historical dates for magma flows are compared with potassium/argon dates. Lovering et al., the K/Ar dates for tektites ranged from 700,000 B. Fission-track dating ranged from 30,000 to 800,000 BP and was interpreted as consistent with K/Ar ages. Gill, had RC dated charcoal and calcareous nodules as they were found with "australites." Thus Lovering et al. Helens in the United States ranged from 350,000 to 2,700,000 years BP using K/Ar dating according to G. Had carbon-datable material been RC dated from the cores such as shells, carbonized wood, amber, charcoal and bones, would they have discovered a date much closer to the present as with the australites or as with the wood buried deep in the Prudhoe Bay permafrost?