Radioactive carbon dating game
There is absolutely nothing unusual about these fossils and no reason to think the carbon contained in them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone.Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as “bones” did not contain any collagen. These results corroborated established paleontological theories that assert that these fossiles presumably were 'washed away' over long periods of time by ground water, replacing the original bones with other substances such as the minerals naturally present in the water, implying that this sample could ).Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon-14, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still Carbon-14 in the bones. Do these data indicate that a more accurate method needs to be derived?What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? From the source linked above: Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.Sign up for INFObytes and receive an MP3 (audio presentation) called Genesis, The Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue by Dr Emil Silvestru—free for you to download!
Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,000-year-old object by almost 50 percent.
This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.
We proceed with the examination of the research done by Miller and his fellow researchers from the CRSEF.
The age that these groups claim to find is usually on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old.
The particular example you bring up is one of the most famous such cases.
It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically.