In January 2013, Dr. Carl Wieland reported on a controversial presentation involving Carbon-14 measurements from dinosaur bones. The research had been presented at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, a joint meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).¹
The researchers reported Carbon-14 measurements from multiple bone samples representing eight dinosaur specimens. According to the presentation, the measurements produced apparent radiocarbon ages ranging from approximately 22,000 to 39,000 years.¹
That is an extraordinary result because conventional geology places these dinosaurs tens of millions of years beyond radiocarbon dating’s practical range.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of approximately 5,730 years. After enough half-lives, the amount remaining from the original organism becomes so small that reliable measurement becomes extremely difficult. Consequently, conventional radiocarbon laboratories generally do not use Carbon-14 to date specimens believed to be millions of years old.
Yet these dinosaur-bone samples reportedly produced measurable Carbon-14 signals.
THE PRESENTATION WAS ACCEPTED, THEN ITS ABSTRACT WAS RESCINDED
The researchers submitted an abstract titled:
“A Comparison of δ13C & pMC Values for Ten Cretaceous-Jurassic Dinosaur Bones from Texas to Alaska USA, China and Europe.”
The abstract was accepted for presentation at the 2012 AOGS–AGU conference. German physicist Dr. Thomas Seiler subsequently delivered an oral presentation concerning the results.²
What happened afterward is especially interesting.
According to correspondence reproduced by the researchers, the conference program chairs later rescinded the abstract. Their explanation stated that the researchers were interpreting the Carbon-14 results as indicating dinosaur ages of less than approximately 50,000 years and then said:
“There is obviously an error in these data.”
The letter continued by saying that the abstract apparently had not been properly reviewed and had been accepted in error.²
Creationist writers subsequently described the incident as “censorship,” arguing that the abstract was removed because its conclusion conflicted with the conventional geological age assigned to dinosaurs.¹
Whether one calls the action “censorship” or the rejection of an inadequately supported conclusion, the underlying sequence remains significant: the abstract was accepted, the Carbon-14 results were presented at an international geophysics meeting, and the abstract was later rescinded after objections were raised about the young-age interpretation of the results.
BUT WHAT DOES THE CARBON-14 ACTUALLY MEAN?
The important scientific question is not simply whether Carbon-14 was detected. The question is: Where did that Carbon-14 come from?
The researchers interpreted the measurements as evidence that the dinosaur remains were far younger than the conventional Mesozoic ages assigned to them. Mainstream radiocarbon scientists would instead investigate explanations such as contamination by younger carbon, conservation materials, groundwater-derived carbon, microbial activity, sample preparation effects, or the measurement background of accelerator mass spectrometry.
This distinction is important. A radiocarbon instrument producing an apparent age of 30,000 years does not automatically prove that the dinosaur died 30,000 years ago. At extremely low Carbon-14 concentrations, contamination and laboratory background become increasingly important.
But that raises the question worth investigating:
If measurable Carbon-14 repeatedly appears in material believed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old, how conclusively has the source of that Carbon-14 been demonstrated?
Simply assuming that every unexpected Carbon-14 measurement must be contamination because the specimen is already believed to be millions of years old would be circular reasoning. The contamination hypothesis should itself be experimentally demonstrated for the specimens in question.
The appropriate scientific response to anomalous measurements is therefore straightforward: repeat the experiments under carefully controlled conditions, independently test comparable dinosaur material at multiple laboratories, document pretreatment procedures, run appropriate blanks and controls, and determine experimentally where the Carbon-14 signal originates.
If contamination or instrumental background explains the results, you should be able to demonstrate that. If it does not, the negative results provide an explanation- whether one likes them or not.
SOURCES
- Carl Wieland, “Radiocarbon in Dino Bones: International Conference Result Censored,” Creation Ministries International, January 22, 2013.
https://creation.com/c14-dinos - Hugh Miller, “A Comparison of δ13C & pMC Values for Ten Cretaceous-Jurassic Dinosaur Bones from Texas to Alaska USA, China and Europe,” material concerning the 2012 AOGS–AGU presentation.
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html - Creation Ministries International, “Carbon-14 in Coal: It Shouldn’t Be There.”
https://creation.com/media-center/youtube/carbon-14-in-coal-it-shouldnt-be-there - Creation Ministries International, “Diamonds: A Creationist’s Best Friend.”
https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
