Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.
Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?
Josef Holzschuh, Jean de Pontcharra, Hugh Miller
Key Words: Radiocarbon dating, dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone bio-apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna
Bone collagen and soft tissue were recently reported as having been discovered in a Tyrannosaurus dinosaur femur bone as well as other fossil bones from the Cretaceous period of the geologic column by Mary H. Schweitzer et al. 1 This recalled the radiocarbon (RC) dating by Dr. Walter Libby's team of collagen from "dense mid-shaft femur bones" of twelve extinct saber tooth tigers, [Smilodon] from the LeBrea Tar Pits of Los Angeles CA.2 The RC ages for extracted bone collagen for Smilodon femurs ranged from 12,650 ±160 to 28,000 ±1400 RC years BP (Before the Present). According to Dr. Libby, the inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age."3
It is common practice to determine the age of bones by radiocarbon (RC) dating of extracted bone collagen but not of dinosaurs because they are assumed to have become extinct 65 million years BP and, therefore, too old for RC dating. Nonetheless, dinosaur bone apatite had been successfully RC dated in the late 1980's/early 1990's and significant amounts of C-14 were detected and reported. The data was challenged by Thomas Stafford as poor science due to assumed contamination from modern C-14 with younger surficial calcium carbonate.4
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.5 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]. However, a study of the 100 cm. of clay above the bones by Wayne and Doug Wilder6 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. well above the bone strata; this suggests that the RC date for the bones was reliable as clay acts as a barrier. The age of the clay was estimated to be between 5000-50,000 years old by J. DeVilbiss.7 According to Ceranowicz et al. amber from a Triceratops burial site in Wyoming USA gave an AMS RC date of >46,450 RC years BP and, for Baltic amber from Poland and Russia, > 55,690 and >49,210 (RC) years BP respectively. The Wyoming amber, assumed as late Cretaceous, gave a younger C-14 age than the Baltic amber (40 M years BP).8
In Eurasia three hundred and sixty RC dates are tabulated from many sources based upon C-14 dating of bones [~130], tusks & molars [~190] and soft tissue [~40] by Yurij Vasil'chuk et al.9 On the Eurasian continent the dates ranged from 9,670 ± 60 to >53,170 RC years BP. All were less than 40,000 RC years except for 21; most of the latter 21 were about the same age as for unfossilized wood from drill core samples deep in the permafrost of Prudhoe Bay Alaska: (a) 43,380 ± 380 RC years at 60m depth 10 (b) 25,500 RC years and 29,200 RC years for the same sample of tamarack wood [Larix laricina (DuRoi) K. Koch] at 122m depth (F. R. Johnson)11 and (c) >43,300 RC years BP at 183 m depth (E. R. Rodgers).12 Vasil'chuk et al. summarized these extensive mammoth RC dating studies but collagen content was not discussed. 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."13 S. L. Vartanyan et al. reported on C-14 dating of small mammoths on Wrangell Island in the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia: The eight mammoth bones, tusks and teeth gave RC ages at 4000 to 5000 RC years BP using purified collagen.14
Examples of other magafauna RC dates include 50 mammoths buried together near Hot Springs, South Dakota, USA. A date of ~26,000 years BP was obtained for bones that were devoid of collagen. According to the authors K. M. Thompson and L. D. Agenbroad, "The warm spring waters that infiltrated the sinkhole leached out the collagen in the bones."15 The RC ages for a musk ox carcass frozen in Alaskan, USA, muck gave dates of 24,140 ± 2200 years and 17,210 ± 500 RC years BP respectively for scalp muscle tissue and hair according to R. Stuckenrath Jr. et al.16 Dung of ground sloths in Rampart Cave ranged from 10,800 to 40,000 RC years BP as reported by A. Long et al.17
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. One case in point came from the study of tektites in Victoria, Australia [Lake Torrens and Lake Eyre regions] called australites. According to J. F. Lovering et al., the K/Ar dates for tektites ranged from 700,000 B.P. to 860,000 years BP. 18 The K/Ar dating of tektites from Indonesia, Thailand, Indochina and Philippines agreed. Fission-track dating ranged from 30,000 to 800,000 BP and was interpreted as consistent with K/Ar ages. Younger ages for fission tracks were ascribed to partial annealing of fission tracks by reheating on the earth's surface. One of their team members, E. D. Gill, had RC dated charcoal and calcareous nodules as they were found with "australites." 19 Thus Lovering et al. concluded: "Although RC ages were inconsistent, field work on geology of australite occurrences favored the ‘younger' C-14 age of charcoal believed associated with australites, as well as geologic evidence, indicated age between last glacial and 6000-7000 BP." 20The authors continued: "RC ages of calcareous nodules, from soil horizon in which australites were found, scatter around 13,000 ± 3000 BP." 21 Thus the tektites fell between 6,000 and ~13,000 RC years BP. These >50 times younger RC dates suggest that a major asteroid impact occurred in that region only several thousand years ago not 800,000 years BP. Three dacite components from the final lava flow of A.D. 1986 for Mt. St. Helens in the United States ranged from 350,000 to 2,700,000 years BP using K/Ar dating according to G. Berthault. 22 It is also interesting to note that K/Ar direct dating of tektites from cores in the Chesapeake Bay Impact gave 35.5 million years according to C. W. Poag 23 and G. S. Gohn et al. 24 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? RC dating of core drilling specimens from the more famous Chicxalub crater in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico should also be RC dated since the explosion of the volcano or asteroid that produced that crater is thought to have caused the supposed demise of the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago.
Furthermore, fossil materials other than dinosaur bones and amber that should be free of C-14 but contain significant amounts include anthracite coal, fossil natural gas, fossil wood and marble resulting from the metamorphism of limestone. All contain some corrected percent of modern C-14 (PMC'S). Some examples from many references include: marble, 0.060-0.932 PMC, A.P McNichol et al. ;25 anthracite, 0.358 PMC . R.P. Beukins et al ;26 fossil CO2, 0.0.09-0.13 PMC, A.T. Aerts -Bijma et al. ;27 and wood, 0.342 PMC, R. P. Beukins et al .28 The apparent RC ages for the above range from roughly 35,000 to >49,000 RC years BP. C-14 dates for carbon-containing material from the Chesapeake Bay or Chicxalub core samples would be useful for comparison.
Controversial radiometric dates have been recorded for material from Hawaiian volcanic eruptions in 1800-1801 and the Hawaiian magma there gave dates of 1.41 and 1.60 million years BP according to G.B Dalrymple. 29 Moreover, natural diamonds thought to be "greatly in excess of 100 million years" gave apparent variable RC dates of "64.9 ± 0.4 ka BP to 80.0 ± 1.1 ka BP. Six fragments from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical C-14 values – 69.3 ± 0.5 ka – 70.6 ± 0.5 ka BP as reported by Taylor and Southon. 30
Materials and MethodsGeology of the Montana Badlands: Most of the strata are the brownish-grey sediments of the Hell Creek formation thought to date back 65 million years (when the Rocky Mountains were rising in the West and there was much volcanic activity). At that time, much of the region was part of river-plains similar to the present southeastern United States with sub-tropical climate and vegetation of the Cretaceous period or the Age of Reptiles. Rivers draining the Western Mountains deposited layer upon layer of sediments which over alleged millions of years compacted to form the sandstones, mudstones, clays, and shales that form the Montana Badlands landscape according to the Makoshika State Park web site. 31
Geology of the Triceratops and Hadrosaur excavation sites: The Triceratops and Hadrosaur femurs were found in popcorn clay. The term, popcorn clay is non-technical. It looks like popcorn. It usually refers to any clay that swells and shrinks. The color varies from grey to grey-green to green to tan; it is found in distinct thick strata. It contains much volcanic material such as bentonite, or clays such as montmorillonite or vermiculite. It is very slippery in wet, and crunchy in dry condition, according to paleontologist Otis Kline. 32
Triceratops and Hadrosaur locations: The exact location for the Triceratops femur is 47 degrees 6 minutes & 18 seconds North by 104 degrees, 39 minutes & 22 seconds West. This is on private land in Dawson County, Montana being located in the NW ¼ of NE ¼, Sec. 32, T.16 N., R.56 E. Regarding elevation, the GPS unit showed 647 m. The highest nearby point is approximately 201 m southwest of the find and is 669 m above sea level. The location of this RC dated Triceratops singular femur bone is just over 2.4 km east southeast from Otis Kline's 37 acre research station that has been geologically mapped. No other bones were found with the femur. The elevation appears to be the same as the Triceratops being excavated on Kline's "Lone Ridge" for the past three summers where no femur bones were discovered. Possibly the RC dated femur bone belongs to the Triceratops remnants from "Lone Ridge." Thus testing for C-14 in other bones seems to be the next step in the ongoing research. The Hadrosaur location was in a dry wash which flows into Frank Creek, then into Glendive Creek and then into the Yellowstone River just North of Glendive Montana in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana about 13 km south-east of the Triceratops location according to Otis Kline (2). Photos a-d in Fig. 1 and Fig 2 were taken during excavation for the Triceratops femur. Photos were unavailable for the Hadrosaur femur excavation.
Fig. 1a -1d (right) shows the sequence of extracting the Triceratops femur. In Fig.1-d it rests on the pedestal of earth after excavation and before adding the protective coating.
Photos (1) of actual excavation are shown in Fig. 1a to 1d as the Triceratops femur bone was being extracted from about 1 m in depth, which was about 20 m below the top of the Montana Badlands [60 m of strata designated Cretaceous]. In light of the discovery of soft tissue in a T-Rex from the Montana Hell Creek Formation and RC dates for other fossils in the geological record it was decided to examine the bone interior of this femur, as Libby's team did with Smilodon and Schweitzer et al. did with the T-Rex "hind limbs." The Triceratops femur bone was discovered in what is called "popcorn clay." Since the bone was so huge (122 cm long and 20 cm through the shaft area) and completely intact [hard, and neither crushed nor deformed, ideal for extracting possible bone collagen] it was sawed open in late July 2005 near the proximal end, as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 2a to 2d shows the support system including Plaster of Paris and wooden support base. The Triceratops femur was resting on a layer of popcorn clay in an apparent, almost aseptic sand and fine clay matrix.
It can also be seen from Fig.1a that the femur was located very close to the surface. Because of its proximity to the surface, the paleontologists had to contend with some roots of living plant material before reaching the bone. Perhaps the most informative documentation of Figs. 1 and 2 is that they show the sequence of excavating a 122 cm long Triceratops femur from discovery, to pedestal, to plaster, to separation.
FIGURE 3. Photos 3a-3c are of Triceratops femur bone during and after sawing; photo 3d is a portion of Glendive MT Dinosaur and Fossil Museum field research station; photomacrograph 3e is of material from bone interior containing bone collagen.
Fig.3a shows the Triceratops femur dissection using carefully cleaned saw with the bone supported by wood frame and plaster of Paris cast. Identification of the femur was made by comparing with photos and descriptions from a standard paleontology text-book and comparison with a young adult femur, 107 cm long. 33
Inspection of the femur cross section in Fig.3b revealed dried up Haversian systems and very little
apparent mineralization. Samples from different interior locations were easily removed by hand with a with a
stainless steel scoop-type instrument as shown in Fig.3c and placed in plastic bags for further study.
Fig.3d shows the typical terrain for this area of the Montana Badlands which is a dinosaur graveyard.
Fig. 3e Triceratops Femur The famous 27,000 acre Makoshika State Park near Glendive MT is only a few kilometers away. Fig.3e is photomacrograph of interior material from the dense mid-shaft of the Triceratops sampled for testing for the presence of collagen and C-14.
Radiocarbon dating methods: Both the C-14 conventional and Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) methods were employed as recommended by E. E. M. Hedges for ensuring RC dates are valid in situations demanding a careful investigation or try to pinpoint an absolute RC date. 34 There was also quite sufficient bone material to take large samplings as required for the conventional C-14 testing method. In the case of the conventional method, Hedges wrote: "One advantage however, appears to be that handling of larger samples induces less laboratory contamination enabling in rare circumstances, older dates than those obtained by AMS to be measured." As for the AMS technique he continues: "The AMS technique does frequently have some very important advantages when it comes to validating a date, however, and these should be emphasized. First, different chemical fractions can often be extracted from the same sample, and enough to permit repeat dates to be made if the first measurement is suspect in any way. Both these approaches are invaluable in increasing confidence in the reliability of a date." 35
The modified Longin method by Kh. A. Arslanov et al.,36 and C. H. Sullivan et al.37 was used for extraction of collagen for both dinosaur femur bones; it combines two methods of purification as follows as described by Arslanov et. al. "The bones were mechanically cleaned and washed, then pulverized and treated at low temperature (4-6 C) by 2-3 fresh solutions of 0.5-1.0 N HCl for a few days (depending on preservation condition) until mineral components dissolved completely. We washed the collagen obtained in distilled water until no Calcium was detectable. We then treated the collagen with 0.1 N NaOH at room temperature for 24 h, and washed it again in distilled water until neutral. We treated the collagen with a weak HCl solution (pH = 3) at 80 – 90 C for 6-8 h. Finally, we separated the humic acid residue from the gelatin solution by centrifugation, and the solution was evaporated. Benzene was synthesized from the dried gelatin by burning in a "bomb" or by dry pyrolysis, using the standard methods ----."38
Results of radiocarbon dating:
The RC ages listed in Table 1 are accompanied by corrected percent of modern carbon and other pertinent RC factors for most of the RC dates. The conventional and the AMS testing methods were applied to different samples from both dinosaur femur bones as noted in Table1.
The modified Longin method was used for extraction and purification of collagen for Sample Tri. GX-32372-AMS testing of this interior portion of the shaft area of the Triceratops. The results were an RC age of 30,890 +/- 200 RC years BP for 30 mg of bone collagen from an 8.4 gram interior specimen. The percent of collagen was 0.3 % of the original 8.4 g sample.
A much larger sample of 146 grams was collected for the conventional C-14 analysis from the bone interior adjacent to the ~ one cm very hard outer portion; the outer bone was coated with PVAc preservative. A RC age of 33,830 +2910/-1960 for Tri.GX-32647- conv. was conventionally tested for C-14 after benzene/acetone, acid, alkali, acid pretreatments to remove possible remnants of PVAc coating (old carbon) and any young C-14 as per procedures recommended by the lab director and in RC literature.
Again the modified Longin method was used for extracting 0.7 mg of collagen from the 2.8 g sample of Hadrosaur femur from its interior, sample Hd GX-31950-AMS with a date of 1950 +/- 50 RC years BP. This was the very first sample from either bone that was dated so it was apparent that more experimental testing would be required.
For sample: Hd. GX-32739-Conv. A much larger bone sample, 160 grams, was tested for C-14 by extracting the total organic carbon (`500 mg) and pretreated with acid, base, acid with a date of 22,380 +/-800 RC years BP using the conventional method.
Another sample of about thought to be 100 grams had been sent in before Hd. GX-32739-conv for dating using the conventional method. However there was only 300 mg of total carbon in this sample, insufficient for the conventional method so it was dated using the AMS method. The date for GX-32678-AMS was 22,990 +/- 130 RC years BP. This was in very close agreement with the GX-32739.
The next four dates (Hd UGAMS-01935, 01936, 01937, 01938) came from one 56 gram sample of Hadrosaur bone and arrangements were made to divide the above sample into different portions to date: bio-apatite, charred bone, any collagen and any impurity that might be discovered. Again we obtained old RC dates for bio-apatite (portion pretreated with 1 N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates); charred bone (pretreated with 5 % HCl, dilute NaOH and dilute HCl again) and purified bone collagen. The oldest date was for the bio-apatite fraction and the youngest date was for purified collagen but all were essentially the same (see Table 1). A similar date was obtained for the contaminant Hd UGAMS-01938 as was obtained for Hd GX-31950 (Table 1). The oldest date was for the bio-apatite fraction.
Summary of supporting evidence for accuracy and reliability for the significant presence of C-14 in dinosaur bones and therefore young RC ages
Short Summary: The most obvious scientific justification for accepting the RC ages for dinosaurs in the thousands of years is the concordance of RC ages between bone collagen and bone bio-apatite. If the date for a particular specimen is questionable or controversial RC dating labs recommend that the C-14 testing be repeated on several fractions using AMS and/or on larger samples using both AMS and conventional C-14 methods. We have made such repetitive tests and we obtain dates in the 22,000-33,000 range for dinosaur bones each time a different dinosaur bone or portion of the bone was tested for C-14. For example: Triceratops collagen was 30,080 ± 200 using AMS and 33,830 +2910/-1960 using the conventional method with a large sample (See Table 1).
Collagen and soft tissue were detected in dinosaur bones which is "exceptional preservation" and should not be there after so long a time period as 65 M years.39
Harvard scientists have confirmed that proteins from the collagen detected in the famous T-Rex (2005) was definitely collagen as determined by sequencing the fraction. Thus there is no reason to believe that what our lab has extracted is NOT collagen.40
Collagen, inside Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones was tested successfully for C-14. Collagen from a second Triceratops femur bone from Montana likewise contained collagen and C-14 in 2008. 41
Bio-apatite was also successfully tested for AMS C-14 after careful pretreatment w/HAc (acetic acid) to remove possible old and young CaCO3 contamination.
Bone collagen and bone bioapatite and/or total bone organics gave concordant C-14 dates after careful extraction and purification of those fractions as noted in Table 1.
W. Libby, who received the Nobel Prize for his C-14 research showed there is no possible way that bone collagen can be contaminated.42
T. Stafford's data has shown that weak acid insoluble collagen and total Carbon, HAc and alkali treated Domebo Mammoth bone agreed within about 5% of the most expensive purification treatment methods for obtaining the oldest RC ages. 43
Collagen content for the Triceratops femur was same as that for Kennewick man's first metatarsal, namely 0.3% as shown by F. P. McManamon. 44 The former gave an RC age of 30,890 ± 200, the latter 8,410 ± 40 years BP. Collagen was extracted from the dinosaur femur and purified by the widely used "Modified Longin method" (weak acid insoluble collagen method).
Crushed bone containing bio-apatite was treated with mild HAc (acetic acid) to remove surficial carbonates that could give false younger or older ages before the final dilute HCl treatment to evolve CO2 for testing. Bio-apatite is calcium carbonate that replaces bone calcium phosphate during the life of the dinosaur or other animal.
In essence RC dating methods could give major false old RC ages rather than false young RC ages because labs have eliminated sources of major young contamination. Also, we really don't know the actual C-14 concentration during the period when dinosaurs and some magafauna lived together. In other words the ratio of formation of cosmogenic C-14 is not known in the past. But, major young contamination is most unlikely. Why? RC laboratories have mastered the techniques of removing young or old humic acids with alkaline pre-treatments or acetic acid pre-treatments under vacuum for young or old surficial calcium carbonates. So, young contamination is most unlikely for dinosaur and megafauna bones.
Of course the most important point or results of this research is that there are measurable amounts of C-14 in samples supposedly free of C14. Calculated RC dates are not absolute dates but they do correspond to the official C14 procedures as noted above. It can then be argued that it is far more probable that the atmosphere could have been much more depleted of C-14 content 1000's of years ago compared to today's content. Why? Because the protective quality of a much stronger magnetic field strength 1000's of years ago could have caused a much lower rate of C-14 formation compared to the current rate. In other words a half life of 1400 years implies a stronger magnetic field 1000's of years ago which would have inhibited the formation of C-14 in the upper atmosphere; this could make the dinosaurs and many megafauna seem much older than reality.45 The real ages for dinosaurs and some magafauna thus could be 1000's of years younger than the concordant RC years we obtained for dinosaur bone collagen and bio-apatite. We cite three references as possible indicators of this probability.
Radiocarbon research has shown that when an environmental factor is significantly depleted of C-14, living plant life gave old ages of 4000 to 25,000 RC years. Also, the variation in RC ages in fossil bones and plant life, including dinosaurs and megafauna, found in essentially the same strata can be explained by differing but very strong magnetic field strength; therefore the actual RC age would depend on each dinosaur's or megafauna's source of food and water. This effect involves strong magnetic field C-14 depleted plant life or even primordial carbon being ingested by plants through water or gas and eaten by animals. Animals that eat such plants would have less C-14 content thus causing an apparent older than expected RC age. A few examples include a living tree growing next to a German airport as a result of consuming old carbon dioxide from engine exhausts, 10,000 RC years BP as reported by B. Huber;46 plants growing in Montezuma well water 17,300 to 24,750 RC years BP as reported by J. G. Ogden III;47 and, a lab experiment by A. Long in which a 4000 RC year date for plant life resulted when subjected to gas from an ancient carbon dioxide source.48
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND REBUTTALS (Actual quotations or paraphrases)
(1) OBJECTION: "A possible reason for radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones is that collagen contains nitrogen atoms as well as carbon and hydrogen. Irradiation from the Uranium atoms in the soil surrounding the dinosaur femur bones or absorbed in the dinosaur bones through the action of water percolating through the bones could continually over millions of years keep changing the existing nitrogen into C-14.49
REBUTTAL: Bone bio-apatite, which is calcium carbonate, has NO nitrogen yet the RC age for the same bone is concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen. A similar objection has been raised for C-14 in coal and diamond (1) as analysis shows there is sometimes a small percentage of nitrogen: This objection has been refuted by other scientists because the radiation flux and cross section of nitrogen atoms would be too small for radiation from uranium sources to change nitrogen into C-14.
(2) OBJECTION: "Modern bacteria and fungi could infiltrate the femur bones to give a young date."50
REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones.
(3) OBJECTION: "The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples >50,000 years."51
REBUTTAL: C-14 dating of dinosaur fossil bones from Western United States showed that they are far younger than even 50,000 RC years. The critic who said the above is assuming that dinosaurs are 65 M years or older because of a commitment to the false assumptions of 17 to 19th century stratigraphy and alleged correlation with radiometric dating. Because of their faith in evolutionary philosophy such critics have never bothered to even repeat the C-14 testing to see if the anomalous dates are correct. That attitude is unscientific and regrettable coming from a top scientist in a major field of science.
(4) OBJECTION: "The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh."52
REBUTTAL: This objection is based on the writer's belief in long ages of millions and billions of years. The discovery of bone collagen and soft tissue and C-14 dating of the collagen negated that assumption.53 Of course he wrote this in 1992 so in all fairness he can not be faulted for his acceptance of mainstream assumptions of that period. Nonetheless such negativity is of no value to any rational scientific evaluation of anomalous data. Unfortunately that attitude is still prevalent to this day. The discoverers of collagen (anomalous chemicals) in the T-Rex femur bone should have sent a sample to a RC dating lab to test for C-14 but perhaps they were fearful that they would be the first among mainstream scientists to discover why there was collagen: The bones might be only thousands of year old, not millions.
(5) OBJECTION: "The use of expensive chemical and physical tests and equipment and learned testimonials are irrelevant to interpreting the data."54
REBUTTAL: This statement naturally follows from a firm belief in biological evolution and long ages and must be ignored in favor of research by unbiased scientists who will test for C-14 in dinosaur bone collagen and soft tissue from the Western United States; thousands of the bones sit untested in dozens of museums. By testing for C-14 they will then know if these anomalous RC ages are valid. Furthermore since there are fossil human-like footprints with dinosaurs in alleged 100 M year old Cretaceous limestone 55/56 and distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide 57 it is paramount that scientists test for C-14 in dinosaurs world-wide to see if C-14 in dinosaur bones is a world-wide phenomenon. Truth in science emerges in experimentation and keen observations.
(6) OBJECTION: Because of radiometric dating of volcanic material in many strata of the geologic column, the demise of the dinosaurs was extended from an assumed 12 million years by S. Hubbard58 in 1924 to 65 million years in the 1990's in the Colorado Hell Creek Cretaceous formation by G. B. Dalrymple.59
REBUTTAL: Both time periods are 480 to 2600 time greater than that with direct C-14 dating of the dinosaurs and other fossils from Texas to Alaska. Other examples include: (a) In RC dating the fossil human-like footprint impressions in Mexico S. Gonzalez et al. obtained ages of about 27,000 to 40,000 RC years for shells etc.60 But Renne et al. used K/Ar and Ar/Ar on volcanic material obtained dates of 800,000 and 1,300,000 years61 respectively or about 300 to 480 times greater than that for C-14. (b) For the distinct and pristine fossil human footprints in Texas, in the United States, the alleged geologic age is 108,000,000 years or 2900 times older than that obtained for two RC dates of ~37,500 RC years for carbonized wood in the clay between the limestone strata. 62
How then can one believe radiometric dating of moon rocks, meteorites and ancient strata which has established an age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years?63 With all its problems how can radiometric dating be of any value to the study of earth's chronology? Contrast the above long ages of millions and even billions of years with the results of applied paleohydraulic analyses to geologic formations in Russia (examples are the Crimean Peninsular and the North West Russian platform) and in the United States (The Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon) by G. Berthault.64 "In the case of the [Russian] Platform it is shown that the time it takes for the sediment to deposit would have been no more than 0.01 % of that ascribed to them by the geological time-scale."65 In the case of the Tonto Group in the United States: "Sedimentology analysis and reconstruction of sedimentation conditions of the Tonto Group reveals that deposits of different stratigraphic sub-divisions were formed simultaneously in different litho-dyanmical zones of the Cambrian paleobasin." If this data were applied to the time scale for depositing the entire sedimentary strata then 0.01% of 600 M years would be only 60,000 years maximum. All the above RC and Paleohydraulic data demonstrates the lesson taught by geological historian Gabriel Gohau that "time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and NOT by orogenesis of biological revolutions. The conclusion: Evolution, as conceived by its proponents, cannot, therefore, occur in such a short time," suggests G. Berthault.66
What then is needed to further demonstrate the fallacy of radiometric dating? Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that radiometric half lives change with variables we don't yet understand. In other words the half life is not a constant and could have been quite different in the past, compounding the additional problems with which we are already familiar. C-14 dating of fossils and paleohydraulic studies of the geologic column strata are thus far more reliable methods of chronology than radiometric dating although a similar problem may exist with C-14 dating as previously discussed.
Conclusions and Recommendations
(1) Conventional or AMS RC dating methods were successfully used to date collagen from inner dinosaur bone structures where collagen, soft tissue and blood proteins will more likely be discovered and/or suspected using coring or dissection procedures to collect samples. Testing of several dinosaur bones from 1990 to the present demonstrated the presence of significant amounts of C-14 for both bone collagen and bone bio-apatite in the range of 22,000 to 33,000 radiocarbon years.
(2) Conventional or AMS RC dating methods can be used as survey tools to date bone bio-apatite content of bone fragments that are stored with the large bones in museum storage facilities world-wide. If there are no preservatives to be removed it is advisable to first pre-treat crushed fragments with hot dilute HAc (acetic acid) under vacuum to remove surficial calcium carbonate before using the stronger HCl to collect the CO2 from CaCO3 [bio-apatite]. This will allow for rapid survey evaluations without excavations.
(3) Based on concordant RC dates for AMS testing of the Acrocanthosaurus 67 surface scrapings can be used in place of bone fragments or bone collagen from dissection and coring of museum specimens. Of course the bones must be treated to remove possible preservatives. The data herein confirms the original indicator research from 1990 for the first dinosaur bones ever tested, the Acrocanthosaurus excavated near Glen Rose, Texas in 198468 and the Allosaur excavated in Colorado in 1986.69 The RC date for an Hadrosaur bone from the Colville River bone beds of Alaska containing organic material, possibly collagen, was 31,030 +230/-22070; this date is almost identical to the RC dates for collagen extracted from the Triceratops from Montana and the Allosaur from Colorado in 2008.
(4) Most scientists have concluded that catastrophic events of some sort caused the demise of most dinosaurs, but when? It is hoped that this paper has stripped away some of the confusion by showing that the time line for the extinction of dinosaurs appears to be similar to that for many megafauna. It is also hoped that with the publication of these data, more and more scientists will become involved in RC dating of fossils, including dinosaur bones and drill core samples containing wood and shell. As noted earlier, an australite fall of 6000 to 13,000 RC years BP not 800,000 radiometric years ago. 71 Furthermore it is suggested in a recent article J. Kennett 72 that a RC date for the demise of most megafauna is 12,900 RC years BP. Thus based on the many RC dating anomalies cited in this paper and in others, it would appear that the rate of deposition of sediments has been considerably faster than assumed by many scientists such as C. Officer who wrote, "…a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical." 73
(5) In the report on the Doheny Expedition of 1924 dinosaurs were thought to have been extinct for 12 million years. 74 But in the latter part of the 20th century 65 Million years was the well excepted length of time since their extinction. But, as Hubbard, the director of the expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon of the Grand Canyon, wrote after he discovered a depiction of a dinosaur on the canyon walls: "The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur (Diplodocus) on the wall of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain." 75 The French archaeologist Claude Jacques discovered a "Stegosaur-like animal on the wall" along with well known animals of modern times in the Ta Prohm Buddhist temple dedicated in AD 1200 in Cambodia. 76 There is a Torosaurus type dinosaur on a 1700 year old floor mosaic in Israel with a man throwing a rock at it; and, on a 1300 year old demolished Jewish temple in Syria there is a bi-pedal Cryolophosaurus type dinosaur with a lion attacking a horse on a temple column. 77 The famous Palestrina Nile Mosaic from100 BC contains that is thought to be a dinosaur along with other possible extinct animals. 78 John Damascene 79 claimed 1300 years ago that "dragons" were real and lived in his time and they came in all sizes; some were huge and some had horns. These are just a few examples of many realistic depictions of dinosaurs within the history of man that are also depicted in modern paleontology books based on study of their bones. One major question arises: Why are C-14 dates for dinosaur bones some 20,000 to 25,000 RC years older than these depictions? More research is needed.
(6) All C-14 results were well within the detectible range of the C14 method, and therefore surprisingly young. Indeed, RC studies of dinosaurs in this paper show that bone bio-apatite, bone collagen and pretreated organic material in dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska contained significant quantities of C-14 with conventional ages of 22,380 ± 200 to 33,830 +2910/-1960 RC years BP. This RC age range are the same RC ages as saber tooth tigers (from 12,650 ±160 to 28,000 ±1400 RC years BP for 12 specimens), mammoths (9,670 ± 60 to >53,170 RC years BP for ~360 specimens in Eurasia) and ~26,000 years for 50 mammoths in South Dakota USA) as noted in the introduction. Even sloth dung in a cave ranged between 10,000 to 40,000 RC years BP according to A. Long, et al. 80 Radiocarbon dates for buffalo collagen and wolf bone in the Yukon, Canada were dated at 30,810 ± 975 and a wolf skull at 27,920 ± 650 from the same strata as reported by C. R. Harrington et al. 81 so all must have lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs; and, by deduction, with man.
Therefore to address these apparent chronological anomalies, account needs be taken of the evolving situation in geology and paleontology. Experiments in stratification by G. Berthault challenging the principles of stratigraphy and hence the geological time-scale could help to provide an answer. 82/83 The assumption that dinosaurs are over 65 million years old, for instance, is directly related to ages of rocks determined inter alia by the principle of superposition of strata. If this principle is questioned, as is the case, so are the ages of the fossils in the rocks that are contingent upon it. This report indicates the existence of residual carbon 14 in fossils normally excluded by the RC dating method because of their supposed age. Advances in sedimentology now allow the possibility of reconsidering the ages allocated by stratigraphy as science pursues another major question: Why are there distinct dinosaur depictions world wide that are depicted on many matrices only 500 to 3000 years BP within recorded history yet we obtain RC dates in the range of 22,000 to 33,000 years BP. Could there be flaws in the RC method theory as well as the geologic column and long age radiometric dating methods? Could the real ages for these dinosaur bones be much younger than reported here? Chronology is a very intriguing topic which requires much additional research. Most scientists should enjoy trying to answer such intriguing questions.
Thanks are extended to all of the members of our team, including Dr. Wayne Frair, biologist, and Dr. Robert Bennett, physicist, who provided valuable assistance in preparing this paper; Bill White, engineer, and Beatrice Dunkel, fossil hunters; Joe Taylor, Director of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton, TX, and Otis Kline director of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, Glendive, MT, who were instrumental in obtaining the femur bone specimens; Randy Berg, Jan Satola, Tom Ryan, and Paul Langdon for their encouragement and reference discoveries; Hugh Owen for editorial advice.
1 "Soft-tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," Science, 307 (2005), p.1952-1955.
2 La Brea Tar Pit Series, Radiocarbon 10(2) (1968), p. 402-403.
3 "Radiocarbon dating of bone and shell from their organic components," Science 144 (1964), 22 May, p. 999-1001.
4 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists," Creation/Evolution, (1992) p.10–17.
6 DOUG WILDER, "Private communication," (1992).
7 J. DE VILBISS, Private communication on age of the clay (1987).
8 "Cedarite from Wyoming: Infrared and radiocarbon data," Prace Muzeum Ziemi 46 (2001) p. 77-80.
9 "Radiocarbon ages of mammoths in Northern Eurasia: Implications for population development and late quaternary environment," Radiocarbon 39(1) (1997) pp. 1-18.
10 Geochron Labs, March 26, (2004) GX-30816-AMS report to Bill White.
11 Radiocarbon 18 (1976) P. 148, samples WSU-1428 and WSU-1426.
12 Radiocarbon (1973), Smithsonian Inst. Sample SI-903, p. 398.
13 Radiocarbon 39(1) (1997), cit.
14 "Radiocarbon dating evidence for mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic, until 2000 BC," Radiocarbon 37(1) (1995) p. 1-6. http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Journal/v37n1/vartanyan.html
15 "Bone distribution and diagenetic modifications at the mammoth site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, United States," Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 37(7), (2005) p. 116.
16 Smithsonian Institution radiocarbon measurements VI, Radiocarbon 12(1), (1970) p. 193-204.
17 "Death of American ground sloths," Science 186(4164) (1974) p. 638-640.
18 "Dating Infall of Australites," (1970), Radiocarbon Journal 13(1), (1970) p. 8-11. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Also visit "age paradox" on this web site: www.earthsci.org/fossils/space/tektites/tektites.html
19 "Quaternary geology, radiocarbon datings, and the age of australites," Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper, 84, (1965) p.415-432.
20 "Dating Infall of Australites," (1970), Radiocarbon Journal 13(1), (1970), cit., p. 8-11.
22 "Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data," Lithology and Mineral Resources, vol. 37(5), (2002) p. 509-515.
23 "Cataclysm," (1998) http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/fs49-98/ and http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/epubs/bolide/ancient_cataclysm.html
24 "Chesapeake Bay impact structure drilled," EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 87(35) (2006). p. 349-360. http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~jmacalad/Gohn2006EosChesBayDrill.pdf.
25 "Improvements in procedural blanks at NOSAMS: Reflections of improvements in sample preparation and accelerator operation," Radiocarbon 37, (1995) p. 683-691.
26 "Progress at the Isotrace Radiocarbon Facility," Radiocarbon 28, (1992) p. 229-236.
27 "AMS sample handling in Croningen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 123, (1997) p. 221-225.
28 "Progress at the Isotrace Radiocarbon Facility," Radiocarbon 28, (1992), cit. 29 "Ar/Ar analysis of historic lava flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, (1969) p. 47-55.
30 "Use of natural diamonds to monitor C-14 AMS instrument backgrounds," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259, (2007) p. 282-287.
31 "Makoshika State Park, Montana USA," (2007). http://fwp.mt.gov/lands/site_283890.aspx and http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2003/makoshika.htm
32 OTIS KLINE, Private communication, (2007), Director, Glendive Montana Dinosaur & Fossil Museum.
34 "Sample treatment strategies in radiocarbon dating," Chapter 12, p. 166-167. Radiocarbon after four decades, R.E. Taylor, A. Long, R. S. Kra editors (1992), Springer Verlag, New York.
36 "An improved method for radiocarbon dating fossil bones," Radiocarbon, 35(3), (1993) p. 387-391.
37 "Carbon isotope analysis of separate chemical phases in modern and fossil bone," Nature 292, (1981) p. 333-335.
38 "An improved method for radiocarbon dating fossil bones," Radiocarbon, 35(3), (1993), cit.
39 "Soft-tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," (2005) "cit" p. 1955.
40 "Tissue found in dino fossil may be biofilm," Science News (Aug. 30, 2008) p. 12.
41 "UGAM report," dated August 27, 2008: collagen 30,110 ± 80; bio-apatite 39,230 ±140.
42 "Radiocarbon dating of bone and shell from their organic components," "cit" (1964) p. 999-1001.
43 "Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinctions and the Clovis culture: absolute ages based on accelerator C-14 dating of skeletal remains" in L. Agenbroad, J. I. Mead, and L. Nelson Eds. Megafauna and Man: Discovery of America's Heartland. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota Scientific Papers, Volume 1. (2005) p. 118-122. 44 "NPS Archeology Program: Kennewick Man," Letter from the Department of the Interior National Park Service (2000), 1849 C St. NW, Washington D.C. 20240. http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/c14memo.htm
46 "Recording gaseous exchange under field conditions," The Physiology of Forest Trees, K. V. Thinmann ed., New York, (1958) p. 194, cited in Ginenthal, op cit. p. 174.
47 "Radiocarbon and pollen evidence for a sudden change in climate in the Great Lakes Region 10,000 years ago," Quarternary Paleoecology, E. J. Cushing, H. E. Wright, Jr. eds., New Haven, CT, (1967) p. 119, cited in Ginenthal, op cit., p. 175.
48 "Radiocarbon dates in living plants based on absorbing of old carbon containing gases," Radiocarbon Journal, (1998) 40 #1 p. 57-60.
49 Internet web site blogs on origins.
50 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists;" (1992), "cit."
53 "Soft-tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," (2005) "cit" p. 1955.
54 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists;" (1992), "cit."
55 Helfinstine, R.F. and Roth, J.D. (2007) Texas tracks and Artifacts (Do Texas fossils indicate coexistence of men and dinosaurs? R & J Publishing, 1136 5th Ave S. Anoka, MN 55303.
56 Zillmer, Hans J. (2008). Darwin's Mistake, Antediluvian findings prove: dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously in coexistence. Adventures Unlimited Press, U.S. (Eng. Trans.)
57 http://www.dinosaursandman.com/ with many photos world-wide.
58 S. HUBBARD and C.W. GILMORE, The Doheny Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona, Oakland Museum, Oakland CA. (1924).
59 "Radiometric dating does work," (1990) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
60 "Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years." Quaternary Science Reviews, (2006) 25, p. 201-222.
61 "Age of Mexican ash with alleged footprints." Nature, (2005) 438, E7-E8; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc--a4h112805.php
62 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists," (1992), "cit."
64 "Experiments in Stratification do not support the theory of evolution," (2008). A critique of evolution held at Sapienza University, November 3, 2008.
65 "Sedimentological interpretation of the Tonto Group stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River)," Journal of Russian Academy of Science, Lithology and Mineral Resources (2004) 39(5).
66 "Experiments in Stratification do not support the theory of evolution," (2008). A critique of evolution held at Sapienza University, November 3, 2008, cit.
67 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists," (1992) "cit."
69 Initial RC date was 16,120 ± 60 for a fragment with a trace of water soluble glue, A-5810, UN of AZ, report dated August 10, 1990; UN of GA RC dated a different fragment free of any glue or preservative and treated with HAc under vacuum to remove surficial carbonates, RC date of 31,360 ± 100, UGAMS 02947, report dated May 1, 2008.
70 RC dated at Leibnitz Labor fur Alterbestimmung und Isotopenforschung Christian-Albrechts-Universitat, Kiel Germany, report dated October 1, 1998. Humic acid fraction was 36,480 + 560/-530 RC years or 5,000 years older than bone material.
71 "Quaternary geology, radiocarbon datings, and the age of australites," (1965), "cit."
72 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm (2007).
73 CHARLES OFFICER, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy, Helix Books, (1996), p. 56.
74 S. HUBBARD and C.W. GILMORE, The Doheny Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona, cit., p. 9. Search Internet for the Doheny Report and other dinosaur depictions from Peru and other nations.
75 Ibid, p. 5.
76 C. JACQUES and M. FREEMAN, Angkor Cities and Temples. Thames and Hudson Ltd. London. (1997). Search Internet for Buddhist temple stegosaur in Cambodia and other depictions.
79 JOANNIS DAMASCENI (~AD 725), De Draconibus.
80 "Death of American ground sloths," Science (1964) 186(4164) p. 636-640.
81 "Evidence for human modification of a late pleistocene bison (bison sp.) Bone from the Klondike District, Yukon Territory, Canada.," Arctic, (2002) 55(2) p. 143-147. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf
82 "Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data," Lithology and Mineral Resources, (2002) 39(5), 37(5), p. 509-515.
83 "Geological dating principles questioned. Paleohydraulics: A new approach," Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics (2002) 22(3), p.19-26, China.