As I have noted previously, it’s a wonderful time to be a young-earth creationist.
All sorts of interesting data are being uncovered that challenge the supposedly “rock-solid” idea that the earth is billions of years old.
The plants were all in the group that had the lowest level of carbon-14, while the dinosaurs and megafauna formed three other groups. They for a discord between carbon-14 dating and old-earth thinking, but they are by no means conclusive.
This kind of structure would not be expected in data that come from contamination. Even combined with the previous studies, for example, the specimens represent only a small fraction of what is available to measure.
Of course, one possible explanation for these results is contamination.
It is possible that “modern” carbon has infiltrated into all these samples, and that’s what is being detected. Seiler gives several lines of argument that tend to cast doubt on such an explanation.
Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. While I can’t confirm the details in the quote above, you can see for yourself that the presentation was removed. However, if you go to the official site, you can see that the talk has been removed.
Nevertheless, they all have detectable amounts of carbon-14 in them.
First, they are unexpected in any old-earth paradigm.
If nothing else, then, that should give all old-earth scientists something to think about.
Another study showed that fossil ammonites and wood from a lower Cretaceous formation, which is supposed to be 112-120 million years old, also have detectable levels of carbon-14 in them.
If these studies are accurate, they show that there is something wrong with the old-earth view: Either carbon dating is not the reliable tool it is thought to be for “recent” dating, or the fossils and materials that are supposed to be millions of years old are not really that old. While these studies use several different samples, they represent the work of only a few scientists.