Let's look at their research methodology in detail (indicated by bullet points): Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. did this, since there would have been a slim chance (at best) of the museum curator providing them with any dinosaur bone fragments if he or she had known what the true intent of the supposed chemists was.
"Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.
These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".
There is a lot of discussion about this issue on this internet, so I think this question may be worth addressing seriously.
The main point of the debate seems to be the following: Over the past decades, several research groups of self-proclaimed creationist scientists have claimed discoveries of dinosaur bones that they have managed to date, using radiocarbon dating methods, at some age which is a lot below the 'usual' i.e.
Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,000-year-old object by almost 50 percent.
Clearly proper sample decontamination procedures are of particular importance in the dating of very old artifacts It is clear that the sample provided by Miller did not under go any 'sample decontamination procedures' at all, and it is therefore strongly questionable to which extent it can be used to obtain a good estimate of the age of the bones.
mainstream accepted date for the age of these bones (several dozens of million years old).
The age that these groups claim to find is usually on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old.
Now, it is known that $^\text$ decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. would not have been able to obtain this sample, had they been honest about their intent.
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.