Then you need to listen to the actual scientists, because that is not the reason they give. First, it is highly doubtful that they are even measuring organic carbon. Second, there is strong evidence for contamination in these samples.
Following is from a website speaking about the soft tissue. I would be pleased if some of the "actual scientists" you refer to would examine the evidence for themselves, either on their own or better yet jointly with those who have already done the work.
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones carbon dated dinosaur fossils
date c-14 dinosaur fossil bones by c14 dinosaur bones fossils
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).
Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:
They did not look at the data and they never spoke with the researchers. They did not like the test results, so they censored them.
Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically. The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.
Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "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".
The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.
Many dinosaur bones are not petrified. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone.Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies. Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded. That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.
Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs.
However, it has been hard to reach the public with the information. Despite being simple test results without any interpretation, they were blocked from presentation in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 2011 and 2012, the Geological Society of America in 2011 and 2012, and by the editors of various scientific journals. Fortunately, there is the internet.
The only refusal is the refusal on the part of creationists that soft tissue can be preserved for 65 million years.
Are you saying Smithsonian is creationist? This is what their May 2006 magazine said:
"It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."
Think what you want. The reality of the situation is just the opposite.
Based on the above two answers, doesn't it look more like the mainstream scientists than the creationists are the ones not willing to deal with reality?
Notice that you didn't deal with the evidence that has been presented. That calibration curve is a composite of several lines of evidence: tree rings, lake varves, ice layers, and speleothems. They all agree with each other. How can you have all of these independent lines of evidence produced by completely different mechanisms all produce consilient data? You haven't explained it. Until you do, the weight of the evidence from carbon dating contradicts a young Earth, and a global flood while we are at it.
If dinosaurs were still really alive less than 40,000 years ago, then the big Yucatan meteorite that extinguished them can't have been 65 million years ago. Moreover, ice layers and tree rings can be multiple in a single year.
Mt. St. Helens is a very small taste of the unprecedented changes that could be caused by super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and yes, a global flood. There in fact has been some disagreement between the original carbon dating and tree rings, and carbon dating was adjusted to account for it, as I am sure you know. I believe that small adjustment reflected events after whatever really caused most of the dinosaur fossils. If a small adjustment was needed then, how can you be sure a much larger adjustment wouldn't be needed following a truly massive cataclysm?
You don't get to reject evidence because of beliefs.
