"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.
Visit Stack Exchange The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method.
Furthermore, it appears less than certain that the carbon found in the bones actually had anything to do with them being dinosaur bones.
In the article by Leppert, we find: Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils.
In this answer, I will try to go through this story in great detail, (hopefully) exposing the reasons why this work is not taken seriously by scientists.
A research team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old.