The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method. And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old.

However:
Consider the C-14 decay rate. Its half-life ($t_{1/2}$) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. 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. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon-14, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still Carbon-14 in the bones.

So what needs to be done about this inconsistency? Do these data indicate that a more accurate method needs to be derived? What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? Or do we need another dating method all together?

Considering Contamination

From the source linked above:


  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".



Question: What is the difference, if any, between 'art', 'the arts', and 'Art'?
Answer: "Art" is an abstract. Its primary use is as an abstract quality. It can also be used as a collective noun for objects (or activities) characterised by art (the quality). 

"The arts" is a different kind of abstract: it is not a quality, but an aggregation of activities (not usually objects) that are characterised by art. 

So "art nurtures the soul" could mean that the aggregation of works of art (or artistic activities) nurtures the soul, but is far more likely to mean that the abstract quality "art" nurtures the soul. 

"The arts nurture the soul" would to me mean the somewhat different idea that the aggregate of artistic pursuits (and perhaps their results) are what nurtures, rather than the abstract quality they share.