4 ms·

If it was a burned structure, maybe the burning affected the measurement of the dating.

Kye 3y ago
I like to think the people who date these things can tell the difference between the carbon from burning and carbon-14. I'm not sure it's even used for something this old since AFAIK it only works so far back.
- Bouncingsoul1 3y ago
  they got 'infinite' for all carbon dating. They derived the age from the sand layer the wood was found. I got this from reading the paper.
  - pulse7 3y ago
    Earth's crust is moving. Maybe the sand layers moved after the wood was placed there... and maybe the derived age is all wrong...
- pvaldes 3y ago
  "Is not" what carbon 14 you find. Is what is lost what counts, because this is lost at a known rate. The less carbon you find the oldest the structure. So, first question: Is fire a known way to remove carbon from an organic structure? Uppercase YES. Second question, carbon 14 method has intervals of confidence. Show me the intervals
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    And does fire somehow selectively eliminate c14 but not c12? Because that's the measurement we're making. It's irrelevant to the OP because radiocarbon dating doesn't go back that far, but your general skepticism is very much misplaced. The people who have been using and improving radiocarbon dating for the last century do in fact know more about it than your superficial armchair doubts.
    - pvaldes 3y ago
      > does fire somehow selectively eliminate c14 but not c12? Maybe, if we assume that C14 is not distributed homogeneously in the log; that is the logical assumption by default As we know that C14 had spikes in production in some particular years, Is trivial to assume that rings formed in those years stored more C14. The main question is if we have this years registered on our log or not. If we would have it; and they fall on the outer part of the log (AKA the partially charred part), then is perfectly doable
      - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
        > Maybe, if we assume that C14 is not distributed homogeneously in the log; that is the logical assumption by default Perhaps read about the actual technique more? A tree will be at equilibrium with atmospheric c14 throughout its lifetime. > As we know that C14 had spikes in production in some particular years, Is trivial to assume that rings formed in those years stored more C14. We have very solid time series data on the background C14 levels from multiple independent techniques. Spectroscopy based methods count the total number of C14 atoms in the sample throughout its entire volume as well. > The main question is if we have this years registered on our log or not. If we would have it; and they fall on the outer part of the log (AKA the partially charred part), then is perfectly doable As I said above, the entire radiocarbon dating discussion is irrelevant to the original article. I just wanted to reply against zero content lowbrow dismissals of the technique in general. It's disappointing to see commentators here posting the exact same FUD as young earth creationists.

Kye 3y ago

I like to think the people who date these things can tell the difference between the carbon from burning and carbon-14. I'm not sure it's even used for something this old since AFAIK it only works so far back.

Bouncingsoul1 3y ago
they got 'infinite' for all carbon dating. They derived the age from the sand layer the wood was found. I got this from reading the paper.
- pulse7 3y ago
  Earth's crust is moving. Maybe the sand layers moved after the wood was placed there... and maybe the derived age is all wrong...
pvaldes 3y ago
"Is not" what carbon 14 you find. Is what is lost what counts, because this is lost at a known rate. The less carbon you find the oldest the structure. So, first question: Is fire a known way to remove carbon from an organic structure? Uppercase YES. Second question, carbon 14 method has intervals of confidence. Show me the intervals
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  And does fire somehow selectively eliminate c14 but not c12? Because that's the measurement we're making. It's irrelevant to the OP because radiocarbon dating doesn't go back that far, but your general skepticism is very much misplaced. The people who have been using and improving radiocarbon dating for the last century do in fact know more about it than your superficial armchair doubts.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > does fire somehow selectively eliminate c14 but not c12? Maybe, if we assume that C14 is not distributed homogeneously in the log; that is the logical assumption by default As we know that C14 had spikes in production in some particular years, Is trivial to assume that rings formed in those years stored more C14. The main question is if we have this years registered on our log or not. If we would have it; and they fall on the outer part of the log (AKA the partially charred part), then is perfectly doable
    - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
      > Maybe, if we assume that C14 is not distributed homogeneously in the log; that is the logical assumption by default Perhaps read about the actual technique more? A tree will be at equilibrium with atmospheric c14 throughout its lifetime. > As we know that C14 had spikes in production in some particular years, Is trivial to assume that rings formed in those years stored more C14. We have very solid time series data on the background C14 levels from multiple independent techniques. Spectroscopy based methods count the total number of C14 atoms in the sample throughout its entire volume as well. > The main question is if we have this years registered on our log or not. If we would have it; and they fall on the outer part of the log (AKA the partially charred part), then is perfectly doable As I said above, the entire radiocarbon dating discussion is irrelevant to the original article. I just wanted to reply against zero content lowbrow dismissals of the technique in general. It's disappointing to see commentators here posting the exact same FUD as young earth creationists.