> You can't see your own error in logic? If indeed
> mere century-old contaminants got in, the samples
> would show dates only a few centuries old. Like
> hello? Are you that dense? They don't. The results
> are a tad earlier than the mid-3rd Millennium BCE.
> Do tell, Philip, how do you think modern samples
> make samples miraculously older by thousands of
> years when what you suggest should make them only
> centuries old?
Avry, why are you again resorting to hostile comments? You need to slow down because you're looking kind of silly right about now.
How do you think C14 dating works? For example, if half of a sample contains carbon from 100,000 years ago and the other half of that same sample contains carbon from 10 days ago, what do you think will be the resulting radiocarbon date of that contaminated sample?
Let me give you hint: When you have a cup of yellow paint and you add some blue paint, does that turn the entire batch into blue paint?
> > Considering that the "daily air pollution intakesakin to smoking a pack of cigarettes",
> > I think you're going to have a very hard time
> > finding a scientist who would agree that a piece
> > of ancient charcoal wouldn't be contaminated after
> > being exposed by such an intense barrage of hydrocarbons.
> Then why do you think they were so careful with
> the tests, hmm? You still think they just grabbed
> specks of black carbon right off the surface?? I'd
> post WOW in million-point font but it might crash
> the MB. How about this? :
"Careful"? How were they "careful"?
Did you read their methodology?
- "Loose charcoal fragments were sealed in film cans or plastic vials. Mortar pieces and mud brick fragments were wrapped in aluminum foil (or plastic wrap) and put inside a plastic bag."
Plastic contains a lot of carbon, so I'm not sure how "careful" that was.
- "While searching the monuments, we examined seams between stone blocks for mortar filling and for black specks of charcoal inside the mortar."
Mortar isn't transparent, so it sure sounds like "they just grabbed specks of black carbon right off the surface". In fact, they may have needed to look into the joints for mortar that eroded a bit below the surface of the adjoining blocks, which is all the more opportunity for organic particles and liquid to get trapped and further contaminate the mortar. If you have other information from the authors about that, I'd love to hear why they didn't include it in their research report.
Were they careful in deciding to use line-of-sight surface samples instead of deep samples?
Were they "careful" in deciding to exclude half the samples they collected?
Were they careful to bias the samples to only those where clumps of charcoal were visible?
Were they careful to ensure all the mortar was from the same batch and not from any restoration project (as if they could do that)?
The authors sent half the '84 samples to SMU for "conventional" dating (e.g., standard scintillography) while the other half of the samples were sent to the ETH lab which employed AMS dating technology. Why would they bring samples to 2 different labs and risk introducing additional variability into the results?
The only things they seemed to be careful about were the location of each sample, and the procedure the labs used to extract the carbon from the other components in the sample in an effort to keep the carbon as pure as possible during the dating process. But they apparently took no steps to control for modern carbon contamination.
You can post all the silly graphics you want, but you really need to read up on this dating methodology before you post anything else about it. Please.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?