Some poop in a cave in Oregon has been dated...

[Miktar]

Some poop in a cave in Oregon has been dated to more than 14,000 years ago and identified as human, adding to other evidence that humans inhabited the Americas before the well-known Clovis people.


Other archaeologists agreed that the findings established more firmly than before the presence of people on the continent at least 1,000 years before the well-known Clovis people, previously thought to be the first Americans. Recent research at sites in Florida and Wisconsin also appears to support the earlier arrivals, and a campsite in Chile indicates migration deep into South America by 14,600 years ago.

http://www.kottke.org/remainder/08/04/15390.html

[Nferno]

it's amazing what you can learn from a turd :P

[infinitely_blue]

Ok, how on earth did a turd survive 14,000 years? Something smells funny here.

[VoXoV]

A turd would definately decompose after that long.

[N3G4T1v3]

Thats quite a **** piece of research. That does sound really dodgy though, the only way i can see it being true is if it was frozen.

[Soppy]

The turd is a fossil. Like how a bone makes a fossil when it decomposes after being trapped in soil or rock.

[N3G4T1v3]

I guess thats a bit more possible, but still, bone i hard and has the chance to be compacted in rock or soil, but a turd is too soft, if anything lands on it or compacts on it, its going to squish if the object is heavy and stick to soil.

[-StrY-]

I still believe that carbon dating is highly inaccurate.
They once took fresh oysters out of the sea and took them for carbon dating and the machine said it was 4000 years old..............
Sounds like a **** method to me.

[infinitely_blue]

I still believe that carbon dating is highly inaccurate.
They once took fresh oysters out of the sea and took them for carbon dating and the machine said it was 4000 years old..............
Sounds like a **** method to me.

Well, Carbon Dating has always been highly inaccurate. However, there are other newer more advanced methods used nowadays for poop I am sure. :D

[-StrY-]

Lol like what???
Ask the guy that crapped it out!

[BattleMoose]

I still believe that carbon dating is highly inaccurate.
They once took fresh oysters out of the sea and took them for carbon dating and the machine said it was 4000 years old..............
Sounds like a **** method to me.

Sounds like you were exposed to some people who dilberatly wanted you to doubt carbon dating. If they went through the effort to do that kind of work, they would have known that nothing after 1960 can be accuratly carbon dated.

Carbon dating relies on the half life of a rare carbon isotope, which had a reliable production rate, and which would be absorbed my living matter. The nuclear weapon testing of the 1950-1960 completly ****ed it all up, consequence, things after 1960 cannot be accuratly carbon dated. ^^

Things that died before 1960, can be dated, because once dead, they stop absorbign the carbon isotope, so atmospheric levels have no effect on it.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:CWO5tkIFo-QJ:education.llnl.gov/teller2k/environ/activities/rcDating/rcDating101.pdf+radio+carbon+dating+nuclear+weapon s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=za&client=firefox-a

[Toi]

I guess thats a bit more possible, but still, bone i hard and has the chance to be compacted in rock or soil, but a turd is too soft, if anything lands on it or compacts on it, its going to squish if the object is heavy and stick to soil.

Turds can be hard too you know.

[Deviation]

People are actually carbon dating turds? Don't they have something better to do with their time?

[Squirly]

Some people in this thread are giving me a pounding headache.

[groen]

Squirly, the pull your gambit moves on them...
but on topic...

a turd can survive a very long time in a cave. A cave has a constant temp which is usualy around 18 degrees in south-africa and obviously different in other regions. But the same applies everywhere.

So with a constant temp, very little air flow and the fact that the **** might have turned into a fossil, there is not reason the believe it wont be there anymore.

[N3G4T1v3]

Sounds like you were exposed to some people who dilberatly wanted you to doubt carbon dating. If they went through the effort to do that kind of work, they would have known that nothing after 1960 can be accuratly carbon dated.

Carbon dating relies on the half life of a rare carbon isotope, which had a reliable production rate, and which would be absorbed my living matter. The nuclear weapon testing of the 1950-1960 completly ****ed it all up, consequence, things after 1960 cannot be accuratly carbon dated. ^^

Things that died before 1960, can be dated, because once dead, they stop absorbign the carbon isotope, so atmospheric levels have no effect on it.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:CWO5tkIFo-QJ:education.llnl.gov/teller2k/environ/activities/rcDating/rcDating101.pdf+radio+carbon+dating+nuclear+weapon s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=za&client=firefox-a

Ok, but if carbon dating is done on things that where once alive, and therefore absorbed this carbon isotope, and then died, how can you carbon date something that wasn't living in the first place?

[Gldm]

Carbon dating is quite accurate for short term (~60,000 years) measurement of age, once calibration curves are factored in. We have accurate curve data for the last 26,000 years (including 1950-present Battlemoose) thanks to measurement of atmospheric C14 levels determined from sources such as ice core samples and fossilized tree ring structures.

C14 absorption rate is dependent on the atmospheric level, which did indeed jump during 1950s atomic tests. It also suffers a depressant effect as more C12 is released from the burning of fossil fuels. These are accounted for in the calibration, which has a standard error of +/- 16 years for 0-6000 years before present and +/- 163 years outside that.

Carbon dating is not effective on matter that was not once alive and hence did not acquire C14 from atmospheric fixation by plants. However, most animal waste is made up of animal or plant matter, and so it all goes back to a source of C14 that was alive recently (a plant of some kind). So it works in this case.

[BattleMoose]

Bah, do i have to explain everything. A turd consists of things that was living matter, like plant, berries and meat. You can also carbon date paper, clothes(cotton/hemp), basically anything that consisted of living matter.

EDIT: GLDM does a pretty good job too.

Question: I heard that atomic testing stuffed up carbon dating, did a quick google and found some sources to confirm. Are we really able to accuratly date things post 1950, and I imagine it would be very difficult to date things that lived on both sides of the nuclear testing, date wise, due to the increase of carbon-14 mid life.

[Gldm]

Question: I heard that atomic testing stuffed up carbon dating, did a quick google and found some sources to confirm. Are we really able to accuratly date things post 1950, and I imagine it would be very difficult to date things that lived on both sides of the nuclear testing, date wise, due to the increase of carbon-14 mid life.

This is untrue. To perform accurate carbon dating at all, you need measurements of the atmospheric level of radioactive carbon. This number varies over time, and not always at a constant rate. As I mentioned we have data for about 26,000 years from things like ice cores.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Radiocarbon_dating_calibration.svg/600px-Radiocarbon_dating_calibration.svg.png



While levels did rise sharply from atomic testing, we have accurate readings of them so that the dating process can compensate accordingly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg/600px-Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg.png