Radiometric dating flaws debunked smartdatingthebook com
But in case there is a real problem I shall endeavour to only call them CT scans in this post, lest all my readers see “high tech” and become brainwashed.Regardless of whether there is some kind of wordplay involved, at the end of the day the science stands and falls on its own.First, the information on mammoth dates is presented in a table.
They did not freeze to death slowly like animals awaiting a gradual Ice Age or else they would not have been so perfectly preserved encased in ice.Here once again, we see the remains of mammoths being paraded as evidence for evolution, when quite the opposite is true.I’m somewhat skeptical that describing a CT scan as high-tech is part of some brainwashing campaign.Regardless, I am very skeptical of the validity of the claim given that the first radiocarbon dates were published in December 1949, 3 months after radiocarbon had allegedly given conflicting results on the age of this mammoth. “The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 plus or minus 670 and 16,150 plus or minus 230 years respectively.” Robert M. Dale Guthrie, “Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska.” Quaternary Research, Vol. Two mammoths were found and shown to be from different times. The use of this example as a refutation of radiocarbon becomes especially puzzling when one checks the reference given and finds they were from different stratigraphic units.In other words, two mammoths from different layers dated differently.