Radiometric dating flaws debunked

29-May-2017 02:09

The response to this was to spout off irrelevant (and invented) radiocarbon inconsistencies and not bother to look up what the differences in anatomy were. Besides attacking radiometric dating and other aspects of geochronology, young-Earth creationist (YEC) John Woodmorappe (1999, p.CT scans are described as high-tech all the time, even by people complaining about them.It would seem to me there isn’t really a conspiracy and “high-tech” is just phrase associated with CT scans.Here once again, we see the remains of mammoths being paraded as evidence for evolution, when quite the opposite is true.

“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000.” Troy L.Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U. The direct quote is a invented, the figures are false and the mammoth itself wasn’t even found when the source was published. “The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.” Harold E.Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 300 Now, I haven’t been able to track down the original source for this so can’t say for sure whether the source does make this claim. 214-228 I’m not really sure how this refutes radiocarbon dating.”” So we find two members of the same species that lived at different times and also have different anatomy.

We have an example of change over time, rather nice evidence of evolution. No part of the article goes “one part of the Vollosovitch mammoth…”, it’s all a table.Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500.If anything, this is a point to radiocarbon dating for being confirmed by the stratigraphy (the older layer contained the older mammoth).