Dima dating com

We have an example of change over time, rather nice evidence of evolution.

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.

Whilst it is true that some mammoths have been found with vegetation in their mouths and guts, it is normally only moss and grass.

To call that tropical is, I think, a rather large overstatement.

dima dating com-88dima dating com-84dima dating com-85dima dating com-57

You discovered two frozen mammoths, supposedly found major skeletal differences between them, but didn’t consider the differences worthy of mention?!

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. 214-228I’m not really sure how this refutes radiocarbon dating.

As such this is very likely not true.“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.

Also, as the paper linked to just now should indicate, “theorists” do mention that these mammoths were found with vegetation.

A cataclysmic event on the order of the Noahic worldwide flood would have had to have been responsible for these giants frozen instantly, intact and well preserved.

Leave a Reply