Dima mammoth carbon dating squirt dating
His presentation also included an account of the notorious freshly-killed seal which was carbon dated as being 1,300 years old.Hovind neglected to cite the title of the paper or its author, so You Tuber Potholer54 has done the work of tracking it down, and it appears to be this one: “Mummified seals of Southern Victoria Land” by Wakefield Dort, Jr, published in the American Journal of the United States, 1971.It is no wonder, then that Hovind peddles his particular brand of science-denial.This is a slide from part 7 of Hovind’s Creation Seminar.Hovind cites the paper he took the information from, but has conveniently omitted the title: “Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells.” As the title implies, Kieth and Anderson were trying to show that under certain conditions, radiocarbon dating won’t work. Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon 14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay.In 1963, Kieth and Anderson were among the first to alert biologists to the fact that carbon dating is not an accurate method of dating under certain circumstances.
The essence of Steve’s complaint was Hovind’s claim that one part of Baby Dima (a frozen baby mammoth) was dated at 40,000 years old, and another part dated at 26,000 years old.
The Mammoth found at the lower level was naturally found to be older than the one found higher up. You cannot claim there are no vestigial organs merely because your appendix isn’t one.