lordkalvan
Member
And let me point out that whatever sources you derived these claims from are being equally disingenuous, although I suspect they all come from the same place:Ashua said:
Karen E. Bartelt examined the Vollosovitch mammoth claim closely and determined that, as described above, the assertions are little more than either deliberate misrepresentation or (less likely) a complete inability to read the relevant paper for comprehension:
Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaskaâ€. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius†(found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[â€] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver damâ€). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “babyâ€, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.
Source: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evo ... ie001.html
As far as Dima is concerned, you have quoted Hovind's version of Pewe's comment almost verbatim, so I imagine that is your source. The source quoted above indicates that this sentence does not occur in the referred to paper by Pewe. Furthermore, in 1993 V.V. Ukraintseva reviewed the Dima findings and reported three C14 dates for the animal (all to around 40,000 years ago) and that dates for the surrounding deposits are consistent with these.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html
The report concerning the Fairbanks' mammoth also attempts to mislead you by conflating different data as if it referred to the same animal. I am also puzzled that a 1949 source would be referred to as an accurate source for radiocarbon dating as it was only in this year that Willard Libby and his team announced the first radiocarbon dates. That aside, however, this claim has also been refuted by Dr Bartelt:
In professional paper 862 I found those Fairbanks Creek mammoth dates. These two dates were mentioned in ... Dr. Bartelt’s quote above. The item dated 15,380 was found in “Frozen silt 26 m below surface†by Osborn in 1940. The item dated 21,300 was found “With beaver dam†by Geist in 1948 and has an unreliable date because it was soaked in glycerine. These are not the same animal. Furthermore both creationist sources refer to “the†Fairbanks Creek mammoth as if there was only one.
Source: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evo ... ie001.html
As to the Colorado Creek mammoths, the claim that two different animals died on two separate occasions in roughly the same location, so invalidating C14 dating, is absurd. Indeed, one suspects a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader by implying that the paper in question returns two different C14 dates for animals that died at about the same time and in the same location. From the abstract of the referred to paper (Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek mammoth locality, Alaska, by Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie):
The Colorado Creek mammoth locality in west-central Alaska contains the remains of two mammoths that were scavenged by carnivores. Sedimentologic interpretations of the reworked eolian deposits surrounding the bones, supplemented by 10 radiocarbon dates, indicate that the lower and upper mammoths died and were buried within separate, but superimposed, thaw gullies about 23,000 and 16,000 yr ago, respectively.
Source: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 949290083U
So as the first seven examples that you have referenced have all been shown to be deceptive, and most likely intentionally so, you might want to reflect on the likely reliability of the remaining claims, especially if they originate from the same source.
