Carbon dating different results
It’s a site that pumps out creationist commentary at such a rate that there’s already enough there to keep me occupied for many moons.
So we can ill afford to stand around with lengthy introductions and instead must dive straight into one of the more egregious posts: “Mammoths have been used quite frequently to promote the idea of evolution theory and old habits die hard among theorists.
Given the scans in question are CT scans you would rightly expect that the following examples are CT scans gone wrong.
They are not, rendering this entire tangent irrelevant.
Prefacing astrology with “high-tech” doesn’t make it any more valid; nor would it render a true conclusion false.
This section is intended to cast doubt on the reliability of the scans being used.
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.
“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 You can find the paper being cited here and I believe it’s not behind a paywall so you should be able to read it just fine.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.
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.