OK, what would be the explanation why different parts of the mammoth would be dated so widely differently? A few hundred years maybe acceptable, but thousands of years is ridiculous. The only explanation is that the technique is faulty and unreliable.
The dates are all after 1950s. So your objection is unwarranted. I forgot to mention, the last example is dated using K-AR radionucleotides. The skeleton measurements are not outliers. All of them dated less than 5000 years old. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals together. You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this mean you have just measured background contamination. Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis was considered outright bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
