Dima dating com Free webcam girls ipot
In other words, two mammoths from different layers dated differently.
If anything, this is a point to radiocarbon dating for being confirmed by the stratigraphy (the older layer contained the older mammoth).
Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500. 30Same paper (slightly different citation) same flaws: There is no direct quote saying that in the article and the dates themselves aren’t in the table either.
So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too.“One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately around the carcass’ was 9-10,000.” Troy L. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Dima wasn’t found until 1977 – two years after the citation was published.
Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862You 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.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.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.