Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store

Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C14 dates (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C14 dates (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CD011.2:

Widely different radiocarbon dates are obtained from the same frozen mammoths. Different parts of the Vollosovitch mammoth date to 29,500 and 44,000 years before present (BP). One part of Dima, a frozen baby mammoth, was 40,000, another part 26,000, and wood immediately around it was 9-10,000 BP. Two parts of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth date to 15,380 and 21,300 BP.


CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

The dates come from different mammoths. The reference cited by Brown and cribbed by Hovind likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth, which Brown also mentions (Péwé 1975, 30). The 15,380 and 21,300 BP dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin.

It is agreed that this is an error on Brown's part, but once again errors occur on both sides all the time. It is likely one can find errors in the work of any writer, particularly when one is looking for them.

It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates.

Aparently the best that Talk Origins can do here is express the fact that Brown does not cite a specific source for his Vollosovitch mammoth reference, but he does list 160 Mammoth references, so he probably got it from more than one of them.

Talk Origins erroneously refers to "the Vollosovitch mammoth", even though there is more than one. Brown specifically states that his dates are from "different parts of the first Vollosovitch mammoth." So it is clear that Brown knows that there are several Vollosovitch mammoths, and that the dates he is citing are all from the first one.

Ukraintseva (1993) reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years before present. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth.

That may be true of the dates cited by Ukraintseva (1993), but Brown cites two sources in the same note. the second one is:

N. A. Dubrovo et al., "Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth," International Geology Review, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630

Evidently it is from this second source that Brown got the other date he cites for Dima.

Personal tools