An Arkansas antievolution bill that missed being passed into law by a narrow margin tells us that
(ii) One part of the Vollosovitch Mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000 years; and
A creationist online article called “The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods” makes the same claim:
One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old. Another part of the same mammoth carbon dated at 44,000 years old (8)
Here is the reference given:
8)Troy L. Pewe: “Quaternary Stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska” Geological survey professional paper #862 US GOV printing office 1975, pg. 30.
Kent Hovind said the following on the Coast-to-Coast AM radio program:
One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862.
An online rebuttal by Karen E. Bartelt showed that it is all one big lie with
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 Alaska”. 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[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). 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 “baby”, 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.
“The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods” also tells us:
The lower leg of the Fairbanks creek mammoth had a radiocarbon date of 15,380 (RCY), while its skin and flesh were radiocarbon dated at 21,300 (9)
In the image next to that text, the numbers are changed to 15,380 and 28,300. Kent Hovind also makes the claim, citing the same source as the previous quote, in “Doesn’t carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?”:
“The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.[”]
— In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
In professional paper 862 I found those Fairbanks Creek mammoth dates. These two dates were mentioned in the 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.
Hovind also stated:
“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.[sic closing quotes here?]
—Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
Hovind’s quotation marks are confused. Dr. Pewe did not use those words. And there is no reference to anything with a radiocarbon date of 40,000 years. Nor is there a reference for 26,000 years either. “The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods” makes the identical claim, cites the exact same reference, and uses wording similiar enough for me to strongly suspect that at least one of them has committed plagiarism. A site based on Walt Brown’s book also does the same claim, reference, and language here. Also consider that the Dima mammoth was really found in 1977 after Pewe’s paper was published and that it was found in Siberia while Pewe’s paper referred to radiocarbon dates from Alaska.
The moral of the story is to never trust facts told to you by creationist sources.
And this was going to be written into law? Do they have any shame whatsoever? The answer is no.
Update: Since I originally wrote this article, the author of “The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods” emailed me and said that he is removing the claim. He also admitted using Hovind as his reference. He should be praised for correcting this error for it is something that is hard to get the professional creationists to do. His error is instructive. If a one does not personally check the original source, one should never cite that source as if one had done so. If someone wants to use a secondary citation, he should always indicate in his footnote the source that cited the original as well as the original and not merely copy another's citation. Not doing so will open an author to charges of dishonesty if the claim turns out to be false and possibly plagiarism if someone realizes that the author did not actually check check the sources himself. All authors must realize that if they cite a source they are making a claim to have checked that source.
I said that professional creationists, by which I mean those creationists who widely speak or write books on the subject, rarely admit error. Kent Hovind has seen an item on the web that corrected the falsehoods debunked above. His response was “I suggest you read GS paper 862, p.30 SI 454….” Well I did not just trust Karen E. Bartelt’s online claims; I found that reference in a local university’s library. I can say without hesitation that Bartelt is right and Hovind is wrong. Hovind is either outright lying or is a hypocrite for demanding that someone read the source he cited when he has not done so himself. Such is the nature of creation “science.” The web site that published Hovind’s response also makes the observation (that I have verified) that specimen SI-454, what Hovind cited, is an ox and not a mammoth.