The Mystery of the "Frozen Mammoths"

bob b · Dec 29, 2006

Hmm,

Mammoth remains are found in Missouri.

Along with tigers?

Here is an interesting speculation about the cause of the sudden extinction.

http://www.terracycles.com/extinctions.htm

Remember, if the Earth's magnetic field was stronger back then, less C-14 would have been generated in the upper atmosphere, meaning that C-14 dating would show larger ages to specimens which died back then.

If there any evidence that the Earth's magnetic field was greater in the past?

I'm glad you asked.

Why yes. Scientists have recently confirmed what the creation scientist Dr. Thomas Barnes had been saying for many years: direct measurements of the Earth's magnetic field for the past 150 years have shown that the field has declined by 10%.

Too bad today's scientists gave no credit to Dr. Barnes for his earlier conclusions which used precisely the same data source which had earlier been dismissed as a creationist's pipedream.

BillyBob · Dec 29, 2006

From bob b's link:

For the Younger Dryas Period ending just 11,500 years ago, there are thousands of fossils. In fact, most of these fossils are fresh tissue specimens, some complete with hair, skin, muscles, internal organs, and even the food the animal was eating the day it died.

11,500 years old? When did the 'Flood' happen? When did 'Creation' happen? I thought the earth was only 6000 years old. :think:

:sozo: BUSTED!

It is necessary to ask how there were suddenly thousands of well preserved Mammoth carcasses just 11,500 years ago and not for the 8,000 years prior to then?

The intact Wolly mammoth carcass cited in bob b's article 'Raising the Mammoth' is dated at 18,000 years old.

:sozo: BUSTED!

Why is it that at the time the Woolly Mammoth went extinct we suddenly have an enormous number of well preserved carcasses but not before, except at other times roughly 11,500 years apart?

The intact Wolly mammoth carcass cited in bob b's article 'Raising the Mammoth' is dated at 18,000 years old.

:sozo: BUSTED!

And it isn't just the fact that the carcasses are found around the world, but the conditions in which the carcasses are found are also curious. Not one, but many Woolly Mammoths in Siberia were found frozen solid,

You don't expect to find a frozen carcass in Africa, do you? :doh:

:sozo: BUSTED!

BillyBob · Dec 29, 2006

bob b said:
Hmm,

Mammoth remains are found in Missouri.

Along with tigers?

So?

bob b · Dec 29, 2006

BillyBob said:
From bob b's link:
11,500 years old? When did the 'Flood' happen? When did 'Creation' happen? I thought the earth was only 6000 years old. :think:
:sozo: BUSTED!
The intact Wolly mammoth carcass cited in bob b's article 'Raising the Mammoth' is dated at 18,000 years old.
:sozo: BUSTED!
The intact Wolly mammoth carcass cited in bob b's article 'Raising the Mammoth' is dated at 18,000 years old.
:sozo: BUSTED!
You don't expect to find a frozen carcass in Africa, do you? :doh:
:sozo: BUSTED!

Billybob,

C-14 dating is based on assumptions regarding the level of C-14 being generated in the upper atmosphere and its ability to evenly spread throughout the globe in a timely manner and enter again evenly throughout the bodies of animals.

C-14 dating has shown itself to be fairly reliable by testing it on samples of known age. There are few ancient samples of known age prior to the most recent eras of Egyptian ancient history. Tree ring counting is one rare exception although not without a few problems of its own. But tree ring dating has shown that C-14 dates must be corrected to some extent.

The further one goes back in time the more shaky C-14 dates become for the simple reason that half ot it decays away naturally every 5000 years or so and because there is not that much of it as a percentage of total carbon in the first place. Also, if conditions back then were not as assumed, meaning that C-14 was not in a state of equilibrium as outlined above at the various points indicated then the method will give erroneous dates, mostly ones that will be too high because a lack of C-14 results in an older dating..

In addition, Libby, the inventor of the method, warned that samples exposed to water would probably give false readings due to contamination of C-14 in the sample by external C-14 or by loss of C-14 from the sample. A sample gain of C-14 would make the age too small, a loss would make it too large.

For these reasons Libby used samples from Egypt to test his method, because the climate there was presumed to be arid in ancient times (recently disputed) and because he hoped that there would be many samples with known dates. But there weren't.

The bottom line is that people should be skeptical of the accuracy of C-14 dates greater than 4000, perhaps even 2000 years old.

Interestingly, some diamonds still contain C-14 even though they are supposedly far older than a million years and there seems to be no way that C-14 could enter (after the diamond formed) through known physical methods Thus, all the C-14 should have decayed after 50,000 or certainly 100,000 years.

I believe that this is an unsolved mystery.

BillyBob · Dec 30, 2006

I took that info from your own link, seems to me you're picking and choosing data depending on whether or not it suits your preconceived notions.

Is that scientfic? :think:

GuySmiley · Dec 30, 2006

BillyBob said:
I took that info from your own link, seems to me you're picking and choosing data depending on whether or not it suits your preconceived notions.

Is that scientfic? :think:

Are you even reading what bob has been writing?

He's told you why C-14 dates are wrong, according to him. And you just quote to him the C14 dates and tell him he's wrong.

He's told you why mamoths didn't live in arctic climates. And you just quote to him sites that say they did. If you want to prove him wrong, you should actually deal with the evidence he's presented. For instance, if a wolly mamoth was found near a tiger, do you think tigers lived in the arctic also? If a wolly mamoth was found with plants from temperate regions in its stomach what does that tell us? Don't just link to a site and say, well this guy is smart and thinks you're wrong. You should actually deal with what bob says.

Joe Roberts · Dec 30, 2006

BillyBob said:
I think not.

While I usually stick to the 'fun stuff' here at TOL, I singlehandedly dismantled your basic premise, which is, as far as I can tell, that wooly mammoths could not have lived in an arctic climate.

Here is some more info you might find irritatingly interesting:

Adaptations

Mammoths had a number of adaptations to the cold, most famously the thick layer of shaggy hair, up to 50 cm (20 in) long, for which the woolly mammoth is named. They also had far smaller ears than modern elephants; the largest mammoth ear found so far was only a foot (30 cm) long, compared to six feet (1.8 m) for an African elephant. They had a flap of hairy skin which covered the anus, keeping out the cold.

Their teeth were also adapted to their diet of coarse tundra grasses, with more plates and a higher crown than their southern relatives.

Their skin was no thicker than that of present-day elephants, but unlike elephants they had numerous sebaceous glands in their skin which secreted greasy fat into their hair, improving its insulating qualities.

They had a layer of fat up to 8 cm (3 in) thick under the skin which, like the blubber of whales, helped to keep them warm.

Mammoths had extremely long tusks - up to 16 feet (5 m) long - which were markedly curved, to a much greater extent than those of elephants. It is not clear whether the tusks were a specific adaptation to their environment, but it has been suggested that mammoths may have used their tusks as shovels to clear snow from the ground and reach the vegetation buried below.

Preserved remains, genetic evidence

Preserved frozen remains of woolly mammoths have been found in the northern parts of Siberia. This is a rare occurrence, essentially requiring the animal to have been buried rapidly in liquid or semi-solids such as silt, mud and icy water which then froze.

This may have occurred in a number of ways. Mammoths may have been trapped in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning if they sank under the surface. They may have fallen through frozen ice into small ponds or potholes, entombing them. Many are certainly known to have been killed in rivers, perhaps through being swept away by river floods; in one location, by the Berelekh River in Yakutia in Siberia, more than 9,000 bones from at least 156 individual mammoths have been found in a single spot, apparently having been swept there by the current.

To date, thirty-nine preserved bodies have been found, but only four of them are complete. In most cases the flesh shows signs of decay before its freezing and later desiccation. Stories abound about frozen mammoth corpses that were still edible once defrosted, but the original sources (e.g. William R. Farrand's article in Science 133 [March 17, 1961]:729-735) indicate that the corpses were in fact terribly decayed, and the stench so unbearable that only the dogs accompanying the finders showed any interest in the flesh.

Great point BB!

Sealeaf · Dec 30, 2006

The earliest record I know of regarding a frozen wooly mammoth was one found by Russian explorers either in the late 1800's or early 1900's. While I'm unsure of the date I am fairly sure it was pre soviet Russia. They cliamed that they did eat some of it with no ill effects.

BillyBob · Dec 30, 2006

GuySmiley said:
Are you even reading what bob has been writing?

Well yes I am, have you read any of my responses?

He's told you why C-14 dates are wrong, according to him.

Yes, that is nothing new,. bob b has said as much previously.

And you just quote to him the C14 dates and tell him he's wrong.

Well yes, because he IS wrong.

He's told you why mamoths didn't live in arctic climates.

And I have told him that woolly mammoths DID live in arctic climates, I have provided many links, did you read any of them? Did you read any of my posts????????

And you just quote to him sites that say they did. If you want to prove him wrong, you should actually deal with the evidence he's presented.

I have, I dealt with each bit of evidence and dismantled it peice by peice.

For instance, if a wolly mamoth was found near a tiger, do you think tigers lived in the arctic also?

Was it a mammoth or a woolly mammoth? Oh, and tigers today live in very cold climates such as Siberia. Not only that, but the range of woolly mammoths wasn't limited to the arctic, clearly the two habitats overlapped, so what's the big deal about finding mammoths and tigers together?

If a wolly mamoth was found with plants from temperate regions in its stomach what does that tell us? Don't just link to a site and say, well this guy is smart and thinks you're wrong. You should actually deal with what bob says.

I have dealt with what Bob says, why don't you go back and read my posts, huh??????? I have clearly shown that bob b's arguments fall apart with the slightest scrutiny. As soon as I dismantle one of his arguments, he quickly ignores the clear refutation and changes the topic. Which I find rather silly considering this is his thread! :doh:

BillyBob · Dec 30, 2006

Sealeaf said:
The earliest record I know of regarding a frozen wooly mammoth was one found by Russian explorers either in the late 1800's or early 1900's. While I'm unsure of the date I am fairly sure it was pre soviet Russia. They cliamed that they did eat some of it with no ill effects.

Link?

Vern Reed · Dec 30, 2006

Did the mammoths migrate? I bet they did. I reckon they probably walked thousands of miles. So what if they ended up in Missouri. I bet they went all the way back again at some point. I doubt that they sat on their arses doing nowt all year.

I see the phrase Science Lover under Bob's moniker. I'd venture to modify it to New Fad Science Lover or Pseudo-Science Lover.

And let us not forget that we know naff all.

In fact, we try and compartmentalise so much of what is around us that we lose sight of the colour, variation and sheer enormity of the forces of nature and the world. We will never understand at least 99.9% of what's what in this universe, so stop putting everything in boxes and then arguing over which box is best. Everything we know is based on 'lies' in as much as we need to simplify everything to try and understand it whereas that simplicity is not evident at base levels. EVERYTHING IS COMPLEX :juggle:

BillyBob · Dec 30, 2006

Sealeaf said:
The earliest record I know of regarding a frozen wooly mammoth was one found by Russian explorers either in the late 1800's or early 1900's. While I'm unsure of the date I am fairly sure it was pre soviet Russia. They cliamed that they did eat some of it with no ill effects.

Adam's Mammoth was discovered in 1799.

I suspect the consumption of 'fresh' mammoth meat is closer to urban legend than fact.

bob b · Dec 30, 2006

Vern Reed said:
Did the mammoths migrate? I bet they did. I reckon they probably walked thousands of miles.

It is more likely that they took a cruise over the water. Which is probably how the seashells got there as well.

Sealeaf · Dec 30, 2006

having googled the eating of frozen mammoth I must say it appears I have repeated a myth. Explorers' dogs ate it but they did not. The meat of a similarly frozen bison was made into a stew by scientists in a lab after mounting the skin in their museum. Several persons ate it with no ill effects.

BillyBob · Dec 30, 2006

Sealeaf said:
having googled the eating of frozen mammoth I must say it appears I have repeated a myth. Explorers' dogs ate it but they did not.

That's what I came up with, too. :cheers:

BillyBob · Dec 31, 2006

bob b said:
It is more likely that they took a cruise over the water. Which is probably how the seashells got there as well.

Seashells?

Was that before water was wet?

bob b · Dec 31, 2006

BillyBob said:
I have dealt with what Bob says, why don't you go back and read my posts, huh??????? I have clearly shown that bob b's arguments fall apart with the slightest scrutiny.

Actually all you have done is post links where people give their opion or you make silly refutations like wooly mammoths have hair (implying that this shows they lived in a very cold climate that would be able to freeze them solid before decay set in).

As soon as I dismantle one of his arguments, he quickly ignores the clear refutation and changes the topic. Which I find rather silly considering this is his thread! :doh:

Since it should be obvious to any unbiased reader that your comments in no way "dismantled" my arguments, I see no point in "beating a dead horse" with a dogmatist such as you, so I simply go on with additional factors that might interest people who may be interested in finding out more about the great mystery surrounding the wooly mammoth extinction.

BillyBob · Dec 31, 2006

bob b said:
Actually all you have done is post links where people give their opion or you make silly refutations like wooly mammoths have hair (implying that this shows they lived in a very cold climate that would be able to freeze them solid before decay set in).

You sir, are a liar. Unfortunately for you, this thread serves as a record of our discourse and my allegations about your lies are substantiated.

Good Lord, if you are an example of a 'scientific creationist', it's no wonder people mock you and ignore your mindless ramblings as well as those of creationists in general.

Since it should be obvious to any unbiased reader that your comments in no way "dismantled" my arguments,

The only people who would agree with that ludicrous statement are in fact, biased.

I see no point in "beating a dead horse" with a dogmatist such as you,

That's because I have proven you to be dead wrong as well as a liar. Of course you are going to turn tail and run.

:dog:

so I simply go on with additional factors that might interest people who may be interested in finding out more about the great mystery surrounding the wooly mammoth extinction.

No, you will continue to post your biased, dopey, disproven, unscientific, pompous drivel [and lies] for those who are more interested in reinforcing their preconceptions than learning the truth.

bowhunter · Dec 31, 2006

BillyBob said:
You sir, are a liar. Unfortunately for you, this thread serves as a record of our discourse and my allegations about your lies are substantiated.

Good Lord, if you are an example of a 'scientific creationist', it's no wonder people mock you and ignore your mindless ramblings as well as those of creationists in general.

The only people who would agree with that ludicrous statement are in fact, biased.

That's because I have proven you to be dead wrong as well as a liar. Of course you are going to turn tail and run.

:dog:

No, you will continue to post your biased, dopey, disproven, unscientific, pompous drivel [and lies] for those who are more interested in reinforcing their preconceptions than learning the truth.

An example of the niceties that athiests constantly place to those who disagree with them.

BillyBob · Jan 1, 2007

bowhunter said:
An example of the niceties that athiests constantly place to those who disagree with them.

Bob b is a liar and your attempts to deflect that fact by bringing religion and false accusations into this [non-religious] discussion is proof that you are just like him.

[Psssst, I'm not an atheist.] :BillyBob:

The Mystery of the "Frozen Mammoths"

Science Lover

BANNED

BANNED

Science Lover

BANNED

Well-known member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

Science Lover

New member

BANNED

BANNED

Science Lover

BANNED

New member

BANNED