The only factual nugget in the entire article is that the genome sequence of the woolly mammoth was closer to that of the Asian elephant than the African elephant.
The rest of it is the usual evolutionist speculation and spin sans factual content.
I found this statement intriguing (is radio carbon dating really THAT unrealiable?):
“Radiocarbon dating of the collagen in the tooth places its age at at least 50,000 years. But researchers have concluded, based on the dating of other material from the area, that the fossil may be as old as 130,000 years old.”
No, but by 50,000 years of age there isn't enough 14C left to accurately measure, therefore the carbon dating technique can only say that the sample is older that it can measure.
I have seen the creationists deliberately use this fact to misrepresent data, claiming that carbon dating is 'no good' because samples 'alleged' to be millions of years old are indistinguishable from samples 'alleged' to be billions of years old. And then going on to to assert (by a literal leap of faith) that this proves that the entire universe is 6000 years old.
I agree. Exactly my thoughts.
“Radiocarbon dating of the collagen in the tooth places its age at at least 50,000 years. But researchers have concluded, based on the dating of other material from the area, that the fossil may be as old as 130,000 years old.
Radiocarbon dating is quite reliable, if used within its limits.
One of those limits is that it only extends back some 50,000 years. A few labs are working to extend that to perhaps 80,000 years, but that is still experimental.
Thus, a date based on radiocarbon dating of some item which is actually 130,000 years old might be reported as >50,000 BP.
You really need to understand science, and the details, before you go bashing it.
Here are some good links on radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating. If you have any questions on radiocarbon dating, let me know.
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.