Beyond that, there are multiple dating systems that do not verify anything any more than they give any kind of accurate basis to judge a date on anything to begin with. When dating methods place skin on a beast 30k years apart from bone, that isn't substantiating anything, much less arguing for accuracy of the system.

Havoc is lying, and he knows it

A few days ago he made the same claim in this post on another thread:

"Nor can you account for how the sking of a beast could be dated 20k years apart from it's bones."

I responded by pointing out that he was quite mistaken:

"Sure I can, that's an easy one: THAT ISN'T TRUE EITHER. Creationist Kent Hovind was lying -- he falsely claimed that two different dates measured for TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS were from the same mammoth, when they were NOT."

The link was in my original response to him. It documents very thoroughly that Hovind's claim was false, by getting a copy of the source that Hovind *himself* cited in support of his claim, and quoting it to show that it SAID NO SUCH THING. The skin and the bones were dated to different eras, but that's no big surprise because they were FROM DIFFERENT FINDS -- not the same "beast" as Havoc falsely asserts.

And Havoc can't even claim to have not seen my exposure of his falsehoods, since he *responded* to it here at 12/20/2004 00:49:58 AM PST -- a few hours *before* he turned right around and made the same false claim *again* in this thread at 12/20/2004 4:18:07 AM PST in this post...

Havoc, would you care to explain why you're bearing false witness to your fellow Freepers?