not-so-newsvt, I am not sure what you mean by "But that still leaves the question of the simple existence of the remains." Why can't there be remains that are only 6,000 years old?
The wooly mammoth example (as were all of them) just shows the inaccuracy of carbon dating. The 3 parts that were dated had such a huge spread (9k - 40k years) that how can you even count on the those numbers being correct, or even in the right ball park?
More info on carbon dating: Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. (Half-life) After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy.
I am just disputing a method of dating that evolutionists take as being proof of evolution.
