Evolutionists Barking Up Wrong Tree on Dog Fossil

We've seen before that when Darwinists have evidence that does not support their claims, they have been known to fudge it to pretend they have not been falsified. Way up yonder in Siberia, a dog fossil was found. What did they do? Made up another batch of fudge. (If anyone has a notion to make some for me, you should find a good recipe here.) So anyway...

Evolutionists disagree about the age of a dog fossil. Fudging the data (again) is not the answer.
Go on, pet it. You know you want to.
Credit: US National Park Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Evolutionary scientists obtained disagreeing dates about the Siberian dog fossil, so they did what we dread to hear from our car's GPS: "Recalculating". There are problems with the framework in which they interpret data. Using a biblical timeline with recent creation, the evidence falls into place.
DNA research identified a Siberian fossil as an ancient dog bone. But its radiocarbon date doesn't match the accepted evolutionary story for dog origins. The ease with which scientists revised the date of dog divergence from wolf-like ancestry shows that secular dating practices may be much more subjective than their proponents would care to admit.

The Swedish and American scientists who published their results in Current Biology had to explain why their new evolutionary age deserved to replace last year's evolutionary age for dog divergence. Both creation and evolution scientists agree that dogs descended from wolves, but they disagree about the timing. These new results show that evolutionists regularly disagree about timing within their own ranks, despite access to high-tech analyses.
To finish reading, fetch "Dog Fossil Study Shows Wobbly Dating Practice". Fangs a lot.