HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: potholer54

Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked

6817 ratings | 240557 views
This video was first posted a year ago on the Potholer54debunks channel. I will be bringing other videos over from that channel from time to time, to be placed in a new playlist of Golden Crocoduck nominees. But new videos will still be posted on Potholer54debunks first, and remain there until the danger of false flagging has passed. The reason for having two channels is that creationists have had frequently had science channels like mine shut down. If this happens to me, I want subscribers to have an alternative venue where my work can continue. Thanks to all my subscribers on both channels for your support. My apologies to those who have seen this video before and are having it imposed on them once again. My videos promoting science over belief in all fields will continue.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (2695)
nahshon (9 days ago)
Kent Hovind is always attacked by the evolutionists as being dumb, or uneducated. But Kent offered to go to any college and debate any professor, in any venue with any audience who wanted to attend. And he cleaned their clocks every time. Don't believe me though, go and watch some of his debates for yourselves. Eugenie Scott was so upset about this she advised professors not to debate Creationists anymore because they were losing every time. “Before you accept a debate, consider if what you are about to do will harm the cause more than promote it. Many scientists justify the debate by saying, "creationists will claim that scientists are afraid to debate them." So what? Who are they going to make the claim to? Their own supporters? A letter in the local newspaper that will be read by how many people, and remembered for how long? So to Eugenie evolution isn't a science, it is a cause that needs promoting. Not a science that needs proving. “If the alternative is to show that scientists are not afraid of creationists by having some poor scientist get beat up on the debating stage, are we better off?”
Anon (5 days ago)
You're defending a fraud for the sake of defending an ideology; creationism. Now if you have to defend a convicted fraud for the sake of an ideology, wouldn't that mean that ideology was never really good to begin with? An idea stands on its own merits, not the people who espouse them.
Joe Nooze (16 days ago)
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.
taroctg (20 days ago)
Hovind was a "science teacher" of Christian schools
itsasin1969 (12 days ago)
Nope,, he home schooled his kids. So that's how he can say he taught school.
John Armagh (17 days ago)
You mean Creationist schools. Mainstream Christians have no truck with his bullshit.
nahshon (22 days ago)
You want fraud? See if they still show the evolution of the whale! The evidence has been debunked by the finder of all the fossils supporting that theory. Yet the museums just hate to take down that forgery. Why? Because it supports their belief. And even though we humans do not have fossil evidence of any evolution. None. The fossil record is not a record of gradual change over time. Just as Dawkin, Darwin, Gould and others would be happy to tell you. The fossil evidence does no support gradualism. Does your Carnegie museum still show land animal to whale evolution? Let me know please. Never mind. They do refuse to take down their exhibits. Based on known errors in the fossils provided. Gingerich and Thewissen, his student, created all the history of the whale evolution. Both have said, on tape, that they were incorrect in their whale evolution fossils. Dr. Werner interviewed the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's leading museums including the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. Gingerich now admits that Rodhocetus had no flippers and no fluked tail (and certainly no blowhole), so what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated, and fully falsified, misinformation. Hear it, read the full press release, and see it for yourself below (rather than accepting the widespread Darwinist misinformation like about Rodhocetus from princeton.edu). These two scientists, Gingerich and Thewissen, his student, who have discovered the majority of supposed whale evolution fossils, have both admitted on video that the actual fossils do not show what they claimed they did show. Mistakes are fine but when mistakes are ignored because museums want to tell a narrative, that is bordering on fraud.
Paul T (22 days ago)
I would have liked this video, but apparently there's NO F***ING CARBON IN IT!
Barton Paul Levenson (24 days ago)
As a Pittsburgher I'm appalled at the fraud perpetrated on my beloved Carnegie Museum. I didn't know about this before. Thanks for pointing it out.
nahshon (22 days ago)
You want fraud? See if they still show the evolution of the whale! The evidence has been debunked by the finder of all the fossils supporting that theory. Yet the museums just hate to take down that forgery. Why? Because it supports their belief. And even though we humans do not have fossil evidence of any evolution. None. The fossil record is not a record of gradual change over time. Just as Dawkin, Darwin, Gould and others would be happy to tell you. The fossil evidence does no support gradualism. Does your Carnegie museum still show land animal to whale evolution? Let me know please. Never mind. They do refuse to take down their exhibits. Based on known errors in the fossils provided. Gingerich and Thewissen, his student, created all the history of the whale evolution. Both have said, on tape, that they were incorrect in their whale evolution fossils. Dr. Werner interviewed the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's leading museums including the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. Gingerich now admits that Rodhocetus had no flippers and no fluked tail (and certainly no blowhole), so what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated, and fully falsified, misinformation. Hear it, read the full press release, and see it for yourself below (rather than accepting the widespread Darwinist misinformation like about Rodhocetus from princeton.edu).
Andrew L. (27 days ago)
Hallelujah and thank the spaghetti monster for people like you who take the time and have the patience and passion to clear up the ignorance vomited by idiots that live among us.
Flying Dog (1 month ago)
Kent Hovind was a Prison Inmate for 10 years, is that when he was teaching a science class.
DavidHackGomez95 (1 month ago)
Wow this channel used to be much edgier. I honestly prefer the newer, more professional tone and delivery, but I definitely had to laugh at "...THERES NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT"
David Keenan (1 month ago)
Ah sure Peter's mellowed a tad over the years, but I truly enjoy revisiting some of his earlier work :-)
nahshon (1 month ago)
Boy oh boy, has this guy opened a can of worms. He claims that carbon dating works. Fine, lets go with that. In fact is does work to a point. But like all radiometric dating it can not be tested or observed past known history Now you have to explain how dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated. Carbon dating at most is good to about 60k years. Dinos died out supposedly 65my ago. How could they be carbon dated? Diamonds were supposedly formed over a billion years ago but they are also carbon datable. Oil and Coal are both carbon based and both are carbon datable. The problem is history is only about 6000 years old. Before that there is no eyewitness evidence so support any historical event. So which is it? Does carbon dating always work and the Earth is young? Or is carbon dating not that accurate and the Earth is young? Just another note. This guy is a liar. He states "The reason for having two channels is that creationists have had frequently had science channels like mine shut down." Completely false for these reasons. No creationist is going to get in the way of someone this misinformed. Creationists love to debate with atheistic evolutionists because we always win! That is why Eugenie Scott told college professor evolutionists (is there any other kind?) not to debate Creationists because they always win. Third, this is hardly science. This is just some guy trying to make a name by making straw man arguments and they tearing them down. No science is involved. Fourth,.looking at the level of these responses everyone here is the product of Americas public schools.
nahshon (4 days ago)
+Leafsdude Why would Ray accept an unobservable and unprovable and untestable, and unreapable, theory that goes against the proven word of God?
nahshon (4 days ago)
+baretta369 All living organisms have carbon in them. As do diamonds, coal, oil, and natural gas. All come from once living organisms. I do think that distant starlight is an indicator of an old universe. But, once again, we cannot observe the distant past to know how fast light was in the past. The bible states that God stretches out the heavens. But the actual observable and testable evidence points to a young Earth.
nahshon (9 days ago)
+baretta369 Rude and ignorant, great combination. Diamonds are made of carbon, so is oil and coal. We don't carbon date dino sores, (don't know where that came from) but we can carbon date soft tissue from dino fossils.
Leafsdude (10 days ago)
+nahshon "But if Ray decided to change his mind and accept evolution, then he would lose his audience." Yes, but he'd gain the audience of those that accept evolution, do you not agree?
baretta369 (12 days ago)
High School science teacher for only 15 years lol so that only took an associate's degree to teach in high school so basically you're looking at a high school kid with two years at a junior college and then he only held down his job at the high school for 15 years. He knows about as much about science as a gymnast knows about working on diesel engines
Mike McTighe (1 month ago)
THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!!!
LadyDoomsinger (1 month ago)
I want that for a bumper sticker... You know, if I had a car... Or a driving license…
Anthony Broussard (1 month ago)
😅
Why are all the comments here so recent?
Aj Meyers (22 days ago)
*"Why are all the comments here so recent?"* - My guess is the following: ph54 videos have a steady drip of viewers from fans of Crowder and Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard. Most of them are angry/tilted by the way ph54 has dealt with their gurus and are here to show their displeasure. Some others are critics of Heller/Goddard and Crowder who also became aware of this channel through debunks of Crowder and Heller's BS. There has also be a little surge in growth lately, so the YT algorithm has probably been pushing his videos out to more users.
Moonbat (29 days ago)
Potholer's comments default to "sort by new" for some reason, I've noticed this on all his videos. No idea why
royism (1 month ago)
they're not. People having watching and commenting for the last 9 years.
El Republicano (2 months ago)
According to science dinosaurs bones would have to be aleast 65 million years old, carbon dating doesn't go back that far so if someone were asked to date a dinosaur bone they would say it's "too old" to date. And if something were that old and fossilized that's why there wouldn't be any "fucking carbon in it." Because its supposedly TOO OLD!
Aj Meyers (22 days ago)
+El Republicano - *'see, even you are saying the dinosaur bone is "too old" to be carbon dated'* No, he's saying the dinosaur "bone" isn't bone.
El Republicano (24 days ago)
+Barton Paul Levenson You know you can tell whether a door is locked by trying to open it?... Fuckin Douche! Haha
Barton Paul Levenson (24 days ago)
+El Republicano That's what I'm implying, yes.
El Republicano (24 days ago)
+Barton Paul Levenson if you're implying that I don't know that then that's you making an assumption. And that's why you're a waste of time.
Barton Paul Levenson (24 days ago)
+El Republicano You can tell whether or not something has carbon in it by TESTING FOR CARBON. Crack a chemistry book.
Roland Lawrence (2 months ago)
this channel is gold :) as if there is a thing "christiananswers". even the pokemon pokedex is a more accurate.
David Myers (2 months ago)
in your very first minute of your video you lie about what he says about tree rings. Should I bother to listen to the rest of the video if you're going to lie about everything?
Aj Meyers (22 days ago)
#notallMeyers Edit: it's close enough to the spelling so I had to
Julius Dauksys (1 month ago)
+David Myers Bitch please. Even the christian scientist who found the bones said that it doesnt disprove evolution or the earth being old
Miszczu (1 month ago)
I'd be glad if you could tell us how to carbon date a sample that doesn't contain any carbon.
laserfan17 (1 month ago)
David Myers Evolution agenda? You need to grow the fuck up and actually do research, calling one of the pillar paradigms of Biology an “agenda” just shows how ignorant and brainwashed you are. Call me when your religion is backed by evidence and dozens of scientific disciplines, that means never.
Brandon Hamer (2 months ago)
​+David Myers You are correct, as far as sometimes trees grow multiple/poorly separated rings. But this is exactly what is taken into account for calibrating dendrochronology. Calibration of radiometric dating means understanding (from observation of known samples) how much carbon-14 (or other radioisotopes) are present in new material from a given time, this allows calibration curves to be drawn (look them up if you want - they are interesting, as they show which periods have greater and lesser confidence/accuracy). The issue though is that the fundamental physics of isotope half-life is something that doesn't change over time as it relies on fundamental sub-atomic forces and not wind direction, soil moisture or other outside factors. This is all complex, but calibration against known age samples has calibrated these dating techniques to be *accurate*. No-one would argue them to be *precise* though as they rely on statistics, which is why date ranges are given for such objects. Calling the evidence an agenda doesn't make the evidence change. Science doesn't care what the truth is; it just endeavours to find out. If you research the science behind the techniques and read from places other than creationist sources, you'd probably understand all this. As an ex-creationist, I sincerely wish you well on your quest.
Simon Randall (2 months ago)
Humans have discovered electricity, invented the internet, rockets to the moon, airplanes, giant ships, subs to the bottom of oceans, nuclear power, cars, trains, anti-biotics, modern medicine that fights cancer, diabetes, MRIs, genetics, transplants.....but we just cant seem to be able to correctly determine how old rocks are???
Jack Hanson (1 month ago)
+nahshon https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/radiodating_01 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
nahshon (1 month ago)
+Jack Hanson Well, how did they date the sedimentary rocks? I am asking because you can't date sedimentary rocks.
Jack Hanson (1 month ago)
We can date rocks just fine. My father is a geologist, I’ve been taken to the sedimentations and see the fossils in the rocks on the beach. We can do just fine, promise.
nahshon (1 month ago)
Really? All your examples are observable and testable science. And that is what you compare to rocks supposed to be billions of years old? You are not able to tell the difference? One is science and one is a beleif.
originalCN4 (3 months ago)
Ok, gave this video a couple of minutes, then they tried to say that a seal (mammal......which breaths air which consequently has said c14 molecules in it) has less carbon in it somehow thereby gives erroneous readings due to its surroundings. You can choose to not believe in God and creation, fine....harder to believe in evolution anyway due to the complexity in life as it exists anyway.....eventually you will catch up to reason.
Simón Dellepiane (18 minutes ago)
+nahshon I won't explain your fairies to you. I am amazed that I have to say this, but READ YOUR HOLY BOOK. I literally quoted it before. The firmament CAN'T simultaneously be the land AND the heavens. The firmament is ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, the HEAVENS. I already knew this as I read the bible on my native tongue, where the word "firmamento" is used, litteraly "Heaven" As to the rest of your petty attemp at psychology, I won't even bother to answer, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand Again, I don't hate God, as I don't hate Allah, or Ahura Mazda or Vishnu, I hate that people (be it consciously or not) misrepresent science to make it fit their religious narrative. You have only used a single tired and repeated argument, an argument from authority. When I signalled that to you, you just repeated it. Then when we were to discuss scripture you refused (or were unable) to read your own fables, and instead you began to make assertions in direct contradiction with your holy book. And now just an amateurish attemp at psychology totally off-topic, asking me why I am angry at your god. At least get a consistent narrative.
nahshon (40 minutes ago)
+Simón Dellepiane Why can't the firmament be the land? Maybe you could be a little clearer in your writing. Besides the many observable facts that there was a global flood. I can always tell when the person I am discussing with is losing the argument, they start calling me names. If you hate God that is your problem, not mine. If you don't want to believe in God despite the observable and testable evidence that is your choice. But you will meet Him one day. When I hear you speak I can tell you really have no clue to why over a billion people know a personal God yet you, who apparently thinks she knows everything, can't figure out why. Think you might be missing something? It is worth looking in to. Yeah you hate quite a lot of things. College student? Where do your parents live? Kids?
Simón Dellepiane (2 days ago)
+nahshon I don't hate non-existent beings, I hate the morons who try to force everybody else to pretend that they exist. The religious always think that people not buying their bullshit means that their are angry at their fairies for some reason.
Simón Dellepiane (2 days ago)
+nahshon As far as I know science was not invented by semitic shepherds from the bronze age. I cited genesis, and if you care to read using at least two neurons you will see that the firmament can't be the land, as you assert.
nahshon (3 days ago)
+Simón Dellepiane You quoted what "firmament" meant in the bible? I must have missed it. Could you repeat what you think firmament means? The leader of the flat earth society is an atheist. The bible is not a science book but whenever the bible touches on science it is always correct. And it was correct thousands of years before us brilliant humans figured it out.. As to some notion of "primitive" people. Those people in that age were doing stuff we couldn't do today. They invented science. We accumulate science over time, but we are not smarter by any means. God said He would prove himself true in the bible by fulfilled prophecy. And He did. Are you afraid of what the bible says? That Jesus died for your sins so that you could live? Why does the truth bother you so much? Why do you hate God so much?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (3 months ago)
Now, I am a YEC, I believe radiocarbon does work, outside reservoir effect, and I also believe radiocarbon is routinely calibrated to account for diverse amounts of carbon 14 in atmosphere in comparison to carbon 12. HOWEVER, I also do believe that a young earth creationist calibration can be done and I have actually made several attempts at such. For Biblical timeline, I use the one of Roman Martyrology (Creation 5199 BC, Flood 2957 BC, Abraham born 2015 BC, Exodus 1510 BC). Next question is, how did carbon levels rise during this period? With Mark Armitage's work (which you haven't looked at, you prefer an old story where shellac can be blamed), dinos from what I now think is early post-Flood times (his would be from Morrisson and Hell Creek formations, mainly), date to sth like 26 000 - 20 000 BC or 28 000 to 22 000 BP. Why do I think carbon date for 2957 BC is earlier? Bc last Neanderthal skeleta seem to be carbon dated to 40 000 BP. Now, Australia has been reached, they say, 60 000 BP - except, that is not a carbon date, that is a thermoluminiscence date. The carbon dates for Mungo man or Mungo woman are compatible for my calibration of post-Flood still times of Noah. Other discrepancy, a French author claimed a cave in Greece, Asprochaliko, had been dated to 45 000 to 8 000 BP. 1) Same cave could have been used both pre- and post-Flood; 2) It could be thermoluminiscence, not carbon 3) Or, since it is a marine cave, earliest remnant could have been dated older due to reservoir effect. I am not yet clear which. Either way, the general idea is like this: http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/new-scan-for-carbon-curves.html Which as you can see, is a very far cry from "carbon dating doesn't work".
Hans-Georg Lundahl (3 months ago)
5:36 The problem with your reasoning here is, you are presuming everything dino or sth like that is completely permineralised. Not true if you saw up dino bones like Armitage did.
Leafsdude (25 days ago)
+Hans-Georg Lundahl "No, I don't. 1) Bone as such looks different from fossilised bone." Here's a mammoth femur (not fossilized): http://virtuelnimuzejdunava.rs/upload/images/items/Kenozoik/Mammuthus-primigenius-butna-kost-Dunav-1600.jpg Here's a tyrannosaurus femur (fossilized): http://www.baystatereplicas2.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DINO_TREX_FEMUR_RAY716D.jpg Can you point out the difference in "looks" for me? "2) Soft tissue (like marrow) looks very different from it. And I mean of course, not soft tissue formerly such which has permineralised, but soft tissue preserved as soft tissue." Looks different from what? "While that is so, the pmC value is the value of the ratio C14 to C12 expressed in percent of the ratio in the modern atmosphere." Sure. Note that "modern atmosphere" is 1950 levels. Regardless, pmC is a calibration measurement, not an actual product of carbon dating. That is, pmC is used as a test for known values to properly calibrate carbon dating methods themselves so they return accurate dates. When actually dating a specimen of unknown dates, pmC is not used; in that case, C13 and C12 levels are used in comparison to C14. "Look up other videos on his channel." Again, carbon dating is much too complex process to show in a video, unless it's absurdly long. There's no way he has a video that could show him carbon dating the specific specimen in question. What he needs is a scientific paper detailing the process of carbon dating he partook in, the results of those processes and independent papers by independent researchers replicating those processes with samples from his specimens that come to the same conclusions. That is how science works. Not via youtube videos. "He has that, unless some of them have been forced to be taken down. It's 9:53 in the morning, I was awake between 4:30 and 5:30 about and woke again a bit after 7, so, I am not in a mood to search out each of these points in the separate videos." Alright. Then i'm calling bullshit until you do. Feel free to prove me wrong whenever the times suit you better. "Come on, historical objects are dated without doing too much damage and there is accelerater mass spectrometry to get precise values from small extracts." I made no implication about damage. In fact, I entirely agree that carbon extracts don't result in damage to specimens, precisely because carbon measurements are usually taken without actually physically removing any carbon. The "large extracts" was referring to the need to measure large amounts of carbon and their isotopic readings to make sure results were statistically viable. "By now, on dinosaurs, the criterium has been fulfilled" Huh? Please clarify what you mean. When you do, please note that any proper method that involves statistical analysis, such as any dating method, multiple measurements and samples to remove the potential for anomalies and errors are required, regardless of how well-understood a process is. In fact, this multi-sample/multi-measurement process is itself a well-understood process in mathematics that cannot and will never be limited by the comprehensive nature of a method. "we uniformly when carbon dating have not found a dino bone lacking carbon 14." As above, please clarify your statement here. "For Hawaii eruption, one of the four parts on this video series, probably 1 or 2:" Once again, youtube is not a citation. Can you provide me with a reliable citation? "Because the other explanation, that there was a different amount of time, is not only contrary to Scriptures, but based on a theorem never proven and even disproved at Mt St Helens, that excess argon is not captured when lava cools." Why is something running "contrary to Scriptures" relevant? "Now, the source I cited happens to be both a Geologist and an Australian. His name is Tas Walker, and here is his work:" Why should I accept such a blatantly flawed source? "As he is a Young Earth Creationist, he cannot in good conscience claim he expects anything to be either millions or several ten thousands years old." Why not? Are you implicitly implying that he has a necessary bias that he can never accept as wrong regardless of the evidence? Ie: that he's close-minded? "No, they can also be replicated if the process is unsound on a level that will not show in the tests they chose to make or take into account (as you mentioned "anomaly" they have an alibi when not taking sth into account)." Not consistently, they cannot. The likelihood that an unsound method would result in multiple replicated results is so absurdly low as to not even be worth considering, because it'd be, by definition, random results. It'd be like taking 2 evenly weighted dice and getting snake eyes 20 times in a row. It's just not going to happen.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 month ago)
+Leafsdude Found the video, it's part 2, and at 7:15 he's discussing the volcano, check in at 7:00 and you'll see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30&t=433s
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 month ago)
+Leafsdude _"I was going more for the technical answer: how do you detect bone or soft tissue and differentiate it from minerals. I mean, you agree you can't just look at the samples and base it on that alone, correct?"_ No, I don't. 1) Bone as such looks different from fossilised bone. 2) Soft tissue (like marrow) looks very different from it. And I mean of course, not soft tissue formerly such which has permineralised, but soft tissue preserved as soft tissue. _"C12 is the more abundant isotope, but since C12 and C13 are both stable (as in, they don't decay), both are measured in carbon dating."_ While that is so, the pmC value is the value of the ratio C14 to C12 expressed in percent of the ratio in the modern atmosphere. C13 is, as far as I can see, used as a checkup. _"My point is, even if that's proven, it doesn't prove his conclusions are based on any factual data. He hasn't done the carbon dating, he hasn't shown any C14 measurements, he hasn't shown that there's any premineralized soft tissues. Until he has, that video is entirely irrelevant."_ Look up other videos on his channel. He has that, unless some of them have been forced to be taken down. It's 9:53 in the morning, I was awake between 4:30 and 5:30 about and woke again a bit after 7, so, I am not in a mood to search out each of these points in the separate videos. _"a) the need for a significant amount of carbon extract,"_ Come on, historical objects are dated without doing too much damage and there is accelerater mass spectrometry to get precise values from small extracts. And taking a sufficient amount is not done by taking one micrometer cubed at a time with significant time lapse between. _"b) the need to run multiple measurements to rule out statistical anomalies and errors?"_ By now, on dinosaurs, the criterium has been fulfilled, we uniformly when carbon dating have not found a dino bone lacking carbon 14. For Hawaii eruption, one of the four parts on this video series, probably 1 or 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJGairhrPGc _"Wait, what? Why is that the safest conclusion?"_ Because the other explanation, that there was a different amount of time, is not only contrary to Scriptures, but based on a theorem never proven and even disproved at Mt St Helens, that excess argon is not captured when lava cools. _"The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years.3 This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia."_ _"But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years."_ In my view of a rising carbon level, the charcoal is older simply because it's from trees that are in average a few decades older than the human tissue. Now, the source goes on: _"The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence, see Dating methods) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years."_ Now, the source I cited happens to be both a Geologist and an Australian. His name is Tas Walker, and here is his work: https://creation.com/the-dating-game _"Did he? Do you have a source for this claim?"_ Look up the video where he is claiming conventional labs have made it impossible for him to repeat, since they now routinely ask "what is the expected age". As he is a Young Earth Creationist, he cannot in good conscience claim he expects anything to be either millions or several ten thousands years old. I proposed as a solution he check with the lab where they ask what _carbon date_ he expects, and fill in 20 - 40 000 BP. That's a ball park fairly recurrent in carbon dated dinosaurs, and we can anyway consider "carbon date" as a short hand for the C14 ratio, and therefore as not in conflict with an actual date being considerably younger, due to a rising carbon 14 level. _"Science is about replication, the process of which is to remove "incompetence" because experiments can only be replicated if the process is sound."_ No, they can also be replicated if the process is unsound on a level that will not show in the tests they chose to make or take into account (as you mentioned "anomaly" they have an alibi when not taking sth into account).
Leafsdude (1 month ago)
+Hans-Georg Lundahl "By what should be bone or soft tissue being instead some mineral, I suppose?" I was going more for the technical answer: how do you detect bone or soft tissue and differentiate it from minerals. I mean, you agree you can't just look at the samples and base it on that alone, correct? "Normally simply to Carbon 12 since it is the normal isotope." C12 is the more abundant isotope, but since C12 and C13 are both stable (as in, they don't decay), both are measured in carbon dating. "The point is, he showed extraction process was not risking contamination." Sure. That only proves there's no contamination. And, not being an expert, I can't even say that for sure based on a video. *My* point is, even if that's proven, it doesn't prove his conclusions are based on any factual data. He hasn't done the carbon dating, he hasn't shown any C14 measurements, he hasn't shown that there's any premineralized soft tissues. Until he has, that video is entirely irrelevant. "That sounds like BS to me" Why? "it takes: extracting carbon from non-carbon (for instance like burning to charcoal and then burning that in pure oxygen to get all the carbon in gas form) having a devise which can in gas detect the difference of carbon 14 from carbon 12. " And how long do you think those processes, done correctly, take, keeping in mind a) the need for a significant amount of carbon extract, and b) the need to run multiple measurements to rule out statistical anomalies and errors? "The volcanic eruption on Hawaii in 19th C, lava which solidified in the air has a ballpark where "recent" is an option" [Citation Needed] "If you have a potassium argon date which says 400,000 years and another says 2,000,000 years, safest conclusion is waters of the Flood were cooler and cooling the lava quicker at the latter point" Wait, what? Why is that the safest conclusion? "Mungo man was carbon dated to c. 20,000 BP but the retained date of 40,000 is a non-carbon method." [Citation Needed] "I'm sorry, but what needs to be replicated is simply sending dino non-permineralised materials for carbon dating. Simple as that." Sure. Has he done that? Keep in mind that to do that he has to a) prove it's "non-permineralised [sic]" and b) actually carbon date it. "Since he didn't do the carbon dating himself, he sent to conventional labs" Did he? Do you have a source for this claim? "he point is that these are now blocking any replication by asking someone to fill in "expected date"." How's that? On both ends. How is being blocked, and how is anyone filling in "expected date", whatever that is. "Being an accredited scientist does not preclude incompetence in evolution believing scientists either." Sure. I've never argued otherwise. Science is about replication, the process of which is to remove "incompetence" because experiments can only be replicated if the process is sound. "Especially not if they confirm each other in that." Why not?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 month ago)
+Leafsdude _"How do you think mineralization is shown, exactly?"_ By what should be bone or soft tissue being instead some mineral, I suppose? _"Agreed, because there would be no carbon dates to come to because the whole point of carbon dating is to measure C14 and compare it to C12 & C13 levels."_ Normally simply to Carbon 12 since it is the normal isotope. _"And if he wants to show there is C14 in the sample, a youtube video will not do that."_ The point is, he showed extraction process was not risking contamination. The other point is, he has showed documents from institutions that did carbon dating in the methods prescribed. _"Like, literally, thousands of hours long. Because you're not measuring C14 in a couple hours, let alone 10 minutes."_ That sounds like BS to me, it takes: * extracting carbon from non-carbon (for instance like burning to charcoal and then burning that in pure oxygen to get all the carbon in gas form) * having a devise which can in gas detect the difference of carbon 14 from carbon 12. I look up the apparatus used: Accelerator Mass Spectrometer = seems to be the devise I was thinking of. // Gas proportional counting is a conventional radiometric dating technique that counts the beta particles emitted by a given sample. Beta particles are products of radiocarbon decay. In this method, the carbon sample is first converted to carbon dioxide gas before measurement in gas proportional counters takes place. Liquid scintillation counting is another radiocarbon dating technique that was popular in the 1960s. In this method, the sample is in liquid form and a scintillator is added. This scintillator produces a flash of light when it interacts with a beta particle. A vial with a sample is passed between two photomultipliers, and only when both devices register the flash of light that a count is made. Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is a modern radiocarbon dating method that is considered to be the more efficient way to measure radiocarbon content of a sample. In this method, the carbon 14 content is directly measured relative to the carbon 12 and carbon 13 present. The method does not count beta particles but the number of carbon atoms present in the sample and the proportion of the isotopes. // https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm _"[Citation Needed]"_ The volcanic eruption on Hawaii in 19th C, lava which solidified in the air has a ballpark where "recent" is an option, but lava that solidified in sea water, therefore faster, trapping more extra argon, has a definitely older measure. If you have a potassium argon date which says 400,000 years and another says 2,000,000 years, safest conclusion is waters of the Flood were cooler and cooling the lava quicker at the latter point, and lava solidified so quickly presumably is from the time of Noah. Mungo man was carbon dated to c. 20,000 BP but the retained date of 40,000 is a non-carbon method. _"Highly disagree, because if he publishes a peer-reviewed paper, with his full setup stated in detail, then his experiments can be replicated and the results can be compared."_ I'm sorry, but what needs to be replicated is simply sending dino non-permineralised materials for carbon dating. Simple as that. Since he didn't do the carbon dating himself, he sent to conventional labs, the point is that these are now blocking any replication by asking someone to fill in "expected date". Being an accredited scientist does not preclude incompetence in evolution believing scientists either. Especially not if they confirm each other in that.
K Clark (4 months ago)
I’ll never understand evolutionists. The physical proofs for scripture aren’t haven’t stopped being discovered. You can go to the remains of sodom and Gamorrah and see the outlines of ashen structures and walls. We even have fossilized biblical giants found and even giant human bones which fills explains the fall of man and the book of Enoch. The question is, how much longer will people put their trust in jesuits, Freemasons, knights templar, skull and bones, Nazis and Rosicrucians etc who are the only ones pushing this meaningless world, no creator agenda
DrCrispycross (1 month ago)
@Ho Hum, perhaps they need concrete proof because they are worried that they don’t have enough faith?
Ho Hum (1 month ago)
+Micah Villasana All you need to do is provide clear evidence. The hearsay of footprints is not evidence in any meaningful sense. Sure lots of cultures have legends about floods but where is the evidence of one that covered the whole world to a height of 5 miles. In fact, there's oodles of evidence that it did not happen. The thing I don't understand about religionists is why they get so hung up on the little details. Just because a holy book got something wrong doesn't mean their god doesn't exist.
Micah Villasana (1 month ago)
There were human footprints inside dinosaur footprints in Texas ( don't remember where) up until a few years ago when someone destroyed them. I saw an interview where a creationist alleged that after a debate with an evolutionist the creationist believes the evolutionist destroyed the imprints. So, right now you have eye witnesses but what happens when these witnesses die out? Evolutionist will call any reference to this a hoax. Eyewitness reports is all we have of the giant skeletons but they're dismissed by evolutionist because they can no longer be found. Multiple cultures around the world make reference to Giants as well as the global flood but all are discounted and the evidence vanishes or is denied by evolutionist. I just want the truth. Let the facts point us to the truth. Let's debate and get to the bottom of this.
Ho Hum (1 month ago)
"We even have fossilized biblical giants found" Can you provide a citation to a peer reviewed paper, please? This sounds like something really worth reading. Thank you
bac (1 month ago)
+K Clark Hail Sobek!
K Clark (4 months ago)
We have Freemasons who come out and say evolution is a lie. The own creators of the lie telling you it is a lie, and people still believe it. How much longer are we going to ignore that these are the same satanists who attend grand elite orgy balls and sacrifice children before Baal at the bohemian grove
Simón Dellepiane (1 month ago)
Your paranoia is quite amusing.
Joseph Grant (1 month ago)
Wow you’re deluded. Anyone that claims that evolution is a lie just doesn’t have an understanding of biology. It’s not a hard concept to grasp, things change over time to adapt to their environment. It’s a fact, unlike god or satan which have no evidence of existing.
Ric Rovey (4 months ago)
Evolution is a religion for people that like being lied to. I'm not stupid enough to believe in evolution
Simón Dellepiane (1 month ago)
+Ric Rovey I honestly feel bad for you. You could try to study instead of believing nonsense presumably for the sake of tradition. Still, not all people wish to know reality, some find ignorance a rather comfortable cave to dwell.
Ric Rovey (1 month ago)
+Joseph Grant At least I'm not stupid like ewe 🐏 are
Joseph Grant (1 month ago)
Ric Rovey that’s like someone calling you an insane psychotic sociopath, but then claiming that they’re just “pointing it out” not calling you that.
Ric Rovey (1 month ago)
+DeepCFisherman I'm just pointing it out. Don't shoot 🔫 the messenger. That's not name calling
DeepCFisherman (1 month ago)
+Ric Rovey that you dont see that as name calling is telling
Yaldabaoth (4 months ago)
title - DEBUNKED = WTF!?
Patrick Allen (5 months ago)
Carbon dating doesn't work. I dated Carbon once, but it didn't last long.
Unondwayza Uyashinga (5 months ago)
Is Hovind the dumbest or just the dumbest?
Greg Moonen (5 months ago)
Radiocarbon dating has improved in accuracy in the last thirty or forty years. It used to take several grams of a sample to get the accuracy that can be had with a mere one gram sample today, thanks to improvement in the technology.
Greg Moonen (5 months ago)
Anti-science people will always jump on an anomalous finding and use it as an excuse to say that all science is wrong.
Tim Downey (5 months ago)
Big Jerre: “Here’s a little article.....from, uh, an article.” Is this guy even smart enough to zip his own fucking pants?
Tim Downey (5 months ago)
Creationists are lying on a Trumpian scale. Obviously, they never heard of their precious Ninth Commandment. Or, there’s some magic codicil that allows lies to be used when “God’s Holy Word” is demonstrated to be entirely false.
MrAbletospeak (5 months ago)
I am glad that idiot never taught me.
Ian (6 months ago)
Does he sit around, looking at scientific studies and wondering, “How can I use this to disprove science?”
Ian (5 months ago)
+Aj Meyers Fair enough.
Aj Meyers (5 months ago)
@Ian - I agree, but I think you're crediting him with a bit more honesty than he deserves. I'm sure he thinks 'how can I _misuse_ this to disprove science?'
J. M. (6 months ago)
You are wrong.  there the link to prove you are wrong.
J. M. (6 months ago)
More dinosaur bones yield traces of blood, soft tissue ...https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones
potholer54 (6 months ago)
You have a lot of catching up to do. See my video "Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked." Have fun!
nibblebaby (6 months ago)
Not trolling here, but I was always under the impression that carbon dating is not very accurate. Does anyone have any peer reviewed sources to show accuracy of carbon dating? Thanks..
J. M. (6 months ago)
Sorry Carbon dating  is found to be False.   They have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. So if they were millions of years old there would be no bones or extremely hard Rock.
Aj Meyers (5 months ago)
+J. M. - Welcome to the channel J.M., where myths about science come to die. Stay around and have a watch of the videos in the playlist: they're very informative and very entertaining. After watching I'm sure you'll be glad you did. Cheers!
potholer54 (6 months ago)
"you called me a liar." Actually what I wrote was "No they didn't." In order to be a liar you would have to have read a scientific paper on this subject and deliberately misrepresented it, and it's pretty obvious you're not smart enough to do that. The material found was described as "Demineralized fragments of endosteally derived tissues" and "soft-tissue structures." More commonly it is referred to "remnant soft tissue." "You can look it up for your self." I already have -- I read the original paper back in 2005. If you are referring to the later 2009 sample, that is described as "soft-tissue replacement structures." So I am still waiting for you to cite a study that has found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone. I look forward to it, because it will be a very exciting development in paleontology if true. p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 8.5px Helvetica}
J. M. (6 months ago)
So Now that you called me a liar. You can look it up for your self.  YES THEY DID. .
J. M. (6 months ago)
More dinosaur bones yield traces of blood, soft tissue ...https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones
potholer54 (6 months ago)
"They have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. " No they didn't. If you think they did, just give a source -- other than some creationist blog you read this on.
jinxy72able (6 months ago)
I wonder how many religious artifacts that Christians try to use to support their positions were dated using carbon dating? Seems to me that if the carbon dating gives a date that agrees with something the christian already believes, then they don't complain about it at all. It is only when carbon dating doesn't support their already held conclusion/s is when they have a problem with it.
James Downard (7 months ago)
Your video was brought to my attention as something to watch after my recent debate with Kent Hovind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1JRnnOl27Y, and I'm glad I took a look. I've been following Hovind's hijinks for some years in the course of my TIP "Troubles in Paradise: The Methodology of Creationism" project www.tirtucan.wordpress.com, but naturally with so many videos spewed from him over the decades, there's much that gets missed. I'm filling your info on the Miller matter and such into my TIP data field. I'll note that post-slammer Hovind is as addicted to bad secondary source addiction today as he was when the video you dealt with was made. One may note that Hovind even misspelled Keith's name as "Kieth". In one of my recent Evolution Hours I took note of Hovind's shameless cribbing (in 2018!) of a very dated 2003 posting by Turkish creationist Harun Yahya (!) on Alan Feduccia and bird evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCDaESCflCM (links to all the relevant skivvy in the video description) and hit Hovind with this in my debate with him. He did not look pleased.
TheTaterTotP80 (7 months ago)
You have a good voice. Ever thought of doing voice acting?
Lagunacool (7 months ago)
I wonder if Big Jerry is still alive. His obesity might have precipitated some very serious health issues by now. Oh--I almost forgot--"there's no fooking carbon in it!"
DavidFMayerPhD (8 months ago)
He is "Lying for Christ", expressing by his actions that any mendacious and reprehensible procedure that brings people to HIS literalist version of Christianity. See: http://www.darwinarkivet.dk/en/debate/religion/lying-for-jesus/index.html It is ok to lie for Jesus? Is it acceptable to lie for your beliefs? Are you allowed to be dishonest, intentionally mislead others, and cheat and deceive when acting in the name of religion? A group of Christian creationists say yes. The end justifies the means. When you lie for Jesus, you work for God. From an outside point of view, this sounds more like Machiavelli’s The Prince than The New Testament. New creationist documentary Several of my colleagues had quite a shock when they were contacted by a representative from the British Science Association in 2009. They were asked why in the world they had agreed to participate in a creationist propaganda film. Quite a few of us had participated in various media contexts in connection with the Darwin Year in 2009. It is difficult to remember all of them. But no one could recall having represented themselves as creationists. Meanwhile, that was exactly what the people behind the Australian production company Fathom Media was. Under the pretext of making a historical documentary, the unsuspecting scientists were lured to do interviews which subsequently were conveniently edited into a portrayal of Darwin as a well intentioned but unreliable scientist and the theory of evolution as a scientific aberration. Here, the statements made by the scientists of evolution were taken out of context and edited in with the statements of creationist experts in the same serious interview setup making it look like an equal and balanced discussion. However, that is not the case and you should not be fooled. The production company deliberately covered up the intention of their interviews with scientists and historians of evolution. They have openly admitted to doing so, afterwards of course. The intension was that they wanted an “open discussion” that was not coloured by “prejudice” against Christian creationism. The contract they had with the scientists was airtight. The only possibility of interfering was through the courts. The idea of an “open discussion” is nothing more that an empty postulate. The creationist “experts” who were interviewed were well aware of the situation. One of them is even the mastermind behind the project and all of them belong to the global and financially powerful creationist movement Creation Ministries International. Huge budget and great production With a budget of over a million dollars, The Voyage that Shook the World financially blew the majority of even the largest productions produced for the Darwin Year out of the water. The result was an incredible documentary; technically superior and with fantastic nature shots from well chosen locations, a ship resembling the Beagle, a visit to the Galapagos Islands, and a crew of well casted locals from Tasmania in a historical dramatisation of Darwin’s childhood, adolescence, and adult life. In the midst of all this, scientists of evolution appear and are the unsuspecting extras in a big creationist puppet show which is acted out quite cleverly. Contrary to most creationist material produced, the documentary is not meant to educate or enlighten the already converted i.e. those loyal to the Bible. No, the target group is the nonbelievers, the big secular audience. They are now to be convinced that there IS an actual controversy, that there IS a struggle between equal world views which has profound consequences for how we live our lives as well as for our morals and our relationships with others. They are to be convinced of the conflict. International creationist movement In this context, Darwin is not unequivocally a bad guy. However, there is no doubt that he was wrong and that the entire modern theory of evolution rests on a foundation of incorrect research results and leads to bad behaviour. The problem is that both the process of making and editing the documentary is filled with deceit, inaccuracies, and the manipulation of statements and material as well as historical and scientific facts. However, that is insignificant according to the people behind the cobweb of the production company Fathom Media, the creationist distribution company Con Dios Entertainment and the confederation Creation Ministries International which is founded in Australia but has a substantial global network. In fact, the dishonesty is justified as long as it is in the “name of a good cause”. This phenomenon is now being discussed under the expression “lying for Jesus”. The secrecy concerning the actual purpose of the documentary and the array of lies gave the crew access to the collections of Darwin’s works, his old dormitory room, and the dining hall with the glass mosaic at Christ’s College in Cambridge. Here, some are left behind embarrassed as well. But that does not concern the creationists. Because lying is allowed. It is not a new concept or something reserved for the wealthy Australian creationists behind The Voyage that Shook the World. American creationists have done this for nearly 100 years and in Europe comprehensive creationist manipulation is seen everywhere today. What do you think? Is it ok? Is it ok to take advantage of well meaning and unsuspecting scientists under false pretences? Is it ok to intentionally misrepresent the discussion and falsify evidence? Is it ok to deceive your target audience? Is it ok to lie for Jesus? Peter C. Kjærgaard
ndrthrdr1 (8 months ago)
I love this channel. Thanks, potholer. BTW --- 222,197 views.
Wooksley (8 months ago)
This is just YouTube debunking classic. Awesome job.
Mark Williams (8 months ago)
Carbon dating is only accurate to around 5,500 years. After that it's all guess work!!!!
Joseph Grant (1 month ago)
Mark Williams you don’t understand science enough to claim that others don’t understand it. A theory in science is not the same as a theory in literature. The scientific definition of a theory is, the best possible explanation for a law supported by facts and evidence. In other words, theory doesn’t mean “we’re just guessing,” it means “this is the factual explanation for this specific law.”
ndrthrdr1 (8 months ago)
Trying to get as much money out of other peoples' pockets and into his own as he can shows that he is a greedy, selfish prick who will rip you off for as much as he can get. He inherited his money, and lost most of it. Remember Trump "University"? It wasn't even a university. It was a scam. His business failed, just like his casinos, his vodka business, his board game, his "premium" steaks, two marriages ... Of course, anyone gullible enough to fall for religious superstition is easily suckered in by the orange con man.
Mark Williams (8 months ago)
We invented science, we own the damned thing. We instituted universities, schools, hospitals and colleges. You low life scum hijacked our science and bastardized it. You Pagan scum don't know the first thing about science, all you have is flawed theories and nothing of any substance.
Mark Williams (8 months ago)
Actually Trump supporters are very successful people like the great man himself is. He is an inspiration to us all to make as much money as we can, we are all doing very well with a mentor like that. All of you low life trailer trash losers, are jealous of us successful people. We rule the world and we feed you like hungry homeless dogs. We should just let you starve because you don't deserve to live.
ndrthrdr1 (8 months ago)
So you don't buy into these scientific theories? How about the Theory of Gravity? Gravity isn't real? How about Germ Theory? Germs aren't causing diseases? It's really a wizard cursing people? How about the Theory of Planetary Motion? Are they not moving? Is your wizard constantly moving them around? Why is science scary and confusing for you only when it reveals that your religion = superstition?
Lisa For Truth (8 months ago)
You can't carbon date living shit. Kent KNOWS this!
TooTall Tim (9 months ago)
Hovind, like most of these religious nuts, is just preying on simpletons and confirming that their lifelong indoctrination in religion wasn't a total sham. Keep tithing, geniuses.
Clay Miller (9 months ago)
Dude at the end looks like a goddamn big toe
Jasen Ericksen (10 months ago)
doesn't a volcano mess up how much carbon is in the air?  can you manipulate carbon dating too?  that's cool.
davidbchandler (10 months ago)
Another thank you, potholer. I've enjoyed your videos for some time now, and this is a particular favorite. "There's no f****** carbon in it" is perfect. ("Febrile nitwits" in another video ranks pretty high as well.) You're fighting a losing battle, of course, but please keep it up.
The Mad Titan (10 months ago)
But Hovind also made a claim about carbon dating giving different dates for the same mammoth.. How is that possible? I mean weren't mammoths less than 60,000 years old? They should have enough carbon for dating to work, isn't it?
The Mad Titan (10 months ago)
potholer54 sorry if I confused you with my previous statement. I meant to write "I don't see why scientists WOULD (not WOULDN'T) have responded to clarify the matter"..
potholer54 (10 months ago)
"I don't see why scientists wouldn't have responded to clarify the matter" For the same reason I don't respond every time a YouTube video or a blog misquotes me -- I'm not aware of every lie that's out there and even if I was I have far more important things to do with my time than correct each of them. Researchers are busy researching. If they had to correct every misrepresentation of their work that appears on the internet, it would be a full time job.
The Mad Titan (10 months ago)
potholer54 thanks for the response. I did some digging on my own, and see that this claim of different dates only appears in creationist websites! If there was an actual fuck up like this, I don't see why scientists wouldn't have responded to clarify the matter, as their own reputation would've been at stake here! Even funnier is the claim regarding different ages for Dima the baby mammoth. The paper/table that is normally cited as the proof of the error was written two years before Dima was even unearthed!!! This is most probably like one of those "faked moon landing" spouters whom scientists choose not to engage in discussion with, because no matter how you try to reason with them, they're not going to believe you anyway. And debating these cranks only lends them credibility they certainly don't deserve.
potholer54 (10 months ago)
According to my notes at the time, Hovind got his information from Walter Brown (from whom he plagiarized most of his ideas.)   Brown wrote: "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY."    I couldn't find the source of the first two claims, but I did get a copy of the paper that Brown cites as his source for the Fairbanks Creek mammoth, by Pewe. The 21,300 figure comes from a table, and alongside "skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius (baby mammoth), Pew has written under 'date':     "21,300 +/- 1,300 (hyde soaked in glycerine by collector -- date invalid?)"     So Brown deliberately misrepresented one of the dates. The other date, 15,380, is further up the table and also refers to a Mammuthus primigenius (baby mammoth), but it seems this is a completely different animal. Its location is "frozen silt 26m below the surface" whereas the 21,300 mammoth was described as "in association with gravel stringers." Not only were the two mammoths found in different places, Brown cites two different authors for the two different dates.    Brown has other examples: "...different parts of the first Vollosovitch mammoth had widely varying radiocarbon ages—29,500 and 44,000 RCY. One part of Dima was 44,000 RCY, another was 26,000 RCY," but I didn't check on these because there was no room in the video to debunk everything.     One thing that is clear is that if Brown was prepared to lie about one of those 'inconsistent' pairs of date, he would have no problem lying about the other two. Hovind is prepared to simply repeat this stuff without checking it.
The Mad Titan (10 months ago)
potholer54 if you have any views on that please tell them here... I would be very interested to know if Hovind was just lying about it or was it an embalming material fuck up like with Miller's dino bones.
libertynindependence (10 months ago)
When and where is new carbon made? Is there new carbon on earth at all?
libertynindependence (10 months ago)
potholer54 take'r easy friend.
potholer54 (10 months ago)
"Fossilization: Geology. to convert into a fossil; replace organic with mineral substances in the remains of an organism." There you go then. What is it you still don't understand?
libertynindependence (10 months ago)
potholer54 permineralization is the process of fossilization in question. I know I left the auto corrected mistake in my reply. So go ahead and keep making yourself feel better by making fun of such things, it's what you're good at. To keep you from twisting anymore of my mistakes and frying me over hot coals about it. I'll just leave this discussion where it's at.
libertynindependence (10 months ago)
potholer54 Fossilization: Geology. to convert into a fossil; replace organic with mineral substances in the remains of an organism.
potholer54 (10 months ago)
"I didn't describe it. That was wiki's definition." I know. The clue was that at the end of the words in quotation marks where you wrote "--wiki." That's how I knew it was a quote from wiki and not you. To be honest, I would have known you hadn't written it anyway, because you clearly don't understand what it says, and you thought it was "a fair definition of visualization" (it's actually a definition of permineralization.) "It specifically said that the inorganic material, the bone isn't replaced." Great, then please quote the part of the wiki page before and after it said "the bone isn't replaced." Show me where it says that. According to you, the wikipedia page says: "Permineralization is a process of fossilization that occurs when an organism is buried. The empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater. Minerals precipitate from the groundwater, occupying the empty spaces." I couldn't find the sentence "the bone isn't replaced" in there anywhere. Where is it? "The organic places have been filled with minerals. Its right there." It doesn't say that either. It says "The empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater." It's taken from this website: courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/evidence-of-evolution/ And, again, where does the wiki page or even the original it is copied from say "the bone isn't replaced"?? "According to that definition he's wrong." Then please take that up with Hovind. Tell him you think his claim is different to that of Wikipedia. And tell him I said 'Hi.'
Warspite (10 months ago)
i love the way he screams that THERE IS NO FUCKEN CARBON IN IT
Stephen Patterson (11 months ago)
The perported dinosaur bones were not, in fact, genuine. They were "look alike" samples, fraudulently manufactured, with reverse-engineered materials that were extracted from a sample that was 'around' 10,000 years old. Assuming, of course, the equipment was working properly. Which has not been established when the test wast conducted. Next pile of crap, please?
Soundwave (11 months ago)
The reservoir effect technically applies to any substance that can accumulate in the biosphere, not just carbon 14.
Wannabe Bonsai (11 months ago)
He sure does put emphasis on the T in the word date. Lol
Stefan The RainbowPhoenix (11 months ago)
Can we determine Kent Hovind's age with radiometric dating? He can't be older than 10. He probably has a disease that let's him age 6.5 times as fast as normal. XD
Stefan The RainbowPhoenix (11 months ago)
"You shall not bear false witness." This is one of the many things from the Bible that they willfully ignore.
Symptom3 • (11 months ago)
Your channel is awesome
LuBu4u (11 months ago)
5:19 Can you do all your videos as an angry south londoner
Tim Smith (11 months ago)
Carbon dating is a scam. I prefer internet dating.
B G (1 month ago)
Do you use G-harmony? Dating for geologists..
Erick Esquivel (11 months ago)
I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a creationist but I’m damn sure not buying all the lies they sell us at school. Where I stand officially is who the hell knows, but the universe is fractal, the harmonic relationships of frequency weave into limitless patterns with a definite logic underlying everything. All that to say, whether I agree with you or not you should be free to voice your opinion and insights without having to worry about your videos getting taken down. Smh.
Lady D (1 year ago)
This is one of my all time favorite videos!!!!! "Oi, Hovind! We can't carbon date that: there's no fucking carbon in it!!!!!!!!!" It's one of the only videos on YouTube I occasionally think about and feel the need to rewatch =D
nathan mckenzie (6 months ago)
Do you know how the scientific method works?
Kristen Michelle (1 year ago)
*Tree ring counting* is much more accurate than tree ring dating using dendrochronology. Plus it has been documented that some trees can form more than one ring per year. Potholer is misrepresenting from the very beginning.
potholer54 (1 year ago)
"It has been documented that some trees can form more than one ring per year." This is a very old creationist argument against dendrochronology, so clearly you picked this up from a creationist website. Dendrochronologists are fully aware of this issue, just as they are aware of the issue of false C14 readings from marine organisms. It applies to certain tree species but not to others, so they are smart enough to avoid those species that do get double rings and only use species that don't. And of course they can verify the date of wood samples with carbon dating, stratigraphic, magnetic, thermoluminescent and a variety of other methods to ensure accuracy.
Strike Ecozzocn (1 year ago)
5:23 you are the funniest YouTuber I have seen in a long time. And this is a serous channel hosted my someone (you) with a serous scientific background that teaches an integral skill. You were truly born for educational entertainment!
Mam Amheus (1 year ago)
Did Miller know about the shellac? I wouldn't mind betting he did. Did I hear correctly? A creatard did "research"? Doesn't say where he researched - probably exactly where Potholer said he did - but he should be ashamed of his lack of any integrity. But then I expect nothing different from any fundie.
LiveTheWild (1 year ago)
I dated Carbon once. She was a bitch.
Mr. Wen \m/ (1 year ago)
"there's and article from an article"
Mr. Fedora (1 year ago)
T H E F R U E C ' K A S I R N O B G O I N T
duck mcmeme (1 year ago)
that moment when watching this video is your physics homework
Bethany Wolfe (1 year ago)
So how do they date mineralized fossils? Ones with no ducking carbon?
EebstertheGreat (1 year ago)
They do not use carbon dating. Often, other radiometric dating techniques are used, as mentioned in the video, such as uranium-lead and potassium-argon. Radiometric dating is also not the only absolute dating method used, though it is the most important for dating fossils (other techniques rarely have the range or precision to be particularly useful for old fossils, and none apply to all types of fossils). However, relative dating is of extreme importance: fossils buried in the same stratum were buried at approximately the same time, so if you find a bone in the same layer as a trilobyte, you know that it is 252 million years old. Multiple techniques are typically used when possible.
wade5941 (1 year ago)
Dr. Hovind is as credible as Bill Nye or Al Gore. If we believe their nonsense then not a stretch to believe Hovind.
gusbus420oz (4 days ago)
+potholer54 why not do the work yourself instead of reading it? Never know who wrote it or who was paid to write it ? Or who's paying you or what your actual authority you have to even speak of any of this? As far as ayone knows your just a hole in the road. People you are taking important science lessons from a hole in the road. Get out you beakers and lab coats. Stop listening to crumbling ass fault. Yes I meant to spell it that way.
Falk Heerdeburg (1 year ago)
I really can`t figure out if Hovind is an evil being and spreading shit for his own capitalisation, or just stupid... Anyway..thanks for your videos, Sir! God Godsend Oddsense Nonsense
potholer54 (1 year ago)
But why do you have to "believe" any of them? Why not read a proper science book?
pabz83 (1 year ago)
Didnt libby himself say there were flaws?
PrismMime (1 year ago)
I doubt that too many people will have the privilege of reading this but...the truth is, not all believers in God believe that the creative days are 'literal' days. I sure don't! Evolutionists are wrong, even IF they believe in God because they make Him appear distant and uninterested in humanity, which is far from the truth. Creationists are wrong too because they believe that God created the universe, and our earth in just 6 literal days. This is a sad and very serious misrepresentation of the Bible. No where does it say in the Bible that the days were literal 24 hour days. It is insulting to the 'thinkers' intelligence. No, it is more like this: our loving Creator, who's name is Jehovah, used creative 'days' of unknown time span to create the whole expansive physical universe, with our earth included in it. The Bible simply states that wild and domestic animals where created within that sixth 'day'. And so were humans. It only makes sense that God would take 'time' to carefully think about what He was about to create, from plant to tiny insect to huge beast, since his personality is 'clearly seen from earth's creation onward'. Romans 1: 20; Isaiah 45:18
ExtantFrodo2 (1 year ago)
the wording in Genesis is very clear about the days being composed of nights and mornings 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 8 God called the expanse heaven.And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. The order of creation in Genesis 1 goes Formless Earth & Heavens, Water > Light> Firmament> Grass & Trees> Stars, Sun & Moon> Ocean Life & Birds> non flying land creatures> Man & Woman The order of creation in Genesis 2: Earth & heavens> Springs> Man> Garden> Trees> Beasts & Birds>Woman *Neither one are indicated by extant evidence.* (which shows this order...Light> First generation stars> Stars_again(2nd generation), planets, moons> Oceans> Single celled plant life> Single celled animal life> Ocean creatures> Land plants> Land animals> Men & women). Thus chapters 1 & 2 contradict each other, so 6 days or 6 million years makes no difference. It is still wrong. The order of the fossils in the geological column shows the bible is false through all of Genesis. How wrong does it have to be before you accept that it is wrong? Why accept that it knows about things that can't be known when it is quite evidently and demonstrably wrong about so many things we do know about?
ExtantFrodo2 (1 year ago)
*"they make Him appear distant and uninterested in humanity, which is far from the truth."* In 2004 240,000 people drowned in that tsunami your "caring god" choose to allow.
Bo McGillacutty (1 year ago)
Carbon dating of Kent H. indicates he is from the Bronze Age....so it works some of the time. (the Bozo at the end not even worth a mention)
Richard Petek (1 year ago)
LOL
Roedy Green (1 year ago)
There is only one reason to reject carbon dating -- you don't like the results.
Vincent Roche (1 year ago)
I've seen Kent say tree rings aren't reliable for estimating age because it's possible to get 2 or up to 4 rings a year(they can be seasonal) funny how its accurate when it suits him
thanyou (1 year ago)
There's something so satisfying about seeing a calm person roast someone alive and call them on the horseshit they're trying to pass off as truth.
John Tobin (1 year ago)
@ 5:22 - Hilarious! Even creationists *should* be able to understand that??
ChannelMath (1 year ago)
It comes down to Occam's razor: you find this perfect linear relationship over and over, back into history. The scientist says "I think it's always linear". The creationist says "I think at some point around the date when this book says, the relationship goes screwy because at that point God created everything all at once" There's good theories, there's not-so-good theories, there's theories so absurd they are funny, and then there's theories so much worse than absurd, so detached from reality, that they are not even funny.
burnhippiesforfuel (1 year ago)
2017. still no fucking carbon in it.
Joseph Stokes (1 year ago)
Thanks for the video as we had no idea Hogan was so stupid!
John King (1 year ago)
pothole54 is wasting his time. Cretins want to be cretins. There is none so blind as he that will not see. If someone is moronic enough to swallow Christianity he will believe Hovind.
web mail (1 year ago)
A good argument you presented along with good explanations. I especially appreciated your explanation of the reservoir effect on mammal life. Having said that, have you concidered the Bible account of genesis 1:6-8? In short, implies a water vapor canopy over the heavens giving life on the surface of the earth "the reservoir effect" Including but not limited to dinosaurs, plant life, human life etc.. when the biblical flood occurred according to the Bible that protective shield (water vapor canopy)from the sun's electrons was gone. That's why creationists belief in carbon dating becaumes flawed after so may thousands of years. Again, going back to the book Genesis preflood humans lived longer, much longer than post humans. Was it because of the protective properties the vapor canopy provided life on the surface of the earth?Your thoughts..
potholer54 (1 year ago)
"have you concidered ...a water vapor canopy over the heavens" Of course, because this is something creationists have proposed. It's hilariously stupid.
depenthene (1 year ago)
'Here is an article from... an article.' That sudden realization that stating the source makes your​ argument look weak.
Landon Kromhout (1 year ago)
How can anyone think that the earth is only 6000 years old.
Richard Petek (1 year ago)
Oh, that's easy to answer. One puts his head in the Bible and never looks up.
pisse3000 (1 year ago)
Landon Kromhout It's what happens when you tell people that their own experiences and beliefs are as relevant and valid as scientific theories. A huge problem in the US because of the 1st amendment fetishism.
yang gao (1 year ago)
radiometric dating is more precise for the notion. creationists are good at playing with word
yang gao (1 year ago)
kevin hovind, professional liar. this guy is not dumb, he is just lying to lure some cons' money. what a great profession
Lemon Lord (1 year ago)
"Oi, Miller, ya bloody idiot! We can't carbon date this coz it's got no fucking carbon in it!"
tim turner (1 year ago)
didnt carbon dating get completely fucked up by the nuclear war
FullMetalRedfield (1 year ago)
So many years later, this video is still the absolute finest in the whole collection, in terms of entertainment value alone.
Bluesky (1 year ago)
Why do they find C14 in dinosaur bones?
CynicalBastard47 (1 year ago)
What religion? You can lie all you like, but acceptance of facts in biology isn't religion.
Bluesky (1 year ago)
CynicalBastard47 If you admit the truth there goes your religion
CynicalBastard47 (1 year ago)
They don't find C14 in fossils. Any modern dinosaur bone is going to come from a bird. ...oh by the way, dinosaurs evolved into what we now recognize as birds and a lot of the most famous dinosaur finds were in transition from reptile to bird.
Bluesky (1 year ago)
Who's this idiot doing all the talking? Evolution is a religion. The biggest lie is dinosaurs died out 65000000 years ago
Bluesky (1 year ago)
Brined Moses If there was it would be all over fake news
bred hed :o (1 year ago)
Bluesky someone needs to do some research ~ there is plennnnnnty of evidence out there to support evolution. its actually to the extent that its impossible to say there is none when its literally in your face. in order for evolution to be a religion, there would need to be a deity. there isn't. evolution doesn't require faith. it doesn't require anything from us. that's science. besides. if you wanna talk proof, talk about any religious belief lmao. religion does squat shit but make people feel better or more superior than other people in all senses, regardless of there being no evidence whatsoever for their beliefs. thats the difference. science (which includes evolution) can be altered if any new information is found (and proven to be true), which will then alter the conclusion. but with religion, it claims that it already has a conclusion. all you need is evidence to fit that conclusion. and if there isn't any?...🤷🏻‍♀️ i guess thats where faith kicks in. religion requires no evidence, but science does in order for it to be plausible. evolution has been proven time and time again to be true. how can you be that blind.
Bluesky (1 year ago)
Brined Moses You can't see it, can't prove it, don't see anything evolving so it's faith. Therefore it's a religion. There's Exactly Zero evidence of evolution, Zero
bred hed :o (1 year ago)
Bluesky evolution is not a religion lol
Ateo forever (1 year ago)
Mr. Hovind, telling LIES is a SIN......
DoingStupidStuff (1 year ago)
This is an article from..............An article.
TheTruKman (2 years ago)
Until I own a gas chromatograph and my own 6,000+ year old tree ring, (and even then) I can't prove any truths to truly indoctrinated people. It's like you sound like adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon unless you mention scripture or promise immortality.
Marc Letourneau (2 years ago)
What do you make of the claim that dinosaurs bones have been dated in thousands of years rather than millions? And the refusal of laboratories to date dinosaur bones because of the contradictory results with what was stated by mainstream (maybe the statement is changing because of that?)? Also the claim of soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. I am an atheist by the way. Just asking.
Koray Acar (1 year ago)
Victor Daniel Catalan Creationism and religion don't necessarily follow from eachother, but creationism, being completely unjustifiable, needs something to latch onto, and religion's infallibility claims are just that. If, by extremely rare occurence, someone manages to deny gods and yet believe in a creation story contingent on one (religiots and creatards don't care about contradictions), they're quite the rare specimen by the name of 'atheist creationist'.
Victor Daniel Catalan (1 year ago)
Is there such thing as an atheist creationists? Creationists based their beliefs on a flawed book, what do you base your beliefs on? It doesn't seem to be Science at all.
potholer54 (2 years ago)
1) " "remnant" soft tissues are more than merely a vague description of material" Yes, accurate but vague. The reason for the vagueness is that it wasn't clear exactly what this material was. But it wasn't soft tissue, as you first asserted. 2) " their testimony is a testimony" Yeah, sure. Creationists never lie. You obviously haven't watched my Golden Crocoduck series awarded for the biggest breach of the 9th Commandment in pursuit of the creationist cause. Case in point, the letter you cite does not say that the lab refused to date the samples because of the contradictory results with what was stated by mainstream, it refused to test further samples because of Miller's "anti-science agenda."  What does that mean? Well, when Miller first took his samples to the lab they explained to him that the fossils themselves were made of rock and could not be dated -- because there's no carbon in the rock. However, they were covered in shellac, which does contain carbon, so the lab warned that any carbon-dating would date the shellac rather than the rock. Miller told them to go ahead anyway, and of course he got an age of only a few thousand years. He then falsely claimed that the fossils were only a few thousand years old, without mentioning the fact that the lab had carbon-dated the shellac, not the rock. Oh, but of course creationists never lie, do they? Ho-ho. "dinosaurs were living 20,000 year ago. How someone would be able to prove it " Very easily. We know the rocks that are 20,000 years old,it's a period called the late Pleistocene. All you have to do is find a dinosaur bone in situ in sediments of that age. So far paleontologists and even members of the public have dug up tons of fossils from that time period -- mammoths, pigs, sabre-toothed tigers, horses, mastodons, tenrecs, moonrats, cows... but not one single dinosaur. Clear enough? "end up finding that dinosaurs are only tens of thousands of years of age using C14" I don't think this is getting through to you, is it? You can't carbon-date dinosaur fossils because there's no carbon in dinosaur fossils. The starting point for any carbon dating procedure is that you need carbon. And even if there is carbon in the form of limestone replacement or a shellac coating, you still can't carbon-date because you'd be getting the age of the shellac or (arguably) the limestone, not the fossil. "refusing to test bones because the ones who send them are creationists is very suspicious." Once again, that isn't the reason they refused. They did not refuse the first time Miller asked, they went ahead even though they knew -- and they told him -- that the result would give a false reading, dating the shellac. It was Miller's fraudulent use of this result, claiming it gave the date of the fossil rather than the shellac, that proved he was not interested in scientific inquiry. I think the lab was entirely right to refuse to be complicit in such obvious fraud, even though you seem convinced that creationists would never lie.
Marc Letourneau (2 years ago)
1) It looks like these "remnant" soft tissues are more than merely a vague description of material: Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2013 Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules. Bone. 52 (1): 414-423. Woodward, S. R., N. J. Weyand, and M. Bunnell. 1994. DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments. Science. 266 (5188): 1229-1232. Allentoft, M. E. et al. 2012 The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 279 (1748): 4224-4733. This is the half-life of a 242 bp region of moa mitochondrial DNA, calibrated using radiocarbon years to approximate calendar years. 2) You need to really read this "creationist" blog to learn about it. Maybe they are creationists but their testimony is a testimony nevertheless unless being creationists make them liars. You may search for this text:” I have instructed the Radiocarbon Laboratory to return your recent samples to you and to not accept any future samples for analysis.” The complete letter is below the text as an image (so it is not searchable). Also this: http://creationtoday.org/refusing-to-c-14-test-dinosaur-soft-tissue/ But I already know what you will say. Creationists! Sample contamination and general untrustworthiness… Let’s assume that for some very weird reasons not related to supernatural but completely natural and unknown reasons, dinosaurs were living 20,000 year ago. How someone would be able to prove it without being accused of “creationist”, then because of that, being fired or loses his funding. Let’s suppose that a group of evolutionists decide to disprove this claim and end up finding that dinosaurs are only tens of thousands of years of age using C14, how would they be able to communicate it to others without being “killed” by their peers, professionally? I can understand that creationists want the bones to be tested but refusing to test bones because the ones who send them are creationists is very suspicious.
potholer54 (2 years ago)
1) In that case this was not "soft tissue." Schweitzer describes this material as highly fibrous microstructures possessing elasticity and resilience. In other words, remnant soft tissue. 2) You have referred me to a creationist blog.  I looked for your claim that laboratories refuse to date dinosaur bones because of the contradictory results with what was stated by mainstream by doing a word search for the word "refuse" and "mainstream" and couldn't find it. If it's in there somewhere, please quote it. 3) As for the claim that "dinosaurs bones have been dated in thousands of years" you don't cite any examples. "anything that could give support to creationists will be rejected even if true" Then find an example of that. I am happy to address something that is real, but I can't address hypothetical speculation.
Angelos (2 years ago)
Wait what ? So you're saying the carbon dating is accurate and the preservative dated 20 000 years old ? Are you freakin serious? Why don't you explain if their dating system is so accurate and carbon 14 only lasts 60 000 years why they have found carbon 14 in diamonds which are supposed to be around 2 billion years old? Something is not right with science and with what you preach ...
potholer54 (2 years ago)
"why they have found carbon 14 in diamonds" Because diamonds contain nitrogen, and if you bombard N14 with neutrons (from radioactive decay, for example) you can knock out a proton and change it to a neutron. What exactly is it about this process that you don't understand? "Something is not right with science and with what you preach" Nope, turns out there's something wrong with your understanding of physics.
P Surawski (2 years ago)
I need a T-Shirt with "There's no fuckin' carbon innit!"
Victor Selve (2 years ago)
are you serious? an 8th grader could have pieced that shit together... no seriously we learned about the reservoir effect in 8th or maybe it was 9th grade and we had to work it out ourselves, granted the example made it a little bit more apparent but still, how do you not get that???
Sons of Abraham RT (2 years ago)
"carbon dating does not work under certain circumstances..." Yes, that is why carbon dating isn't reliable and yet the "gullible masses" have been told by evolutionists to believe the claims of carbon dating. Carbon dating needs to have a known variable of carbon 14 exposure or introduction in relation to the known variable of Carbon 14 decay. In other words, you have to know how much Carbon 14 the test subject was subjected to and measure that against the rate of C14 decay or lack of C14 currently available. Carbon dating is determined by how much C14 isn't present and the less C14, then supposedly the older it is because the C14 has reverted back to C12 or nitrogen(?). If you don't know, how much, and at what rate the object was exposed to C14 (which no one really knows) then the whole experiment is bunk and that's why Carbon dating is unreliable and yet it's probably been the number one propaganda toll for evolution in the past 30years +/-. Carbon dating is a neat idea, just not reliable and not really provable.
Jeremy Whitefield (2 years ago)
Potholes, I just want to thank you for the smile on my face after watching a couple of your videos. I want to use an Evangelical word for you HALLELUJAH

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.