HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: potholer54

Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked

6559 ratings | 229754 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 (2497)
Patrick Allen (11 hours ago)
Carbon dating doesn't work. I dated Carbon once, but it didn't last long.
Is Hovind the dumbest or just the dumbest?
Greg Moonen (9 days 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 (9 days 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 (22 days 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 (22 days 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 (26 days ago)
I am glad that idiot never taught me.
Ian (1 month ago)
Does he sit around, looking at scientific studies and wondering, “How can I use this to disprove science?”
Ian (21 days ago)
+Aj Meyers Fair enough.
Aj Meyers (21 days 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. (1 month ago)
You are wrong.  there the link to prove you are wrong.
J. M. (1 month ago)
More dinosaur bones yield traces of blood, soft tissue ...https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones
potholer54 (1 month ago)
You have a lot of catching up to do. See my video "Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked." Have fun!
nibblebaby (1 month 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. (1 month 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 (21 days 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 (1 month 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. (1 month ago)
So Now that you called me a liar. You can look it up for your self.  YES THEY DID. .
J. M. (1 month ago)
More dinosaur bones yield traces of blood, soft tissue ...https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones
potholer54 (1 month 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 (1 month 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 (2 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 (2 months ago)
You have a good voice. Ever thought of doing voice acting?
Lagunacool (2 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 (3 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 (3 months ago)
I love this channel. Thanks, potholer. BTW --- 222,197 views.
Wooksley (3 months ago)
This is just YouTube debunking classic. Awesome job.
Mark Williams (3 months ago)
Carbon dating is only accurate to around 5,500 years. After that it's all guess work!!!!
ndrthrdr1 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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?
Mark Williams (3 months ago)
lol, actual scientists know a big fat ZERO!!!!!!! all they have is false theories which have all been debunked.
Lisa For Truth (3 months ago)
You can't carbon date living shit. Kent KNOWS this!
TooTall Tim (4 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 (4 months ago)
Dude at the end looks like a goddamn big toe
Jasen Ericksen (4 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 (5 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.
bitchface (5 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?
bitchface (5 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 (5 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.
bitchface (5 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 (5 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.
bitchface (5 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 (5 months ago)
When and where is new carbon made? Is there new carbon on earth at all?
libertynindependence (5 months ago)
potholer54 take'r easy friend.
potholer54 (5 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 (5 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 (5 months ago)
potholer54 Fossilization: Geology. to convert into a fossil; replace organic with mineral substances in the remains of an organism.
potholer54 (5 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 (5 months ago)
i love the way he screams that THERE IS NO FUCKEN CARBON IN IT
Stephen Patterson (5 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 (6 months ago)
The reservoir effect technically applies to any substance that can accumulate in the biosphere, not just carbon 14.
Wannabe Bonsai (6 months ago)
He sure does put emphasis on the T in the word date. Lol
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
"You shall not bear false witness." This is one of the many things from the Bible that they willfully ignore.
Symptom3 • (6 months ago)
Your channel is awesome
LuBu4u (6 months ago)
5:19 Can you do all your videos as an angry south londoner
Tim Smith (6 months ago)
Carbon dating is a scam. I prefer internet dating.
Erick Esquivel (6 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 (7 months 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 (1 month ago)
Do you know how the scientific method works?
Kristen Michelle (7 months 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 (7 months 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 (8 months 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 (8 months 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 (9 months ago)
I dated Carbon once. She was a bitch.
Mr. Wen \m/ (9 months ago)
"there's and article from an article"
Mr. Fedora (9 months ago)
T H E F R U E C ' K A S I R N O B G O I N T
duck mcmeme (9 months ago)
that moment when watching this video is your physics homework
Bethany Wolfe (10 months ago)
So how do they date mineralized fossils? Ones with no ducking carbon?
EebstertheGreat (10 months 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 (11 months ago)
Dr. Hovind is as credible as Bill Nye or Al Gore. If we believe their nonsense then not a stretch to believe Hovind.
Falk Heerdeburg (10 months 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 (11 months 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 (7 months 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 (7 months ago)
Oh, that's easy to answer. One puts his head in the Bible and never looks up.
pisse3000 (8 months 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
Monkey Boss (1 year ago)
secureteam10 needs to watch your videos
Left Past Saturn (1 month ago)
No, secureteam10 needs to quietly disappear & never return... somewhere there's a village missing its idiot.
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.
VoteForTRUMP (1 year ago)
Losing the pompous attitude and profanity would add to this guy's credibility and argument, but it still wouldn't explain the inherent problems with Carbon 14 dating. The only people who are going to listen to this are those who have already drank the Carbon 14 kool aid.
TheTruKman (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (7 months 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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.
Peter Surawski (1 year ago)
I need a T-Shirt with "There's no fuckin' carbon innit!"
Victor Selve (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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
joses box (1 year ago)
Has this goof been back on the block since being out of jail?
Taddy (1 year ago)
Ive heard some creationists claim that radiometric dating only dates back a few thousand years lol. How do these people survive?
Taddy (1 year ago)
+Brian Bixby Well thats what i mean, they deny that it dates past 10,000 years lol.
Brian Bixby (1 year ago)
Well, they're partly right, although they generally don't understand why. Carbon dating will only work back to about 50,000 years, and dates after about 30,000 years tend to get a bit shaky, because most of the radioactive carbon has decayed by then. Most of them have no idea that there are other types of radiometric dating.
fedos (1 year ago)
"Posterior reasoning" sounds like a great description of how creationists come up with their claims.
Some Random Human (1 year ago)
I come back every now and then just for the "THERE'S NO FUCKIN CARBON IN IT" Still gets me lol
Tim Williams (1 year ago)
Mr. Holer (Can I call you Pot?) - To my mind, it simply doesn't MATTER in the big picture. Theists are simply tossing gravel into the gears of progress. Even if Hovind (or anyone) is "correct" in disproving any form of dating things, I ardently REJECT any holy bullshit, on the simple grounds that it was all made up by illiterate goat-herders, thousands of years before there even WAS anything like "science" !! I can't figure out WHY anyone, within a stone's throw of reason, would seek to put forth a scenario that bespoke of a scary, invisible god, who, though they love us, would just as readily send us to eternal perdition if we don't quite toe the line. WHYYY would any rational person happily follow this line of thinking??? Moreover, why would they try to make others believe it? It's just sick, if you take time to ponder. Now that I think of it..... I suspect it is the same type of thinking within people who are addicted to playing the Lottery. It is gazillions to 1, yet they still fork over their hard-earned pay for that microscopic chance. That's humans for ya. Still better than being a chimp, I guess. One thing, though: If you don't play, you can't win, so your odds become zero. Keep up the good work, lad! If you ever accidentally find yourself in Texas, come on by! We'll drink beer and ride dirt bikes. Makes more sense than kissing god's ass, don't ya think?
Bradford Onate (1 year ago)
there's no fucking carbon in it
Faybrian Hernandez (1 year ago)
Hovind sited examples where carbon dating doesn't work, you maybe siting times where carbon dating does. Having says he is a science teacher, not a scientist. How can you debunk somebody while lying about him.
Koray Acar (7 months ago)
JoeBob Jenkins Those side effects are well understood however, vindicating the efficacy of carbon dating as a method, not to mention more reliable radiometric dating methods used for even older samples.
JoeBob Jenkins (11 months ago)
Faybrian Hernandez as far as i can see, hes showing him to be right. Carbon dating has a host of unreliable results in a ton of different situations. So why would you put so much in it?
GalapagosPete (1 year ago)
Well, Fay? Do you have a response for potholer54? Perhaps an apology for accusing him of lying? Seems like the Christian thing to do.
potholer54 (1 year ago)
"Hovind sited examples where carbon dating doesn't work" Please watch the video and then maybe you'll understand what's going on. There are samples on which carbon dating works -- such as charcoal, wood, plants, land animals, etc., and samples on which it doesn't work, such as marine animals. So for Hovind to show that carbon dating doesn't work on marine animals is like showing that fingerprinting doesn't work on clouds. We already know that.
The Astrophysicist (2 years ago)
This is my favourite potholer video just because of the phrase "Oi Hovind! We can't Carbon date this! There's no f***in Carbon in it!" 👌🏼
FSMonster (2 years ago)
Ironically, Kent Howind would benefit more from C-dating difficulties if he weren't a young Earth creationist. It doesn't sound like he's disputing radiometric dating used for really old samples but he's discrediting C-dating because he can grab a dinosaur fossil/bone and exclaim we can't be certain whether it's 4000 or 40000 years old - therefore flood 'happened' and Earth 'could' be 6000 years old. The fact that the fossil/bone is 65 or more Million years old does not matter to his audiences. Remember, his objective is to provide useless filler material for the typical lazy creationist not to be swayed by the facts.
Esteban Rincon (2 years ago)
Funny how Creationist 'scientists' have no problem accepting and referring to science in their arguments, but selectively omit any actual science that doesn't support their ludicrous claims.
G1478 (2 years ago)
i died not once or twice, but thrice :P :D :P
Sam Dawkins (2 years ago)
Kent is such a fuckin idiot. im so glad he went to prision
CynicalBastard47 (2 years ago)
+not your damn business Eh, fine.  I guess there are other people i could be poking fun at.  You're far too reasonable.
not your damn business (2 years ago)
+CynicalBastard47 Hovind....right now probably somewhere making money. hannity....right now probably somewhere making money. the pope....right now being somewhere guiding the richest company on planet earth. you and me....arguing via youtube comments. if one would make an idiot list we would stand way higher than those guys. so lets just call it a day and agree to disagree
CynicalBastard47 (2 years ago)
+not your damn business You're the one who brought up the pope, not me.  The current pope isn't nearly as big an idiot as his predecessor from what i can tell.
not your damn business (2 years ago)
+CynicalBastard47 like we saw in this video. hovind knows this shit, thats why he knows how to ship around crucial points, which crucial points to let out, which informations not to give his audience etc. and the pope speaks like 8 languages and has an education in chemistry. not really signs for being stupid.
CynicalBastard47 (2 years ago)
+not your damn business The point is people believing someone isn't an indication that who they believe isn't an idiot.
Rads (2 years ago)
THERE'S NO F**KEN CARBON IN IT!
TheChemist (2 years ago)
LMAO the first five minutes, awesome. The most inaccurate proxy record reading (beside our faulty ground temperature reading) is ice cores. This is because you have spill over. Tree ring proxies are typically mint with a bit of variation in CO2 concentration. Carbon dating is also a very strong proxy recording device.
Andrew Sykes (2 years ago)
I have come to the conclusion that Kent Hovind actually accepts evolution as fact but he is making so much money spouting this bullshit that he is quite happy to carry on spouting it.
Andy (2 years ago)
+Andrew Sykes Fair point.
Andrew Sykes (2 years ago)
+Andy That is a reasonable proposition, though little Hovind and big Hovind's ex are sitting pretty as a result of the big man's bullshit so why rock the boat?
Andy (2 years ago)
I considered that possibility as well but then I realised that if that was the case, his ex-wife and/or son would probably have exposed him for it.
David Stanley (2 years ago)
One can only watch these and similar videos a short time before finding themselves shouting and cursing the stupidity, utter stupidity of the death cult christians and all creationists.
Nige GSX14 (2 years ago)
Thoroughly enjoyed this video as well as some of your other debunking videos. Keep up the good work. Who knows maybe one day the creationists may get their heads out of their arses just far enough for their ears to hear the truth of what you are saying 😀👍🇬🇧
Jungle Jargon (2 years ago)
Carbon dating does more to support creation by a deliberate Maker than detract from it because of Carbon 14 found in diamonds and dinosaur bones.
Pythol (1 year ago)
+Zift Ylrhavic Resfear      "You need to show me that what you say is true by giving me a reliable source." Don't hold your breath, creationists never support their claims with references to reputable sources.
Zift Ylrhavic Resfear (1 year ago)
+Jungle Jargon "We know there is C14 in dinosaur bones and diamonds. We also know that dinosaurs were buried in sediments deposited by the global flood 5,000 years ago." So far, these are only things you're telling me. You could also tell me that we know the sky is actually flashy green, we just see it blue, or that santa is real. You need to show me that what you say is true by giving me a reliable source.
Pythol (1 year ago)
+Jungle Jargon      " the global flood 5,000 years ago." There was no global flood. where did the water come from and where is it now?
Jungle Jargon (1 year ago)
mob2uz I see.
Jungle Jargon (1 year ago)
Zift Ylrhavic Resfear Zift Ylrhavic Resfear Science is what you can know. That is the evidence. We know there is C14 in dinosaur bones and diamonds. We also know that dinosaurs were buried in sediments deposited by the global flood 5,000 years ago.
Google Pics (2 years ago)
Its funny how the person who made this video didnt disprove anything...he he confirmed along with a few cheap insults everything he said...This is typical of evolutionists...they use sarcasm and insults not science to intimidate people into believing nonsense
frankos rooni (5 months ago)
A creationist fails to watch a video but comments on it anyway Pretty much their attitude to science in general
Richard Petek (7 months ago)
Pictured Google, type "Wikipedia Radiometric Dating" or "Carbon Dating" and come back when you have read it. Carbon dating is useful for examining the age of living organisms and it's usefulness is limited only to specimen up to 50 thousand years, preferably much less. For anything older, it's useless. As a figure of speech, it's like using a scale, precise enough to weight humans, but trying to weight ants or even bacteria.
Ricardo Martinez (1 year ago)
Google Pics Typical creationists don't like to hold on to their fairytale beliefs.
Brian Garrow (2 years ago)
You obviously didn't listen to the video
nathan mckenzie (2 years ago)
Did you actually watch the video?
James JAH Avey (2 years ago)
Some one needs to give themselves their own reward. No one has yet explained how it is possible for a land walking animal not to take millions of years to change into a flying creature but is able to do it in a few months??? I believe that science calls it METTAMORPHOSIS but they are afraid to put it on their list of evolved items, just incase some one tries to get them to explain how such high tech, programming could possibly evolve all by itself??  QUACK! QUACK! are all Scientists quackers??????
Azirahael (1 year ago)
+James JAH Avey I have no idea what you're saying.
James JAH Avey (1 year ago)
There are a number of copyright books that hold the information which have been published by JW.org you can check for your self They quote names and job descriptions in a long list in publications such as the book>>>>Life how did it get here? By Evolution or creation  >>>or the brochures >>>was life created >>>and the origin of life five questions worth asking >>>OK?
nathan mckenzie (1 year ago)
+James JAH Avey no not ok and not remotely true.
James JAH Avey (1 year ago)
Yep there is no evidence for evolution. OK?
Azirahael (1 year ago)
+James JAH Avey Got evidence to back that worldwide conspiracy? Keep in mind, this is a perfect conspiracy, that no young angry firebrand has ever broken. Big claims need big evidence.
Arthur Dent (2 years ago)
...Thanks again, Potholer54. That last fellow (BigJerre), sums creationists up. I quote,  "here's a little article from a...an...uh...article. I 'll bet it came the "World Weekly News" rag, that I always take to parties and drop on the coffee table...

Would you like to comment?

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