HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Truth In Genesis

Carbon Dating Flaws

2015 ratings | 132899 views
Dr. Hovind explains the flaws associated with Carbon Dating. TRUTH IN GENESIS BOOK: http://amzn.to/2owR4r6 Subscribe for more videos: https://goo.gl/9SdQKw Heaven or Hell? Are you 100% Sure? https://goo.gl/LWBTPs Idiot Scientists (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/amIzcW Creation Seminar by Dr. Kent Hovind: https://goo.gl/s7Hkvt Revelation Series by Pastor Anderson: https://goo.gl/LTaHWE After the Tribulation (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/tA7gmy New World Order Bible Versions (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/RHkpIF Marching to Zion (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/DlZAhS The Truth About Birth Control (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/OlHREk Marxist Lucifer King (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/h6KthS Burn That Way After All (Full Movie): https://goo.gl/y1irg1
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (2414)
SurfK9 (2 days ago)
3 minutes in: fossil are dated by the soil they are in by dating the soil. There are around 12 different radiometric techniques. The soil is the dating material. Cherry picking onformation is the trademark of a con-man.
SurfK9 (2 days ago)
Less than 2 minutes in and he's already completely ignorant or lying. In the 1880's they didn't claim the earth was billions of years old. Lord Kelvin, using thermogradiants estimated the age to be 100 million years old. As more inforation and better dating techniques developed the dating has been pushed back.
Anita Burke (6 days ago)
AT 6:50 Dr. Hovind meant to say you have 0.0000765% Carbon-14 (he said "carbon", not "carbon-14)
Millan Tronni (9 days ago)
This guy have no clue how radiocarbon dating works, C14 from the atmosphere is not the only source, a tiny amount is coming from other sources, such uran decay, this is what "introduce" C14 in carbon and diamonds and is considered background noise, that is one reason why C14 is not reliable beyond some 50000 years. This guy does not even know that radiocarbon dating is using tree rings, stalagmites and other artefacts as reference points to know the starting amount of C14. His lack of knowledge about radiocarbon dating is so strong in him, it is so obvious when he mention sea living creatures as some sort of evidence against radio carbon dating (and even living ones). He have absolute no clue about the subject or deliberately lying right up in your face.
Shane Moline (10 days ago)
I understand isotopes
Shane Moline (10 days ago)
And what does "the sun slaps it around" mean?
Shane Moline (10 days ago)
Can somebody help me? How is carbon 14 not nitrogen. If elements are determined by molecular mass, then why is carbon 14 not nitrogen?
bears 25 (10 days ago)
If this one point is true it completely invalidates Evolution from AbioGenesis
Kelvin Diaz (11 days ago)
It's amazing how he explained carbon dating better than those who believe in it, yet he doesn't. I've looked through a few videos on YouTube and he explains the science the best
Rosanna Miller (12 days ago)
Carbon dating reminds me of the recent DNA Ancestry scheme they have out there. Snake oil salesmen suck!!
Rosanna Miller (12 days ago)
Hovind is highly intelligent. All for God's glory. God bless him, in Jesus name.
Rosanna Miller (12 days ago)
If everything has carbon, then how come everything's age can't be dated by this "test"?
Rosanna Miller (12 days ago)
How did they determine the number of "5730 years" as being the 1/2 the lifespan of carbon? Is that an assumed number? That's what it seems to be, to me.
Morne Terblanche (13 days ago)
Radiocarbon Dating: A Closer Look At Its Main Flaws Posted on February 7, 2013 by Andrea Cohn In last Tuesday’s lecture, radiocarbon dating was covered briefly. It is an essential technology that is heavily involved in archaeology and should be explored in greater depth. Radiocarbon dating uses the naturally occurring isotope Carbon-14 to approximate the age of organic materials. These “materials” can be almost anything. Often, archaeologists use graves and plant remains to date sites. Since its conception by Willard Libby in 1949, it has been invaluable to the discipline. In fact, many important archaeological artifacts have been dated using this method including some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin. Though radiocarbon dating is startlingly accurate for the most part, it has a few sizable flaws. The technology uses a series of mathematical calculations—the most recognizable of which is known as half-life—to estimate the age the organism stopped ingesting the isotope. Unfortunately, the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been steady throughout history. In fact, it has fluctuated a great deal over the years. This variation is caused by both natural processes and human activity. Cosmic rays and changes in Earth’s climate can cause irregularities in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Humans began making an impact during the Industrial Revolution. The isotope decreased by a small fraction due to the combustion of fossil fuels, among other factors. However, the quantity of Carbon-14 was nearly doubled in the ’50s and ’60s because of the atomic bomb testings in those decades. The answer to the problem of fluctuating amounts of this important isotope is calibration. While an uncalibrated reading may be off by a factor of 10%-20%, calibration severely reduces that value. Standard calibration curves are now used for more accurate readings. These curves indicate the changes in Carbon-14 throughout the years and modifies the end result of the tests to reflect that. Though the calibrated date is more precise, many scholars still use the uncalibrated date in order to keep chronologies consistent in academic communities. Though it’s biggest, the calibration problem is not the only flaw of radiocarbon dating. As the lecture detailed, it is only accurate from about 62,000 years ago to 1,200 A.D. There is a sizable amount of time before and after that period that cannot be investigated using this method. Also, archaeologists cannot use their hands to touch the samples or smoke near them. They risk seriously altering the result of the test. The “Old Wood Problem” is the last flaw of radiocarbon dating that will be elaborated upon here. If an archaeologist wanted to date a dead tree to see when humans used it to build tools, their readings would be significantly thrown off. This is because radiocarbon dating gives the date when the tree ceased its intake of Carbon-14—not when it was being used for weapons and other instruments! Since trees can have a lifespan of hundreds of years, its date of death might not even be relatively close to the date the archaeologists are looking for. Thorough research and cautiousness can eliminate accidental contamination and avoidable mistakes. This magnificent technology is the most important innovation in archaeological history. Archaeologists have the most accurate readings they are likely to ever receive! Despite its overuse and misrepresentation in the media, it is nonetheless extremely valuable. This process has seriously assisted archaeologists in their research, excavations, and scholarly studies. Though it is not without its flaws, including several not mentioned here, it is truly an incredible creation that will be used for many years to come. This entry was posted in Student Blog Post 1 by Andrea Cohn. Bookmark the permalink.
Shane Hughes (14 days ago)
A P. Exodus 32. Start from there. :)
Shane Hughes (14 days ago)
A P. No im not mosqouting the bible. Moses smashes the ten commandments your thinking of after he slaughtered a town and the ten commandments were changed. Read your bible. You havent read your bible. Thou shall not kill removed from the list.
Robert Donnell (16 days ago)
Mr. Hovind, do you subscribe to the belief in flat earth? I am curious because the foundation of this belief is obviously presented in the book of Genesis.
KJ SoutHSidE BaByi 42 (16 days ago)
All I see in this video is how the world try’s to disprove god because they know if they where to expect it, they’ll realize their fate
vaughn longanecker (20 days ago)
Don't use "Dr.", you loose credibility which your life of testimony is not good. Your argument is sound, scientifically correct. The evolutionist have a greater credibility issue that they are not being truthful about but then truth is relative for them.
Holy Trash (29 days ago)
i would take my kid out of school if evolution was taught
BezoomnyBratchny, Fascist
Holy Trash (27 days ago)
lol. do you even realize how that sounds, Im not sure how I should even respond to that... like "okay, okay... im sorry, my kid will learn evolution, just please dont take him away from me".
BezoomnyBratchny (27 days ago)
Then you deserve to have social services remove him/her from your care.
Alexander van Wyk (1 month ago)
Excellent. Science some times is a joke. Why is it so difficult to just believe in God. 'Cause people don't want to. They chose to be blind and miss out on a marvelous eternity with God. But remember it is still not too late. We are still living in the period of Gods grace but the world is running out of that quickly. So just repent of your sins, invite God as your Lord and Savor, and you too will be saved. As simple as that!
B Maurice (1 month ago)
God bless Dr. Kent Hovind for his work for the Lord, and may He lead him out of all his troubles. Thank you Kent.
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
I Googled carbon 14 half-life to find out how half life of +/- 5,735 years was arrived at 70 years ago.That Google search went nowhere, which has me now concerned that we've been lied to, just as Kent Hovind says. Argument FOR that, you might ask? One is that main stream belief in theory of evolution would take a huge hit in its credibility. A very, very serious hit.
Nico Patrick (1 month ago)
Creationists are retarded.
DatCookie21 (1 month ago)
Nico Patrick umm. Do you have any proof he is lying?
Kurt Rogers (1 month ago)
That's funny how atheists claim Christians are lying with no proof to support that claim but yet the only ones who have been caught lying are the non-believing scientist! Most major medical breakthroughs have been done by a Christian scientists, FYI!
Shane Hughes (1 month ago)
https://youtu.be/uUEusDsR61k A whole Series that shows how he has no clue and lies about what he says.
Shane Hughes (1 month ago)
I hate this guy. Him and his son.
Millan Tronni (1 month ago)
This video contain not so much about radiocarbon dating but the little it was in it was fractal wrong. 1. You don't date living stuff, it need to have been dead at least 50 years 2. Everyone within radiometric dating community knows that radiocarbon dating is highly inaccurate for sea living creatures due to the resoar effect. 3. Radio carbon dating does not work on fossils, in a fossil all original including the original coal, have been replaced, you only measure background noise. 4. Radiocarbon dating is only valid up to soem 70000 years,then background noise gets to high for any reliable measurements. 5. The starting amount of C14 is known from dendrochronology (tree rings) and stalagmites. This guy seems to utterly uniformed on how radiocarbon dating works I guess the title of the video is misleading, it seems that the video is about radiometric in general, but this guy in the video is fractal wrong on all the other radiometric dating methods as well
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
Millan Tronni If cannot get C-14/C-12 ratio reading until after 50 years, that means C-14 half-life reading is not reliable for at least 50 years?
Michael Everest (1 month ago)
The difference between Science and Religion is that Science will change its mind when and if proven wrong with solid evidence. There is no evidence that would change his mind.
Michael Everest (21 days ago)
Yes but what is your point? If your saying that Dawkins and others have doubts or pieces missing then that's true, but that doesn't mean that evidence will never be found... and does that the somehow mean that a God made the earth? I think Many people ive spoken too who criticise Science and the idea of Evolution do so because they want to believe in a Godly creation.
Michael Everest, Dawkins literally stated in his book that the lack of intermediary fossils and the Cambridge Explosion are obvious and serious contradictions to Evolution Theory.
Michael Everest (30 days ago)
What proof is there and why would it need to hide it?
DatCookie21 (1 month ago)
Michael Everest oh believe me, science has found proof that proves wrong the evolution theory, they just hide it to not get exposed.
hello again (1 month ago)
hi really like this video thank you Truth in Genesis kent hovind is worth listening too i have done complex mathematics and other forms of physics [0.0000765% of the earth is radio-active carbon 14] okay time for some maths 5.972 × 10^21 tons the earth weighs apparently? sorry my scales aren't that big lol but lets use this mean weight for our calculations. 5972 000 000 000 000 000 000 TONS by actuality if you do not understand maths i will do it for you now ;-) 0.0000765% of 5.972 is 0.00000456858 multiply that by 10^21 456 858 000 000 0000 tons of radio-carbon 14 in the earth mathematics is fun 21 pounds of carbon 14 is produced by the sun look kent you need to realise that in order for the world to be young you can not teach what the evolutionists say about influxes of c14 coming very slowly to earth makes no sense look [456 858 x 10^10 tons] divided 21 pounds a year gives a stupidly ridiculous number of years like it give millions of billions into zillions.. i think carbon 14 molecule chains can "maybe" turn radio-active given enough exposure to certain elements of radioactiveness they find carbon 14 in diamonds so they are not millions of years old yet the ground the diamonds are buried in some scientist believe is billions of years old based on radio-isometric dating ... In the same way you can use the uranium as a power source in a nuclear reactor and dispel all of the radio-active particles in a very short time shows us the science behind this isotope radiation needs further studies to find out why nuclear submarine do not last as long as expected they said they "would never need refuelling" they said "the nuclear submarines will breakdown before running out of power because of the mighty nuclear energy" but the depletion of radioactive uranium and plutonium in reactors run out of power after 25 years even shorter then you thought this is because they want to make you believe this element can last for a Billion years with-out passing half point yet But in actuality radioactive uranium and plutonium is fully depleted after "25 years" shows me some one is not doing their mathematics correctly ,, so if you believe the radio-isometric dating please explain to me why they can deplete uranium in less then 25 years. like 25 years is a life sentence lol a billion years is bloody stupidity in science lol
MattieCooper (1 month ago)
What a bunch of nonsense Bullshit Fiction being propagated by a con-man.
+MattieCooper >secular im very spiritual, you dont have to subscribe to religious dogma to be spiritual you have already made assumptions in the comment you deleted talking about 6,000 years blah blah blah cause you thought i was a christian solar cult member lol and now you make another saying im a secular idiot you act like you know it all and say insults and assumptions for no reason, lmao
MattieCooper (21 days ago)
+Jordan Gehall Wentsworth Oh okay, so you're a secular idiot. lol. I guess. You're trying really hard brother. Advancing technology has allowed radiocarbon dating to become accurate to within just a few decades in many cases. Carbon dating is a brilliant way for archaeologists to take advantage of the natural ways that atoms decay. You can deny the existence of fire and tell me your magic fairies flying in your bedroom are 2 billion years old if you want, I'm sure you're more than capable of doing just that.
+MattieCooper i think the earth is way older than 4.5 billion years and i know the earth is round, flat earth is new age garbage but carbon dating still sucks
MattieCooper, Can you say this exact same thing to the scientists who disagree with him?
Marvin PhiRatio (1 month ago)
Your doing the same thing ....taking things you think are the truth and spinning that into your theory, your just as wrong as everything you think is wrong,
mccourca (1 month ago)
Kent your 1000% correct your not an expert. At all so why do you think to profess anything about carbon dating. You clearing have no understanding of it ... at all. That’s ok your brain is too small to grasp the concept.
mccourca, I’m guessing your iq is <80
Simon Ellwood (1 month ago)
We are 18.5% carbon, fact! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body
DUTCHMAN 15 (1 month ago)
If you cant prove hime wrong shut the fuck up bitch 💯simple💯😂
Xi Yang Liu (1 month ago)
Carbon dating is obviously Illuminati smoke and mirrors. They got pretty sloppy on this one, anyone with a brain can see that it's all lies.
Timxx3868 (1 month ago)
YES if i was ignorant and uneducated on ACTUAL REAL science i would believe his slick very "rational" take town of Carbon dating. The Problem? Well lets see . 1000's of Real scientists not showmen use different types of carbon dating over a long time. When they first developed the techniques, the scientist said" well how can we trust this (assumptions hmm) and they pulled apart the actual carbon dating itself many times over and over in many ways which is what science does. It confirms HOW it tests not just what it does. One creationist pops up and says he found a problem!. Great- present this to any decent scientist for checking and review and testing and stringent non BS real science logic and review by many not just a few. So far, not one single creationist claim has survived any test. They are seeing things that arnt there because they are not trained in what they think they are talking about Also so many areas in medicine ect wouldnt work if the "assumption" of what scientist do was faulty. Ever wondered why no creationist never published a accepted peer reviewed paper or have a have PHDS in real science except for a few who went to bible university where every answer is true!.... i guess they know more than rocket scientist or genetic engineers or theoretical scientist ? Look up yourself the rigorous testing of Carbon dating and others and if you can understand it and you will need to be a little smarter than certain individuals! hmm , then you will realise how exhaustive and complex this subject is and the "average" joe should stick to believing in silly things like God and leave the real world to the rational people who these very people owe their life for keeping them alive in a world evolved with nasty killing viruses and human bombs!! hmm
Bernie Husbands (1 month ago)
Just because the bibles been taught for more than 2000 years, doesn’t mean it's true.😁
steve cross (1 month ago)
You can't c14 date organic material that is fresh. It has to age for while, for the c14 to start to break down, for it to be effective. Also you can't c14 date sea creatures accurately, because they get the carbon from the sea and not the Sun. The other reason you might get false results, is if the material is over 50,000 years old. You also can't date rocks using c14. Since the 1970's c14 dating has become very accurate. Having said this most dating processes do not rely on just one method. Hovind as usual, is clutching at straws. I am sure he wouldn't have a problem if c14 dated everything to less than 10,000 years. He has been given the wrong data on the accuracy of carbon and radiometric dating. Rocks from volcanos are old because they can not be new, just because they are ejected from a volcano at a certain time in history. Rocks take millions of years to form, even molten rock. Just saying.
steve cross (15 days ago)
Guy with no subscribers...C14 is a tried and tested method of dating organic material, no faith needed. Perhaps you should read some peer reviewed papers on the subject. Where are the peer reviewed papers from creation science to disprove it? Oh that's right, there are none. Keep believing in your fairy tales and good luck... :-)
@steve cross "You can't c14 date organic material that is fresh. It has to age for while, for the c14 to start to break down, for it to be effective." do you realize how much faith that takes? also if you take into account that the bible has an omnipotent God, many things become possible. the snake you are referring to is Satan disguised as a snake. also the donkey talked because God let him talk
sslazer (1 month ago)
steve cross and carbon 14 found in dinosaur bones? http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
steve cross (1 month ago)
I am not sure what you have tried to prove with this article, as I have already conceded that soft tissue has been found in other fossil specimens. Keep trying... :-)
sslazer (1 month ago)
steve cross https://crev.info/2015/06/dinosaur-soft-tissue-surprise/
BMore (1 month ago)
If any of you fact checked anything this fool says, you’d know carbon dating isn’t used in dating fossils over 50,000 years old. You praise and worship a convicted felon. 58 counts of felony charges that he was convicted of. He has no authentic degree in anything. He is a conman. Plain and simple. His buddy Ray Comfort just admitted on video that these creationist prey on low iq, unintelligent people. You fools are being swindled and you just dismiss the truth.
Matthew Krusinski (1 month ago)
Wow, I can’t believe these scientists were lying about the skulls like that
drwmtairync (1 month ago)
Any Dr. Hovind updates on carbon dating since the video was made?
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
Anti Theist You didn't address that the sample was 1 (one) year out of 5,735. And the C-14 decay is already unpredictable. So, how was the +/- of 40 years arrived at? That looks shaky at best, and YOU buy into it? Are you blind? And your only interest in the matter is to reply with an emotional "Now go read your little book and be happy."? What the heck did YOU learn about carbon dating in your expensive college classes? You should ask for your money back.
BMore (1 month ago)
Tom Culver Yeah you’re an idiot. When has theology ever made a discovery? I’ll tell you when.... Never...... Now go read your little book and be happy. I’m done with this conversation.
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
Anti Theist Your link says _//"after just one year (or less) of measuring radioactive decay we can project how long it will take for half the atoms to have decayed"//_ I would say that 1 year is quite the small sample slice to expand "times 5,735" and make a projection. Especially since the decay events are already known to be unpredictable. You say - "Science always discovers new answers and religion always plays catch up. It’s never vice versa." That is not exactly an ironclad and bullet proof argument you have there. But you must know that already, and I think you only trotted it out as some intimidation tactic.
BMore (1 month ago)
Tom Culver My real concern is, how you pretend to feign your astonishment. https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-know-the-half-life-of-carbon-14-is-exactly-5730-years-when-no-one-has-lived-that-long This is in means a scientific explanation but is an explanation nonetheless. I’m really not interested in this subject anymore because I’ve been arguing this topic for far too long and and sick of it. Kent Hovind is a convicted felon and a known liar. Wikipedia easily shows his deceitful nature and his debates shows he has no interest in truth only twisting facts to suit his agenda. If you claim Kent Bovine is telling the truth in anyway, I’m done because I definitely know you are an idiot. I know nothing of Rb 87/Sr 87 so I won’t even bother speaking on it. The earths age means nothing other than showing the Bible to be completely fabricated to me. Following genealogy the earth is 6000 year old according to the Bible, yet the Sumerians are the oldest religious people we know of that predate Hebrews by 900 years or so that had similar stories as the Hebrews bible. The Bible fails at numerous things to include the hominids roaming the earth prior to written word, dinosaurs, creatures long before dinosaurs, galaxies and planets, on and on and on. Once you actually start thinking like a rational person, you realize the Bible is just a concoction of stories about how the world and universe works in an uneducated society. They needed explanations for everything because no one could explain it. This is why we have Greek and Roman mythology. If you really dig into history you can actually understand how religion came about. Sun worship because even early man realized the sun brought forth life, hence the Son of god. You can look at cosmology and see the ties to religion with the rising and setting of the sun. Venus became Satan. It’s all easily understood if you let your mind free from its bonds of indoctrination and brainwashing. The “answers” will come from science, not theology. Science always discovers new answers and religion always plays catch up. It’s never vice versa. Religion twists text to stay relevant where science discovers new things and edits its assumptions truthfully.
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
Anti Theist I did google carbon 14 half-life and it went nowhere to show how half life of +/- 5,735 years was arrived at 70 years ago. Which has me now concerned that we've been lied to, just as Kent Hovind says. Argument FOR that, you might ask? One is that main stream belief in theory of evolution would take a huge hit in its credibility. A very, very serious hit. Another example would be Rb87/Sr87 dating that FAILS in showing the age of the Earth. Rb87/Sr87 dating, at most, can only show differences between two rock/mineral samples bur CANNOT show when they were formed from molten rock. And, any Earthly rock/mineral sample that was originally from outer space [ not from any molten origin on Earth ] is another example of what CANNOT be DATED, and will never be dated. And, what will the dating of the Earth amount to anyhow? When was the Earth first habitable as we know it to be? When was the Earth under construction, with everything in a seemingly state of chaos? And when was the Earth just a gathering clump of meteorites crashing into one another? There is so much beyond simply considering "what the age of the Earth is". That is but a lightweight and superficial passing fancy to satisfy our own egos. In other words - to say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old is rather meaningless as it lacks specific detail having to do with existing available raw materials [ and proximity of same raw materials ] and time frame leading up to what we know as a habitable Earth. The same can be said about bible God/creator and age of the Earth. The specific detail having to do with existing available raw materials [ and proximity of same raw materials ] and time frame leading up to what we know as a habitable Earth is also open to conjecture. This is what we all face when looking for "the answers".
Arthur Hunt (1 month ago)
I will not argue with children tonight. Adults with any cognition realize that science is accurate. Creationists have this idea that science and scientists are "out to get them". Isn't that a crazy way to think? Why is it that countless branches of science and technology from astrophysics to biology just to mention a few, are seeing and understanding things that are not biblical? Why would a god if one existed make things so difficult for us to figure out ? Why would a god if one existed except everyone to simply believe in him with little or no proof? Faith..FAITH? I gave up believing in Santa as believing in him with little or no proof was not a reason for, faith. I don't see how anyone can believe in God if they really study the bible. I started having trouble with believing in a god at a young age and by the age of 9 or 10, I was 90% atheist. I've read the "good book" a dozen times or more and studied it for 10 years or so several hours a day...Acquire faith over time? Hell fkng not !!! I bet I could tell you one hell of a story about a talking snake or how to take your unruly child outside of town to be stoned to death. Some of my family are having difficulty understanding my Atheism. I kept that to myself for years. Not any more..
sslazer (1 month ago)
Arthur Hunt it’s your own scientists that prove themselves wrong over and over again while they keep changing dates, that’s not scientific, not verified or validated. God says he sends you strong delusion otherwise you might repent and be saved when in your heart you prefer evil. The science overwhelmingly proves God, by faith you must believe Gods ways are right which your conscience confirms. Unfortunately people prefer darkness to light. Let’s be real, you prefer the sins of the Bible to following God and that is why You have no faith. Hell is very real, I hope you change your mind before you get there.
The Infinexos (1 month ago)
I'm an atheist
Ernest Van Tent (2 months ago)
Flaws your flaws, his flaws, your all so full of flaws Topped with a big helping of bullshit
Siddarth Joji (2 months ago)
Why is he talking about carbon dating and talking about when earth's age? Rocks are organic material?
Chad Suratt (2 months ago)
Good video thanks
Candace Hamel (2 months ago)
Kent hovind opened dinosaur adventure land 2018 in lenox alabama, he's awesome!
Scott Murayama (2 months ago)
Hello everyone I watched this program and listened to this man, when he was saying his "understandings" of things, that he's a teacher, and by such he becomes entitled to explaining things to those, by him proclaimed, of lesser knowledge. Then he pointed out that he's a 4th grade teacher. Excellent. No problem with that... but he does hold some habits obtained from his 4th grade level audience and he carries these traits when talking to a much older public. He should analyse better his target audience and adapt his approach to become more aligned with whom he's addressing. Now, about WHAT he says: there are MANY programs which explain how Carbon-14 dating works. Just type in : "How Carbon-14 dating works" here on Youtube and there will be MANY otions from which to choose. Evidently, this speaker did not choose any of the options on the subject. I could DEBUNK many of the things he has pointed out as falacies of the C14 dating methodology. I could. But many would doubt my words... so I won't delve into the subject. I suggest everyone to choose and watch a couple of explanations about C14 dating methodology readily available here on this very channel. This speaker contradicts things which C14 methodology clearly states it CANNOT do. Check it out and come to your own conclusions about what the speaker says. DO NOT take him at face value. Any and every person deserves to have a comparative basis in order to come to a intelligent, rational-based conclusion. This speaker would not be AT ALL pleased to know, and would even fear, that anyone would research into the other side of the story. His story WILL NOT hold up, and he might be considered either biased, and even more to the truth, a HOAX. Don't judge me for pointing out these things. Watch the explanations about how C14 works. Then it'll not be me whom you will be judging.
Ken Welch (2 months ago)
All his quotes are from 30 to 50 year old studies. Back when it was new science.
JoJo Siwa (2 months ago)
How can I meet Kent in person?
Millan Tronni (2 months ago)
Why is this clown mixing up radiocarbon dating method with the age of earth already at 1:02 ? Also, if he knew what and how radiocarbon dating works he would know that there are mechanism in the crust that produce small amount of C14 which make radiocarbon dating not useful for organic material older than around 70000 years and it can not be used for material of non organic origin and that the method is really unreliable for sea living creatures or creatures that eat food coming from the sea.
Martin Price (2 months ago)
What about the hammer they found inside a rock. It's wooden handle has partially turned into coal. I thought coal takes millions of years to form.
ozowen (2 months ago)
No, it had not turned partially into coal. Encapsulation is not the same thing.
Zeru Babel (2 months ago)
The facts are presented so fast that they have to be listened to several times but that's understandable bcse of shortage of time
ozowen (2 months ago)
Mostly he doesn't want listeners to think. If you simply pause after each fact then fact check it, you will find he mostly lies- really fast.
David Lee (2 months ago)
At 33.25 he states "I'm tired of them using OUR tax dollars to call that science" shouldn't that say "YOUR tax dollars" seeing as he was in prison at the time this was posted for not paying taxes?
robbiemckenzie100 (2 days ago)
Childish much. The prison thing is all you got. But go ahead we know why you hate him. You aren't smart enough to know which scientist is telling you the truth and Kent makes you think.
Joshua Dersham (1 month ago)
I think that's why he stopped paying taxes.
s (2 months ago)
Dr hovind would blow dawkins and nye out of the water
ozowen (2 months ago)
Yes, they are inclined to assume a debate would be honest. Hovind makes no commitment to honesty. (He'd never be able to debate if he did)
Aquilla Fleetwood (2 months ago)
The Great Summer Tiangle is shaped like the Paleo-Aramaic letter "dalet", which means a "door"! Inside this triangle is the Northern Cross! The word picture reads "Door of the Cross"!
Aquilla Fleetwood (2 months ago)
The Northern Cross near the North Star is shaped like the Paleo-Hebrew letter "tau" which means a "sign"! Genesis 1: 14 says, the stars shall be for signs!
Tyler Durden (2 months ago)
He presents himself convincingly but he runs his logic in circles. His presentation however will fool the weak minded
Dom Tor (2 months ago)
This is all garbage from bias and ignorant religious zealots who intentionally mischaracterize the science. Dating is conducted using multiple independent and dissimilar techniques which demonstrate highly accurate and consistent results. You can’t trust religious nuts who start with an agenda. You can trust real science which constantly challenges and tests its assumptions and theories in a constant effort to find the truth.
Darryl Gibson (2 months ago)
The earth is aging like a soap opera child 😄
Edwin van gent (2 months ago)
total crap........for example he even doesn't know that you can't use radiometric dating unless the fossil is older than 100 years... he is a CON
Edwin someone needs to chop you up into little pieces with an ax
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
Edwin van gent If cannot get C-14/C-12 ratio reading until after100 years, that means C-14 half-life reading is not reliable for at least 100 years?
ben green (2 months ago)
Hey, Creationists!- watch this and learn something..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUYaE0IZYjc
coolredjoe (2 months ago)
Jorge of Albion (2 months ago)
This is some Retarded word salad.
Gustavo jhon (2 months ago)
Kazu Nabe (3 months ago)
Why was this garbage recommended to me?
Mad Geordie (3 months ago)
Some of what is stated here is incorrect. Coal has been found from nearly all of the Earth's ages, going all of the way back to the Cambrian period. None of it contains any C-14 because any it originally contained decayed a long time ago. Since the Industrial Revolution the carbon dioxide produced by burning this coal has diluted the C-14/12 ratio of the present day atmosphere. This is one of the factors that has to be taken into account when C-14 dating is used. The statement about there being still measurable C-14 levels in coal (from whatever source) is yet another example of the mendacious tactics of the Discovery Institute manufacturing their own facts in an attempt to undermine anything they do not agree with - in this case the idea of a non Biblical 'old' earth.
spence butterfield (3 months ago)
You the man!!! When are you gonna debate Richard Dawkins????
ozowen (2 months ago)
He's the liar! (Hovind)
SirBudrick (3 months ago)
Carbon dating is like a game of craps that only counts when I win. All losses are thrown out.
ozowen (2 months ago)
No, cherry picking is the creationist trick
Shane Hughes (3 months ago)
Only complex is his ego and money. He makes my head hurt with the dumb falling out. He has to get the clear up all the lies out his throat. Im a teacher so i can explain. Lol. Im a teacher too but i check facts.
Gert Scheper (3 months ago)
Maybe you should try to find a shred of evidence for your imaginairy freind . Or in this case any imaginairy freind.
Gatis Ozols (3 months ago)
It is funny how those who say "I dont believe in God of the bible who created everything" comments on these faith building videos. I as christian I don't watch videos of claims that all came from nothing or bible is a lie. I dont feed on such videos. So my question to you brother without faith, are you here commenting because in your heart you doubt that there is no God? I couldnt be more happier seeing so many "atheists" watching these kind of videos. Wonderful! Im happy! God bless!
KL (3 months ago)
Awesome. I like the accuracy of helium dating. A known 30 year old rock was sent to lab and dated at 30 million years old. Helium dating put it around 30 years and is correctly dating many other rock areas. Evos hold on to a false, programmed paradigm.
ozowen (2 months ago)
The claim by KL is bogus.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
There is no such thing as helium dating. There is something called Uranium–thorium dating but you cannot be talking about that. It cannot be used on rocks because granitoid rocks produce He as a decay product and sedimentary rocks get contaminated with it. So I wonder what method you are talking about. Please give me a reference.
radar 211 (3 months ago)
Is this guy a comedian? I can't stop laughing!
Devin Collins (3 months ago)
Nice to find someone using evidence and explaining how something does and doesn't work. And people call this a psudeoscience.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
"But my question to you is how do you know what numbers are accurate and which numbers aren't?" That is actually a complex question. There is an entire check and balance system that is needed to make sure the dates are accurate. I will explain some of them right now. The theory of relativity predicts the half-life of all isotopes. There are thousands total. In our lifetime we are able to observe the half-life decay of hundreds and all have decayed at the exact same rate as predicted for all objects of known age (made by humans in the last few hundred years). To date no research has turned up anything that can greatly affect the decay rate other than humans doing it artificially. We have done much research and the decay rate has always been constant it seems. For making sure the rate of decay has been constant scientists must use 3 or more overlapping dating methods using different isotopes combined with other overlapping methods of different age ranges. Each isotope is independent of the other. They all have different decay rates and the rate of one does not affect the rate of another. By having multiple different isotopes each one independently confirms the other. They must all agree on the exact same age or the date is considered useless. Scientists also do not just look at the isotope used for the dating method but at other parent/daughter isotopes of different elements and non-decayed isotopes. They look at dozens of different elements and isotopes within the sample to make sure that the ratio of the parent and daughter isotopes match up. Since there is always a direct correlation between the parent isotope and daughter isotope knowing the ratio of one means you know the predicted ratio of them all.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
How do we know? There are many ways. But first answer my question now. Did you know a blank was needed? If you did then explain how they can get an accurate result with no blank. My entire point of asking this was to show you that you have no idea if what is said in the video is true or not so the question is important. Please answer for once and stop dancing around the only questionI have asked. Please.
Devin Collins (3 months ago)
Whitney Washington well you did just elaborate on your question, like a true adult. Yes I knew that C14 dating is (supposedly) inaccurate when no organic material is left. But my question to you is how do you know what numbers are accurate and which numbers aren't? And also try to answer my previous question.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
You very much proved my point. The video relies on your ignorance. It relies that you will not know why C14 was found in the dinosaur fossils if they are actually old. It relies on your ignorance that you do not know background radiation is always producing new C14 within the sediments. Don't think what little you learned in school even amounts to a small fraction of what there is to the dating methods.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
You did not answer mine. I asked you did you know this? I asked you twice. Don't ignore my question I asked first if you want yours answered. Act like an adult and hold a conversation back. "How do you know it doesn't give different results when you just said that there were over 100 methods? " Have you not read what I wrote? The C14 readings were not accurate because they did not date any organic matter but the sediments so they could not adjust for background radiation. All methods work when they are used accordingly to how they are suppose to be. If you disagree explain to me right now how can they get an accurate reading when no blank was used to compensate for background radiation? I am guessing you never heard of isochron methodology where you need at least 3 different independent dating methods that overlap to all have the same date for it to be considered accurate. So now answer my question did you know any of this? Yes or no? If you did explain how they compensated with no blank.. " Have you tried each and everyone on a suitable sample?" The sample they used was not suitable. You keep ignoring that for some odd reason. I wonder why lol.
thinkoutsidethebox (3 months ago)
'They' don't compare carbon in fossils. There's no carbon as it's mineralised. Truth pfft.
MrJojogun (3 months ago)
Don't quite understand why he would conclude that it has to be younger. If the science if flawed , which I agree with, then couldn't he also, conclude also that it could be even older or just admit, we just don't know.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
The science is not flawed. They applied a method of dating to a sample that could not be dated using that method. For C14 methodology you need an organic sample which the fossil had none of so of course you will get an inaccurate reading.
nunya bidness (3 months ago)
So... if carbon "falls apart" roughly every 5300 years, and carbon dating is only roughly 60 years old.... how does anyone know that it falls apart after 5300 years? Shouldn't someone have had to be studying carbon for 5300 years to know that?
Tom Culver (1 month ago)
Whitney Washington Just curious. If unable to get reliable half life reading of C-14 until life form has been dead over 100 years, then how was it reliable to put the official half-life of C-14 @ +/- 5,735 years?
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
Lol yes you must have stopped. That is why you responded. Too bad this girl isn't shutting her face bitch lol.
nunya bidness (3 months ago)
Whitney Washington do us both a favor and stop talking. Once you start with the insults, I stop reading what you have to say. This could have been a good conversation, but you had to cry like a little girl because you were being destroyed by facts.... shut your face.
Whitney Washington (3 months ago)
Once again you did not answer my question. Clearly you are to uneducated and drool on yourself too much to answer. If you do not know the subject well enough to debate then you should not debate and look like a fool. Lets face it if you could answer you would. Instead I showed how you lack logic and like a creationist you ran with your very tiny tail between your legs.
nunya bidness (3 months ago)
Whitney Washington I did answer your question, but ignorance is as ignorance does. You cant handle the truth so you make call and run off with your tail between your legs.... rofl... thanks for the laugh, moron.
Golden Rule (3 months ago)
Watch "Do official government documents confirm Flat Earth and the Firmament?" on YouTube https://youtu.be/PZcrSyMM1ZM
Jens Lauritsen (3 months ago)
The thing with Howind is, he's such a manipulative fraud, that it makes no sense to watch his explanations. Read genuine research, or watch TED presentations from actual scientists instead. Howind will only get you dumber.   Even if we follow his recomendation of throwing all evidence of old earth and evolution away, we wouldn't be one inch closer to creationism or genesis or what ever he believes in, as there is absolutely no knowledge or observations to support these things. We wouldt just be back to zero on explaining who the world came about. And then start to develop a new SCIENTIFIC theory.
Ted Bishop (3 months ago)
There are no flaws in carbon dating, The flaws are in your preaching.
Ken Bell (3 months ago)
Wish I was rich so I could sue my home school for teaching lies and assumptions as fact !
Gilbert Cockworthy (3 months ago)
What does sunlight knock off nitrogen to make carbon 14? Bullshit! Kunt, I mean Kent is way out of his depth here.
Dave Lospinoso (4 months ago)
Damn I graduated with a BS biochemistry and none of my professors mentioned this. Interesting.. hovind is smart af
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
Write down every "scientific" point he makes and go read Encyclopedia Britannica. You will see that he wrong. B.S. is Biochemistry? nice claim you provide nothing to back it up with. Where did you get your degree at?
Dave Lospinoso (3 months ago)
Richie Rich nah. He has a claim and presents crazy good evidence lol gotta give respect where respect is due
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
Scott Gaines (4 months ago)
OMG this guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Gilbert Cockworthy (3 months ago)
Correct.He's a moron.
oopscanada (4 months ago)
Wow. Poor atheists. This little seminar really destroys carbon dating results, makes them a fantasy. I will share this video with as many young kids as I can if they are in Public Scools.
James P (4 months ago)
Nice try to pick holes in a scientifically sound method, ignore all the BS and holes in own religion... brilliant
Jeffrey Gipson (4 months ago)
Thoughts? Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones with carbon 14 in it. https://youtu.be/WdqYPjA9VxA
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
It was not soft tissue. Shows how much you know.
Gilbert Cockworthy (3 months ago)
Grizzly (4 months ago)
13:22 Hovind says that to carbon date a creature you would have had to know when the creature lived to carbon date the creature. and i propose to you another set of circular reasoning the bible is god's word, because the bible tells you that it is god's word. also we can see that carbon dating has problems, and that they have tried to fix it and make it more accurate, but at this point in time we have developed more accurate methods to date things, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating
Grizzly (4 months ago)
this is also a great example of how scientists work, when something doesn't work and models say that it should, they try and figure out what went wrong, and then fix it, and if it keeps going wrong they throw it away and then find a more accurate method.
thearmysold1er (4 months ago)
Now to see all the butthurt atheists.
Super Chaos (4 months ago)
Ok for those of you who don’t believe in god, then obviously you believe in the Big Bang. Am I correct? Now, say that you and your friend are at a movie. You come back home and see a coke on the floor. Your friend tells you “oh someone put/left that coke there” but you say “No, it came there without anything causing it to.” Now imagine you apply this to our universe. The Big Bang doesn’t make as much sense any more. Where did all this matter come from? Religious people say that a highly powerful being/beings made it, but scientists and others say it came into existence on its own. Doesn’t seem right, I think we should just stick with the fact that there is a god out there. Makes a lot more sense than something coming from nothing.
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
No, To be a Christian, you have to believe in the Name of the Messiah Yeshua and his death burial and resurrection. In addition to following his teachings. No other stipulations apply. You are the one who has some things wrong with your understanding of Christian lore and teachings. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that one must believe in a specific sect of religious doctrines concerning how old the Earth is or what process Elohim created everything. You don't understand Hebrew and the Torah. Maybe you should go study Genesis some more and learn that the Genesis account is not a literal chronological creation story. Again, I am a deconverted Christians. I followed, study, and continue to study Christian lore and doctrines. Again, you are the one who lacks basic understanding. This is not totally your fault. You were likely, if I may be bold, raised in a severely right wing YEC conservative home and was likely home schooled by a severe right wing school that taught this drivel. Correction, I have never said I was a Christian, I have said before that I am deconverted. You likely over read that. You aren't as ignorant as I thought. You emphasis between a "theory" and a "scientific theory" albeit against every part of my subconscious brain that says this maybe more explained by your reading someone saying something about it. I will explain either way. Scientific Theories are collections of facts, data, and other forms of information which provides a model and explains past and future occurrences of Naturally Occurring phenomenon. Evolution Theory, aka Modern Evolution Synthesis, is the grand unified theory of science which explains descent with modification and change in allele frequencies over successful generations. It also provides a model in which we can predict how past evolutionary events happened in addition with future evolutionary events. Putting your fingers into your ears and ignoring facts and evidences on the Basis that you don't know anything about reality other than what's found in your specific sect of Religious Doctrine is highly irrelevant.
Super Chaos (3 months ago)
Richie Rich Ok I’m just going to stop arguing, you clearly don’t understand a thing I say, I’m just trying to give a good argument. You on the other hand just provide the same evidence over and over. I really don’t understand. I explained why Christians who believe god used evolution aren’t Christian. To be Christian you have to Follow the Bible, and saying god used evolution isn’t in it. The Bible shows that god made the universe. He made it all in one week. You also don’t understand the Bible. God says that Adam and Eve would have lived forever. Only if they eat the fruit, they would sin and die. The Bible is mathematically accurate, it’s not a math book, but when it does talk about math it is accurate. Same with science, the Bible even has scientific facts inside it. Way before scientists even figured these facts out. I used to be like you, believing in evolution. I’d really look over these comments again. The people who say they are Christian but believe that god used evolution aren’t Christian. They don’t follow to what the Bible says. God created us in one week, Adam and Eve sinned against him and received their punishment. If you still believe evolution. That’s fine by me, but don’t go around saying that your Christian. Or any of your evolution believing friends are Christian. That’s not true, and you would be sinning. Committing blasphemy against god. Also, don’t say evolution is “Science” because it’s not. It’s a “Theory” not a “Scientific Theory” most of evolutionists claims have no evidence, that’s not to say that they might not find some.
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
Again, not true Scotsman fallacy. Simply because a Christian does not accept your specific YEC beliefs is in no way advocacy for them not being Christians. You aren't going to get away with that. I also add that YEC makes up an ever growing small percentage of Christians. No, Evolution is the inherited change in allele frequencies over successful generations. it has nothing to do with death or dying nor does it require death. It only requires that "parents" reproduce and pass of their genes to the next generation. Death is a natural part of life. Even if Adam and Eve had not sinned, death still would have happened. According to Biblical Scriptures, we weren't meant to stay here forever in the flesh. No, The serpent is at fault for bringing death into the world in a way it was not supposed to be. The Serpent didn't lie though. God did exactly what the Serpent said. Adam and Eve didn't die like God had said that they would (Hint: god lied. Adam and ever weren't killed) Adam and Eve were punished because of what the Serpent said. They, in the eyes of the folklore, became as gods as in knowing good from evil. No, The Bible is not historically accurate. It is either all accurate or it is all incorrect. If I wrote a math text book and said that 1+1=2 in one chapter and absolutely nonsense the rest of the book. It is not correctly simply because one point was right. No, The Bible is not a science text book. It postulates nothing scientific nor does it provide any form of mathematical facts or proofs. It is simply a religious text book. No, you have formed the conclusion that your specific YEC beliefs are right. Your personal beliefs are noted, but irrelevant when it comes to science and math. Evolution is a scientific fact, period. This means it has been validated multiple times both in the lab and the wild. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the ONLY scientific theory which explains biodiversity and how new species arise. There is not two sided coin. It's not evolution on one hand and creationism on the other. Creationism, aka Creation Science, is a specific sect of religious doctrine that arose in the early to mid 1900's. I do understand Yahweh's morals. I spent 22 years as a Christian before deconverting. I don't care what you do, but sheer ignorance such as your's is my enemy. I am against religious based ignorance of extremist YEC who are trying to worm their ways into the science classroom.
Super Chaos (3 months ago)
Richie Rich Don’t go around insulting people who are just sharing their opinion. I don’t have as much knowledge in the Bible and evolution as other people, but sure as hell know which one is right. You clearly don’t understand God’s morals and his mysterious ways. I won’t judge you though, because god works in mysterious ways. Also, where do you get your info from? I’d like to know.
Super Chaos (3 months ago)
Richie Rich Sadly, no matter how much you don’t want it to, it is scientifically and mathematically accurate. You say that they measure the length of things by the length between their elbow and the top of their middle finger. This doesn’t prove that the Bible isn’t mathematically accurate. They didn’t have rulers back then, so they just used their arms to measure objects. It’s a lot easier. Yes I get it varied, but back then they didn’t have many options.
Mongo Davis (4 months ago)
Aquatic life can't be carbon dated accurately due to the reservoir effect. This doesn't affect the reliability of the C14 method on other things.
amigaze (4 months ago)
point 000 means talking 0. you are talking nothing
Katie Robles (4 months ago)
How do evolutionists explain the tissue we’ve in a triceratops horn?
David Jefferies (4 months ago)
A person’s beliefs are something that he or she has and I would never seek to change them or attack anyone personally. However, I feel obliged to assist anyone who has misunderstood or is misrepresenting facts. . In respect of the claims about carbon dating being inaccurate, I’m afraid that the anecdotes and urban myths described (but not really sourced) here ave all been shown to be erroneous. The following link may be of assistance: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=udkQwW6aLik Carbon dating has been verified and anomalies explained and accounted for, the presence of Uranium deposits for example cause C14 to be present in diamonds and coal. Similarly, the fossils that Kent brings up (fossils cannot be carbon dated btw) were presented by a creationist who though weakness, ignorance, or through deliberate thought, failed to mention that they were coated with resin, which can be carbon dated. Again, where Kent states that we ‘assume’ that plants ingest C14 at the same rate he is wrong again. Plants DO contain C14 in the same proportions. It is not an assumption but is an established fact. THe production of C14 and it’s decay remain stable. The cosmic radiation rate is steady enough to be able to allow this. Over the millions of years both rates have remained stable. Indeed, it’s is the nature of radioactivity to be incredibly regular. Atomic time keeping is far more accurate that the very orbit of the Earth around the sun. Hence the clock corrections required very now and then. Please note the absence of any personal attack in my response.
victor promiseviz (4 months ago)
atheist what terrifies you about the existence of God...if God made everything you sure do seem to enjoy and love and the perfect order of things that random chance can never account for...what is the possibility that the God u are running away from, might just be one you want to know...come down from your high horse, its tired of running, say-God i knw science can never truly get the truth, if truly u made everything,and u so lovely you came down to die for me and other people say u exist-millions of people..can u show urself true...i dont want to act like they are all fools and ignorant..there must be something am not seeing clearly...and trust me Jesus would reveal why he made you and his love for you for all eternity. amen
Clayton Bigsby (3 months ago)
victor promiseviz I hate to be that guy, but dude, you have to work on your punctuation and grammar. I couldn’t understand much of what you were saying. Not trying to be a dick and deflect, but come on. When you say “God” we both know you’re talking about the Christian god. You have to realize that god isn’t the only option. It’s not “either there is a god or there isn’t”. If there is a god, you still have the issue of WHAT god it is. The Christian god makes no logical sense at all. The Big Bang doesn’t stated HOW the energy got here. It simply talks about what happened AFTER it was here. Maybe a god put it there. That doesn’t mean it’s your particular deity responsible for that. My objection to the Christian god (for the most part) isn’t based on science.
victor promiseviz (3 months ago)
Clayton bigsby ,i might be wrong, but okay lets agree saying God doesn't exist is a very arrogant claim,a reasonable claim is we dont know if he exist or not, its like a disclaimer-not ruling on the possibility of him not existing or him existing-so there are not supposed to be any atheist, rather there are supposed to be agnostics-we dont knw if he does or doesn't exist and then we use the tool of science and logic to test d 2 hypothesis, thats what i was trying to get at when i said why does the possiblity of him existing scare so many pple they rule it all together out, now science is an analytical methodology that uses tested facts and repeatable observation to draw inferences on what we see, and so..for example we know all material things have to have material explanation, but by d time we have done that for every known thing and how they came about via viz the big bang,how did the first thing/material that banged came about, if it came from nothing, science rejects that cos nothing and something are 2 mutually exclusive words...we can't have something from nothing..nothing means no thing whatsoever, and if theres absolutely nothing.then it wld remain that way cos theres just nothing..asin ..nothing-nothing..but we do see something and now, science is stuck cos science only gave room to the possibility of only material thing explanations,except theres a possiblity the first thing that sparked all the energy into the universe is by itself non-material,didnt start to exist cos the rule of first existence wld place it in d category of material thing/explanation,rather it has a predication of just been,didint start to be, and hence won't stop been,it has a mind cos if its just a non-material particle then if it bangs or causes a bangs,all u have is an messy chaos..i do think a non material particle by itself can't bang, cos its non-material and wldnt follow physical law, and since its a particle, it can't just say okay today am going to bang,remember its d only uncaused particle..but if it can't bang of itself then it has to be able to create particles that can bang,how can a mindless particle create, considering d fact that its non-material particle, only particle, even though its a particle its still non-material and is mindless to say the least, you dont only need a non-material causer,u need a non-material causer with a mind and once the mind and intellect are been spoken of, non-material,it is termed God,uncaused,eternal,timeless,non-material being..also if everything is material, and purely physical, then on d chemical level of it,youre just random atoms colliding, that can think, can atoms think, that has a sense of justice, does collection of atoms and ions have sense of justice, ok get a tube of atoms, or even protein, or even tissue, cut tissues off a dead human, fundamentally on d biochemical level those cells are atoms, eg d cell wall is phospholipids, d organelles are amino acids and proteins, we can make all that in d lab, so why can't we make one cell,from scratch,a cell thats alive in d lab, if humans can't with our intelligence,with our precision, how cld have unguided particles have done that..how am i sure u were able to type to me,so atoms like oxygen, carbon that make up the most of you are the ones reading this, ur ganglions processing this information are just proteins and proteins have amino acids and amino acids have hydrocarbons-carbons and hydrogen scattered all across them and so its that hydrogen and carbon reasoning and thinking and talking..i dont believe this, u dont too..now d reason pple excuse God is cos of evil, but how can atoms know evil, plus humans are evil and wicked, do and think wicked stuffs and need a justification to do what they want like sex,etc..but d problem is some people accept there is God and still do those stuffs, see its not ur excuse of Gods not existing that give u a justification to do this stuff. d problem,is d human nature that really is...and God would judge sins and man knows this, so they come up with excuses, but God being d author of life and beauty is also kind, he created life with a purpose and wldnt just want man to die hopeless, he himself takes up flesh,is put to death by d same human problem of sin-murder,lies,immorality(the evil human nature) but he himself is sinless and after 3days comes alive..and his death is an open tender gift, that u dont have to die or suffer for ur sins ever, further more you receive his rightness and his nature supernaturally..u enter into rest and having eternal life and immortality with all Gods pple,u get this on d merit of another-god himself, it happened for you-this is the msg of goodness,stop hiding, own up to your sins and call on jesus-God who came down to make you new amen
Clayton Bigsby (4 months ago)
victor promiseviz Your first mistake is assuming atheists and agnostics have not sincerely searched. Do you think most just wake up and think “well I don’t believe in god anymore!”? Your second mistake is assuming impossible for our universe to form from natural causes. How deep of an understanding of physics and chemistry do you have? Your third mistake is assuming there are only two options. There are many options but even if I grant you “there are only two options for our universe”, you’re presupposing your god is the only creation option. I personally wouldn’t trust Kent Hovind. He’s been shown to be wrong many times yet he still willing gives false information push his agenda.
victor promiseviz (4 months ago)
Clayton Bigsby I know you not terrified and am glad u not, cos God isn't a scare crow but am glad that's out of the way, so the next step is answering the original question I asked ie what scares you(pple) from deeply searching knowing and experiencing him,cos there's only 2 theories, 1.the universe and life wasn't designed and happened by error, 2.the universe and life that shows designs and sophistication that beats our own invention definitely didn't come by error and does have a designer, if the logic of randomness making the universe this precisely with all its complexity is unattenable, then the only option is a designer and so the question is 1.why does that seem too painful for pple to look as an option if they are really searching for truth and what does that say about the affair of things, added to the fact that we go, looking for truth, we show interest in this matter, but yet when the search for the truth isn't the truth we want to hear is we leave angry, eg a kid wants to fly and wants to knw the truth about jumping and flying, but in his search he realizes there is gravity, 2 things he can deny the fact there is gravity and shy away like a coward, or he can accept d truth there is gravity, but why is there gravity, how can I beat gravity and probably go on to create a jet, test run d best way to jump and not get get injured cos he accepted d true fact of gravity, now he might get laughed by the guys in the hospital for believing in gravity, but atleast he has a jet or whatever, I don't know lol.. play safe etc and... Am not here to argue, am here to ask deep questions, if you want to play the argumentative game that doesn't achieve anything, there are lots of places and ways to do that and I need not get into that, but if u are looking and searching for truth like any humble human out there then am your guy or Kent hovind and other pple are ur guys.. Okay.. Okay!
Clayton Bigsby (4 months ago)
victor promiseviz I’m not terrified of your god. I’m not terrified at the possibility of your god. Does that answer your question?
Edwin van gent (4 months ago)
Kent is damaging the people of the US, creating fight's and incredulity
Nik (4 months ago)
Idiots. Carbon dating isn't the only method used. We have hundreds of possible isotopes.
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
Simple. The Earth is not 6000 years old. The existence of samples that date back as far as 75,000 years shows the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old to be a lie.
Davis John (3 months ago)
Richie Rich If the earth is only 6000 years old, then how did carbon dating work on animals 75000 years ago
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
C-14 dating is used for specimens that have died >75,000 years ago. You are highly ignorant.
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
Potato. Your answer is Potato. That's a stupid question.
Nik (3 months ago)
Richie Rich You remember all the other more stable isotopes which we now use ?
job sanford (4 months ago)
I wish I knew how Dr. Hovind is certain of the things he says ARE established legitimately, upon which we build the argument here.
Richie Rich (3 months ago)
He is not a doctor. He has no formal education, nor has he even taught science for any amount of time. He is a liar and a fraud. He knows nothing about science.

Would you like to comment?

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