HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Truth In Genesis

Carbon Dating Flaws

2460 ratings | 153031 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 (2681)
Ben Baker (19 hours ago)
Thanks for the brainwash
Byron Prohovich (2 days ago)
So what about Uranium dating? It proves everything you say Carbon dating cannot.
Martin G (8 days ago)
4:52 - Carbon 14 is "unstable. It's like three guys dating the same girl; that relationship's not going to last". You gotta love this guy; he presents scientific principles with the casual, down-to-earth attitude of your friendly next-door neighbor. God bless you, Kent.
Acute Logic (11 days ago)
I am so glad to see all those who believe in the amazing accuracy of carbon dating, since many, dinosaurs have been carbon dated in the last few years, and they all come in at 22,000 to 34,000 yrs old.  Now, before someone says you can't date something that is "65+millions " of years old, that is only true if they come in  near the upper practical limits of C14 dating, 65,000 yrs, which these do not. They come in right in the middle of it's presumed usefulness.  Also, if they were millions(or just any more than 100,000 yrs old), there should be zero C14.  Now, to add to this, there have been many dinosaurs found with soft tissue, including skin, Hemoglobin, capillaries, osteocytes(bone cells), proteins, amino acids, (and even soft tissue worms in the pre Cambrian layer, supposedly 500 myo!!!)etc. in recent years.  Not by creationists(although they predicted that, because they believe they are only thousands years old, not millions), but nearly all by non creationist scientists.  The only exception I know to this is that a creationist named Mark Armatage, who was head of the microscopy lab at CSUniversity, who found a triceratops horn in the Hell Creek Formation and found lots of soft tissue in it. After getting his find published in a highly respected scientific journal, he was summarily fired. He sued the university and won his case, but this shows why it has been so difficult to get this info into the public. He wrote a book called Publish and Perish.  In fact Mary Schwietzer who also published her discoveries a few years earlier, was viciously attacked by evolutionists, even though she is herself an evolutionist.  So, Dinosaurs are proving to be young, and the geologic column is based on the assumed age of the Dinosaurs, that has to be quite discouraging for the evolutionist's world view. Perhaps that is why they so bitterly attack those who are exposing it's flaws.
Michael Fritsche (16 days ago)
Only thing Kent knows is Fluffer in the Prison Shower
Michael Fritsche (16 days ago)
" Dr. Hovind explains" " I think i can explain" Anytime you'd like to bring for facts it'd be nice.
Martin G (8 days ago)
Please don't blame him for your inability to understand facts.
Truth Seeker (18 days ago)
No dating of any fossils or any rock is valid. Sciences favorite liar bill nye admits this in his walk through of the ark with ken ham. He doesn’t come straight out and admit it but he slips up. Ken tells bill that rock straight out of a volcano that recently erupted was dated using multiple dating techniques and they came up with several different answers (5k yrs, 30k years, 3mil years). Bills response was something like, yeah but that rock came from out of the earth and it contains different parts of rock from different parts of earth which leads to different ages. This sounds good but let’s think about all rock in fossils. Just because it is in the same area does not mean that all of it got there at the same time. Fossils are nothing but rock and minerals. So if you are measuring the rock itself (which is what they do) then you are only aging a rock. It has nothing to do with the bone that was left there. And let’s say they date it by how deep it is in earth, by how many layers of earth it is under. Well you can’t do that either. Because there is no constant weather. That bone could have been there in very harsh weather and a thousand years later it could be today’s weather. So it could of had hundreds of layers of earth dumped on it from floods or mud slides in a year or two (which is how it fossilized being covered quickly to keep from decay to quickly) in that time period and then years and years later it’s only getting one or two layers annually. So by using a constant of one layer a year(which is exactly what they do) will not work. They come up with these “answers” and force feed them to everyone to force their beliefs on everyone. They do not believe in God and they do not want anyone else to believe. They want us all to follow them to hell. I got news for ya! I’m not following you. I’ll be in heaven with our creator God all mighty.
Darek Johns (19 days ago)
They say it's around 4 billion years old. Honestly I think it is even older. Plate tectonics
Mark Kmiecik (22 days ago)
See my comments on your tree ring dating video. You're making the same errors here on a larger scale.
Eddie King (25 days ago)
Sorry inmate 06452017 but I'm not going to take advice from a conman selling me fiction from a book of fairytales.
ITPalGame (24 days ago)
all charges dropped except for one which he has been fighting since his release. How about that prosecuting attorney caught for child solicitation and eventually committed suicide? How about listening to the message and verify all data?
Ed Wellington (1 month ago)
Its unfortunate godless and ungodly scientists cannot agree to recalibrate carbon dating to prove a 6000 year old earth but we know scientists seldom agree completely on anything. Not to fabricate scientific proof but because many of us creationists know Bible science is true. Godless scientists do not know so they will continue to keep tests that agree with godless theories and/or disqualify carbon dating.
ozowen (25 days ago)
+Ed Wellington Really? Then please find a credible paper in a credible journal that supports the global flood, special creation or a young Earth. Go on. Outside of creationism no such things exist. The earth age is nowhere accepted in science as under billioins. Becauae that was disproven in darwin's time. Special creation has absolutely zero credibility- if you claim otherwise- it is you that is making the incredible claim- prove it sunshine. Stop lying and prove it. Find me the geological papers (not creationist ones) that support the global flood. Again- you can't. Feel free to provide that evidence- or apologise for lying.
Ed Wellington (26 days ago)
+ozowen Still no proof creationism was ever disproved. Just godless bluster. The truth is you've been brainwashed. https://youtu.be/iPBKfG31bj8
ozowen (26 days ago)
+Ed Wellington Of course it isn't in agreement on new horizons. It is in agreement on what is disproven. (ie: creationist garbage)
Ed Wellington (26 days ago)
+ozowen Your presumptuous that all theoretical science is in agreement is madness.
Rejith Regi (1 month ago)
He is so FREAKEN right: " Evolution is nothing but a state religion." Come on guys. Really? APES?
ozowen (27 days ago)
+Rejith Regi That's called "an argument from personal incredulity". A logical fallacy. Which is actually ridiculous.
Rejith Regi (27 days ago)
+ozowen sounds ridiculous
Rejith Regi (27 days ago)
+ozowen  sorry...you might believe in God and evolution......but I'm a creationist.... I just don't buy Apes
ozowen (27 days ago)
+Rejith Regi I am left wondering why you assume I am an atheist.
Rejith Regi (27 days ago)
+ozowen definition of religion according to Meriam Webster: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" You Believe that the universe and life arose by random processes out of Nowhere.....this belief is rising in the world......IT IS A RELIGION
Edward Mahoney (1 month ago)
Time is not a causitive principle
Larry Courtney (1 month ago)
I don't plan on dating carbon I wonder if she's good looking
Martin G (8 days ago)
I wouldn't date Carbon 14 if I were you. Kent said she's "unstable".
fidodido664 (1 month ago)
I m definately sure i dont come from monkeys although i m not sure for some people.
BezoomnyBratchny (1 month ago)
Nobody claims that you do.
Ultreïa Sherpa (1 month ago)
A few thousands years old? The earth? Mmmm whatever...
Hmm
rayminthecat (2 months ago)
And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are true!
Paul Hargreaves (1 month ago)
rayminthecat ~ please expand ~
john adams (2 months ago)
Clutching at straws.....Grow up.
Todd K (2 months ago)
Why is it we are in this crisis situation for human souls? because the other half have been teaching lies since the mid 1800s to push their evolution theory. Shame.
The problem with Carbon Dating is so simple. How can carbon atoms ( if they even exist LOL ) date each other? Silly atheists. Get psychological help seriously.
Shahrear Mahmud (2 months ago)
wow. atlast i have found a Christian molla
Smash Me (2 months ago)
18:17 Living snails carbon dated 27,000 years old and up to this date it is still the same snail no evolution happened.
Tim Hallas (2 months ago)
Every point Hovind raises have been fully and thoroughly refuted many times. He points out some anomalies but never mentions the 99.9% of carbon dating that is proven to be accurate. Hovind is a clown.
Christopher Johnson (2 months ago)
Hovind lied through his teeth, saying that he sent a rock in to a carbon-dating facility, and got a result inconsistent with the known age of the rock (he never explains how he knows the age of the rock, since dating methods are inaccurate and all). No carbon-dating facility on Earth lacks the knowledge that you can't carbon date a rock, because it has no carbon in it to date. He would never get a result in reality, where the rest of us reside. As it is, carbon dating is not used on fossils over 50,000 years old, and the dates we get with these other dating methods are consistent. Here is a video debunking the notion that carbon dating is not accurate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY
Craig Kelly (3 months ago)
It's mad how people know that Everything apart from living life has been created by man such as comouters,cars and so on. yet the one thing that can't be created by man "life itself", they say it wasn't created at all but by a directionless,random,unintelligent process of evolution. Seems like an illogical way of thinking to me..
Jonathan A (3 months ago)
Ok, when you think you know that carbon dating is flawed. Isn't it wise to write a scientific paper about it, point out the flaws and how it's supposed to be done? Peer-reviewed and if it stands you might get a Nobel prize. Basically, you'll change the world and be famous as a legit scientist!
Edvardas B (3 months ago)
Theory is important - facts are not
LemonGameshark (13 days ago)
Edvardas B what?
Log Fire (3 months ago)
You're bible is NOTHING but assumptions, you absolute TWAT!
Log Fire (3 months ago)
Kent Hovind doesnt realize it, but he just contradicted himself. He stated that we couldn't date anything as billions of years old with Carbon dating, because there isnt enough carbon 14 to still have any left after billions of years. Then he tacitly states that the world is gaining carbon 14 faster than it gets rid of it... So, then after BILLIONS of years, how much carbon 14 would have accumulated?! Possibly enough to date the creatures that have only lived during less than 10% of the earth's existence!?
BezoomnyBratchny (3 months ago)
No. Those are not the same thing. The sum total of carbon 14 atoms increasing does not affect the lifespan of individual carbon 14 atoms. For anything to be dated to a very old date with carbon dating methods would require specific individual carbon atoms to survive for that entire period inside the organism being dated.
Log Fire (3 months ago)
You misrepresntitive BASTARD! Comparing 21 lbs of carbon to 21 lbs of gold is one of the BIGGEST horseshit fallacies you've ever used. Gold isn't a gas that spreads to take up nearly as much space as Carbon 14, AND it would be hidden in dirt, rock and other metal. Not only is Carbon 14 gaseous--and there for it expands--but, we know relatively where it is IN THE ATMOSPHERE! YOU DISINGENUOUS PIECE OF SHIT!
carlo fraiia (2 months ago)
Log FIRE: Typical athiest, you get agressive and throw personal insults when youre proven wrong, you can't handle it and this is the answer you have, aggression.
Log Fire (3 months ago)
If scientists invented that the world is over billions of years old to excuse their findings because they took a long time to occur, what is Kent hovind's explanation for why we can't live over 600 900 years old like Noah did? It sure seems like he's just excusing the fact that it was thousands of years ago as a way to ignore that the average human lifespan has NEVER been near that long!
Raurke Goose (3 months ago)
The story Mr. Hovind doesn't want to tell you is that his age of the earth comes from a dream from a 7th day adventist prophetess.
Nicholas Masciaga (3 months ago)
The theory of evolution is not stupid, you are because you fail to understand it.
Kylie Christian witch (4 months ago)
Carbon dating is definitely satanic. Trust the bible where it says Serpent spoke and deceived Eve and the speaking donkey saved the life of a prophet.
robert roth (4 months ago)
There's some problem I keep getting credit for texts I haven't written!
robert roth (4 months ago)
thanks
robert roth (4 months ago)
Kent tends to quote mine papers.  Look up the article and see if it really says what he claims it does.  Kent states that we shouldn't trust science because it changes the dates on how old the universe is. But that's how science works!  It's self correcting.  The history of science shows this!  When scientists tried to launch rockets into space it was a disaster the rockets would explode they didn't keep the proper trajectory things went awry.  But scientists learn from their mistakes now when a rocket launches into space nobody even brinks an eye!  Science changing (updating) itself is one of it's basic tenants.  If Kent doesn't know this he has no business explaining science!
Eliaz Ruis (4 months ago)
You should have titled it Kent Hovind Flaws.
Maranatha Manor (4 months ago)
Excellent Job! Thank You for debunking the fake so called science news and bringing the truth out!
Silver Chief Gaming (4 months ago)
13:00
Zoeii ZiZZles (4 months ago)
how can he speak about anything as an authority figure he is not a doctor, he obtained his so called degree through mail order school known as a diploma mills that no longer exist, what an idiot
Ryan Kirk (4 months ago)
Radiometric dating isn't flawed. All you have to do is follow up on each of these examples and you can see that they are cherry-picked contaminated samples or result from a misapplication of the method. Hovind's crap is easy to debunk these days, anyone still believing this should be ashamed at this point.
Tyler West (4 months ago)
You can only carbon date things that have been dead at least 100 years and at most 60,000 years dead. If you carbon date something freshly dead or still alive, the results will be all over the place. Hovind should know this and not mislead people.
Andrew D. Harris (4 months ago)
According to the books of Adam and Eve, the sun was created post Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden of Eden, so the way these things absorbed radiation was not from the sun. it was from God creating it, and He is much older than we can imagine. The sun was created that humanity could be comforted with the day and night and time systems.
Leo Enlightened (4 months ago)
Anyone find that grenade commercial weird with its sexual undertones xD couldn't help but think wtf
Timxx3868 (4 months ago)
Lets examine carbon dating "assumptions" Well.. REAL educated experienced scientists actually tested the tests themselves. By nature they question everything (just as i do) and made sure that the various carbon dating techniques actually work BEFORE trusting the data. Thats why NOTHING, especially creationist nonsense has ever made into a science book! You can look up how they ran the tests and its complex and lengthy. Next, most importantly science never relies on ONE dating method and use overlapping types to confirm the data. so "fast" middle periods would have to be in all the diff methods AND they would all have to be the same amount???? just a tad unlikely. More and more is added as evidence everyday and sadly young earths and created humans - that ship has sailed long ago. Any gods in general for this isolated planet buried away in a boring part of this galaxy? So far Zip! keeping a low profile. All the predictions of doom ect Zip! Only real events we have proven are a massive asteroid 65 million years killing off the dinosaurs and letting mammals to develop and then apes and offshoots humans. Also 100 years ago something hit Russia and flattened a large forest in tunsugta (spelling) Also mile wide meteor crater in Arizona was a long time ago and the movie Starman used the crater in the climatic end. We still discovering some on the sea floor lately from way way past so theres still much to find for the long history of this planet. I'm afraid we are just one page thickness in a very thick book of time....Stars exploded to create us and will go super nova and destroy us- thats this universe- no reason no direction just life then death. You see it every min of every day on earth for all other animals that realise thats all there is. Funny smart humans dont realise this??
SurfK9 (5 months 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 (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
AT 6:50 Dr. Hovind meant to say you have 0.0000765% Carbon-14 (he said "carbon", not "carbon-14)
Millan Tronni (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
I understand isotopes
Shane Moline (5 months ago)
And what does "the sun slaps it around" mean?
Shane Moline (5 months 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?
BezoomnyBratchny (4 months ago)
They both have the same atomic mass but not for the same reason. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons (for a total of 14). Nitrogen has 7 protons and 7 neutrons (also for a total of 14). In a carbon-14 atom, it's only once a neutron becomes a proton through the process of beta decay (thus ending up with 7 protons and 7 neutrons) that the carbon-14 atom becomes a nitrogen atom.
bears 25 (5 months ago)
If this one point is true it completely invalidates Evolution from AbioGenesis
Kelvin D (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
Carbon dating reminds me of the recent DNA Ancestry scheme they have out there. Snake oil salesmen suck!!
Rosanna Miller (5 months ago)
Hovind is highly intelligent. All for God's glory. God bless him, in Jesus name.
Rosanna Miller (5 months ago)
If everything has carbon, then how come everything's age can't be dated by this "test"?
Rosanna Miller (5 months 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 (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
A P. Exodus 32. Start from there. :)
Shane Hughes (5 months 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 (5 months 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 (5 months 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 (5 months 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 (6 months ago)
i would take my kid out of school if evolution was taught
Jordan Gehall Wentsworth (5 months ago)
BezoomnyBratchny, Fascist
Holy Trash (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
Then you deserve to have social services remove him/her from your care.
Alexander van Wyk (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months ago)
Creationists are retarded.
Tortilla (6 months ago)
Nico Patrick umm. Do you have any proof he is lying?
Kurt Rogers (6 months 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!
ASmilingSnowstorm (2 months ago)
Lol
Shane Hughes (6 months ago)
https://youtu.be/uUEusDsR61k A whole Series that shows how he has no clue and lies about what he says.
Shane Hughes (6 months ago)
I hate this guy. Him and his son.
Millan Tronni (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (5 months 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.
Jordan Gehall Wentsworth (5 months ago)
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 (6 months ago)
What proof is there and why would it need to hide it?
Tortilla (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months ago)
What a bunch of nonsense Bullshit Fiction being propagated by a con-man.
Jordan Gehall Wentsworth (5 months ago)
+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 (5 months 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.
Jordan Gehall Wentsworth (5 months ago)
+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
Jordan Gehall Wentsworth (5 months ago)
MattieCooper, Can you say this exact same thing to the scientists who disagree with him?
Marvin PhiRatio (6 months 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 (6 months 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.
Jordan Gehall Wentsworth (5 months ago)
mccourca, I’m guessing your iq is <80
Simon Ellwood (6 months ago)
We are 18.5% carbon, fact! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body
DUTCHMAN 15 (6 months ago)
If you cant prove hime wrong shut the fuck up bitch 💯simple💯😂
Xi Yang Liu (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months ago)
Just because the bibles been taught for more than 2000 years, doesn’t mean it's true.😁
Except the bible actually has witnesses, miracles and archaeology to back it up. There was actually people there to see it and it has never been disproved. The same cannot be said about Abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang.
H B (4 months ago)
+Bernie Husbands And what would that evidence be? And yeah because it's not wishful thinking to say 13.8 billion years ago nothing exploded and created everything in perfect order, along with life billions of years later forming from nonlife.
Bernie Husbands (4 months ago)
+H B there's a big difference. Physical EVIDENCE! Building day-by-day. Yours is all hearsay and wishful thinking.
H B (4 months ago)
Same with evolution buddy!
steve cross (6 months 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.
Robyn Lawrence (2 months ago)
+steve cross simulated in a lab. What does that prove? For me it means That it takes intelligence to create life...
steve cross (5 months 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... :-)
The Rayquaza King (5 months ago)
@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 (6 months ago)
steve cross and carbon 14 found in dinosaur bones? http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
steve cross (6 months 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... :-)
BMore (6 months 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 (6 months ago)
Wow, I can’t believe these scientists were lying about the skulls like that
drwmtairync (6 months ago)
Any Dr. Hovind updates on carbon dating since the video was made?
Tom Culver (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months 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 (6 months 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..
Thetruthwillblowyou away (3 months ago)
your choice friend. But when you die, do not search for God, Jesus to help you. Seek science and your atheistic beliefs, ok? We all will die one day.
sslazer (6 months 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 (7 months ago)
I'm an atheist
Ernest Van Tent (7 months ago)
Flaws your flaws, his flaws, your all so full of flaws Topped with a big helping of bullshit
Siddarth Joji (7 months ago)
Why is he talking about carbon dating and talking about when earth's age? Rocks are organic material?
Chad Suratt (7 months ago)
Good video thanks
Candace Hamel (7 months ago)
Kent hovind opened dinosaur adventure land 2018 in lenox alabama, he's awesome!
Scott Murayama (7 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 (7 months ago)
All his quotes are from 30 to 50 year old studies. Back when it was new science.
Millan Tronni (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)
No, it had not turned partially into coal. Encapsulation is not the same thing.
Zeru Babel (7 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 (7 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 (7 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?
ITPalGame (24 days ago)
all charges dropped... only "structuring" remains, for which he has been trying to fight. It is a typical ploy to attack the messenger rather than the message when the message can't be refuted. Try this with the PhD scientists over at. Answers in Genesis, etc. They received their doctorates in their fields from universities appealing to your snobbery.
A theism (4 months ago)
+robbiemckenzie100 Lol Kent is not even a real scientist.
robbiemckenzie100 (5 months 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 (6 months ago)
I think that's why he stopped paying taxes.

Would you like to comment?

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