HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Stated Casually

Triceratops bone carbon-dated to just 30,000 years old?

1667 ratings | 35800 views
Creationists claim to have dated a Triceratops bone with carbon dating methods to just 30,000 years old! Scientists have long claimed the dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago. Have these Creationists revealed a massive scientific conspiracy? Or did they simply screw up on their experiment? Find out by watching here! SOURCES: Creationists date dinosaur bones with carbon14 dating methods: http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm Fungi and plants form symbiotic relationship in roots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza Fungi Produce Collagen: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452173/ Book about Creationism that I recommend reading: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Human-Reason-Perspective/dp/1629013722 Animation: Did Dinosaurs Ever Live Alongside Humans? https://youtu.be/iFpc35walI8
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (688)
Rob Hicks (29 minutes ago)
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. There is nothing that is dated to be a billion years old in recorded history that can be used to check and see if any kind of carbon dating is accurate. Yes you know this and you know that but do you really, really know? NO!
Thanks for information on different radio metric techniques.
Tgon Mwort (9 days ago)
Evolutionists = Liars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlIWeCogOc&t=10s
johnathan villegas (14 days ago)
Actually theres been loads of scientific evidence to prove that dinosaurs are young if you talk to paleantoligists they actually find soft tissue they actually claim it to be common.Not only that but whenever an organization dates a dinosaur bone it always comes out young.Mainstream scientists wont accept that because they set there premise on darwinism.theres 2 sides to every story with different perspectives.
Xenosaurian (16 days ago)
A few issues, Carbon-14 is used to date bones, not Potassium-40 and the like (that is used for rocks), and you can't really say "we can't date dinosaur fossils using Carbon-14" since that statement seems to assume beforehand that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, in which case carbon dating shouldn't really be possible, or at the very least there would be no measurable amounts of Carbon-14 remaining, but there is, and the date is absolutely within the theoretically "accurate" range of the reliability of carbon dating (though not actually accurate of course, since in order for that to be true, then the basic assumptions behind your dating method needs to be accurate as well). And you may want to read the entire article carefully, as they for one thing addresses several objections to their research, such as the issue about fungi that you brought up (and I bet they would love to consider your objections in regards to the tree roots and the plaster, and there are of course many more finds of Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones outside of just this Triceratops bone); (2) OBJECTION: "Modern bacteria and fungi could infiltrate the femur bones to give a young date."50 REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones.
Beverage Fissure (21 days ago)
just wait until a creationist try to debunk this by using lies
BugPope (29 days ago)
I thought creationists claimed carbon dating is fake? Can't they make up their minds?
nahshon (1 month ago)
Besides there is massive evidence that humans lived with dinos. All this about specific dinosaurs. They wrote about them. They fought with them. They canonized people who killed them. They drew pictures of them. They made tapestries of them. They carved them. They etched them on cathedral floors. All these human depictions are of specific dinosaurs. There is nothing the Darwinist scientist will not do to try and cover up the evidence. They make a pretty good living from the "old dinosaur" hoax.
nahshon (1 month ago)
Without accounting for the massive loss of carbon during the flood, the carbon clock is way off. Their claim of 30,000 years by the AMS folks is not adjusted for the change in carbon amount in the atmosphere. The actual age is more like 5000 years if the change is accounted for. The massive amount of carbon buried by the flood is seen in the massive amount of coal and oil buried under tons of water born sediment. And that coal is also carbon datable. Although claimed to be many millions of years old. These guys want to challenge one dinosaur. But they are only skimming the surface of carbon dating. To date there is NO source of carbon that cannot be dated. From dino fossils to coal to supposed billion year old diamonds, everything that has carbon is datable. The AMS folks would like to find a source that is "carbon dead" to help calibrate their systems. Problem is they can't find ANY carbon source that is carbon dead.
Felipe Behrens (1 month ago)
It was sixty five million years when I was a kid... has a million years passed already?
nahshon (1 month ago)
It was 5 billion when I was born. Am I that old now?
Iwer Sonsch (1 month ago)
Can the decay rates for e.g. K-40 be influenced by anything that might have happened in the history of the Earth?
Iwer Sonsch (1 month ago)
+Stated Casually Your turn.
nahshon (1 month ago)
+Iwer Sonsch The video is wrong. The way k-ar works is that the magma is assumed to start at zero. So there should be no measurable ar at 50 years. If there is argon at 50 years it means the assumptions are wrong to begin with. If Mt. St. Helens dates at 2.7my old how do we tell when there is actually an eruption 2.7 my ago? You have the same problem with Tricerotops bone. If carbon dating doesn't work at 30,000 years then the assumptions are wrong. You can't count the atoms and then just ignore the outcomes because it doesn't fit your assumptions. If you carbon date a dino, which is getting more common, and it dates young, you don't get to decide that the dating was incorrect just because you believe they died out 65my ago. They didn't. What you are saying is "when the dating fits our assumptions it is correct, when it doesn't there must be some problem with the dating. But we know dinos lived recently! We have human made depictions of specific dinosaurs. The problem isn't that dinos can be carbon dated, it is that evoluitonists insist that dinos died out 65my ago. Which is a belief, not science. Have you not seen that many dinos have now been found with soft tissue? Remember that lab research has shown that soft tissue cannot last anywhere near even one million years. But the evolutionists will never allow that dinos lived recently. They would lose their jobs. The problem is that the long ages dating system is false. But the actual observable and testable evidence points to a young earth and dinos living recently.
Iwer Sonsch (1 month ago)
+nahshon Feel free to give this video a watch! John perry explains why isotopes with a longer half-life aren't accurate in shorter time ranges and vice versa! On top of that, he also explains a way to not use the wrong dating method
nahshon (1 month ago)
+Iwer Sonsch Which other isotopes? For what date range? For 30k years only c14 dating would work. As to other radiometric dating, K-Ar for example, there is a huge problem. Whenever they date magma of known age the age is wildly off. Mt. St. Helens blew in 1980 but dated at 2.7my. Kilamanjaro, same problem. Mt Ngauruhoe blew in 1954 dated at up to 3my old. There is a huge problem there. If we accept teh dating of magma of unknown ages but ages of magma of known age is wildly off, it makes K-AR dating problematic.
Iwer Sonsch (1 month ago)
+nahshon Sources? What is your comment on the other isotopes used for radiometric dating?
DrBeast (1 month ago)
How do u make ur animations?
Stated Casually (1 month ago)
have a video about it here: https://youtu.be/GaE9qhDWVlQ
DrBeast (1 month ago)
How do u make ur animations?
Jesuisunatheist (1 month ago)
Stupid Creationists! Thanks Jon
i got a good laugh on his analog clock-comma joke #just saying
Bill Ludlow (2 months ago)
Just shows if you use the wrong method you get bad results every time.
Servis Veglash (2 months ago)
wow the clock analogy? are you kidding? it just exposed how big is the bias in you, and the try to lie the people, and dating something you already ''know'' lol this is crazy, bones can be dated just by C14 not uranium, you are really awesome, anch check the list of dinosaur bones that are dated by C14, it is not just that ceratops, and at the end you are guessing how that could have been contaminated but remember that is not how science works, the bone is too thick to be contaminated in that way, and by the way when you find soft tissue you guess another thing, the iron preservation, it won't let oxygen inside so how can that be contaminated? nice rescuing device
nahshon (1 month ago)
Without accounting for the massive loss of carbon during the flood, the carbon clock is way off. Their claim of 30,000 years by the AMS folks is not adjusted for the change in carbon amount in the atmosphere. The actual age is more like 5000 years if the change is accounted for. The massive amount of carbon buried by the flood is seen in the massive amount of coal and oil buried under tons of water born sediment. And that coal is also carbon datable. Although claimed to be many millions of years old. These guys want to challenge one dinosaur. But they are only skimming the surface of carbon dating. According to science C14 dating is only good to, at most, 100,000 years. The AMS folks would like to find a source that is "carbon dead" to help calibrate their systems. Problem is they can't find ANY carbon source that is carbon dead. To date there is NO source of carbon that cannot be dated. From dino fossils to coal to supposed billion year old diamonds, everything that has carbon is datable.
YoungbuckY H W Hoshua (2 months ago)
How is there any carbon 14 left on Earth if it has a half life of 5700 years or so?? It's a great time to be a creationist ☺️
YoungbuckY H W Hoshua (2 months ago)
The way you explain carbon dating is circular reasoning. How do you not see that
YoungbuckY H W Hoshua (2 months ago)
Carbon dating and radiometric dating doesn't work past tens of thousands of years. So when you say we've dated the layers on every side of the Earth and it came out to be 65 to 66 million years .. why are u regurgitating lies that you don't even fully comprehend?
DavidFMayerPhD (2 months ago)
WOW! Here is somebody who REALLY KNOWS what he is talking about.
Flying Dog (2 months ago)
You mamas ass dated to 10,000 BC
Gentleman Raptor (2 months ago)
I was hoping that to be the case, so that we could have a chance to find genetic tissue to revive It back, tho its pretty obvious It wouldnt Be the case
Stated Casually (2 months ago)
Our closest hope is to reverse engineer a bird to make it more like its ancestors, which is something being done at the moment, for better or worse.
Ric Rovey (2 months ago)
The dinosaurs died out about 13000 years ago in the great flood. Evolution is a religion for people that like being lied to
Richard Bonnette (2 months ago)
This is a great video. As it cannot actually analyze the information and process the scientists used, the person did well working with what he had to explain some inconsistencies. This has some excellent scientific analyses, and shows that the creationist scientists who were working on these fossils may not have been careful enough to produce their findings. Hopefully they will fix their errors! "The doctor says I've been in a coma for several years, but I know that it is only two hours." - This is not Creationism. This is egotism. It starts when you deny the belief from someone who knows more than you - on the grounds that you did not see it and hence, it could not have happened. This is what atheists use practically all the time when it comes to denying God, since they deny the statements made by older people and turn to their own conclusions - hence, God must not exist, because they KNOW he doesn't exist. So the other older people telling younger people this are all just plain wrong. Then, you can use your own scientific claims to defy the existence of God. AND, in case you are wondering, the false data which has been shown here here is not destructive to Creationism. Creationists have many more scientifically accurate dating methods than the follies fruitlessly shown here, and there are times when evolutionists make many sad mistakes, too. The difference is why and the viewpoint one takes up these arguments. Evolutionists may think Creationists are making these mistakes on purpose. Creationists may think the exact same of Evolutionists. But I know that many on BOTH sides are not. Evolutionists are trying to prove the lazy man's theory of what would happen if there is no God (the results are quite gruesome even when many do not think about its implications), and can make some errors based on what they believe. Creationists are trying to search for these questions in a major society which despises God, His Law, and His Order, so naturally, they are fighting for some answers and are bound to make some human errors on the way. That is not theologically fatal, however, in case some of you are actually wondering if this destroys God out of the Bible. There is no clearly-defined dogma, doctrine, or passage either from the Bible or the Church that sincerely and infallibly condemns any person who does not believe in a 6,000 years old creation. THIS IS because the age of Creation DOES NOT MATTER. What does matter, however, is that CREATION HAPPENED, and that truth exists for the same reason I am talking to you - becuase if we exist, then something made us, and we owe at the very least a portion of our existence to the person who created us (imagine that theoretical guy who came out of a coma -- imagine how the doctor would feel if that guy basically denies that the doctor helped him all those years ... ). I am not angry at the person here for his beliefs - I can see he is trying to be perfectly logical with what has been provided to him. Unfortunately, second-hand information is deplorably inaccurate and I do hope some more accounts and descriptions can be provided later on to better support claims made by both sides.
jsfbr (3 months ago)
I'm surprised that such a mistake was done by supposedly serious professionals. This radiometric dating 101!
jsfbr (3 months ago)
👏👏👏
Paul Wood (3 months ago)
Regarding the test method used your a priori assumption guides you to the long age isotope methods. This introduces scientific bias into your critique.
Paul Wood (3 months ago)
Regarding the cut into the sample you assume that the test sample came from where the cut was made. you have to know where the sample came from within the bone before you critique their testing method
Alberto Fernandez (3 months ago)
All your research and studying should give you a PhD already. Thank you for the info Dr.
Matt Curcio (3 months ago)
Excellent explanations, Good work!
D. Feliciano (3 months ago)
Im an atheist and i usually have trouble agreeing with some so called Christian scientist, but you sir are humble and sincere, my deepest respects to you!
Trentsum (3 months ago)
What's the rough estimate for how long soft tissue lasts before it's fossilized? About 68,000,000 years? Soft tissue has been found and will continue to be found in dinosaur bones by evolutionist scientists.
Gail Kenney (3 months ago)
Very very good! You gave detailed explanation for things most other YouTubers don't. I feel that I finally have an understanding of carbon dating, and why it would be easy for someone to twist the facts. Thank you.
Michael Fisher (3 months ago)
Idiot!
Ashley Sage (4 months ago)
Is it possible for an early human to dig up a dinosaur bone causing it to be found in an early level of sediment?
Trentsum (3 months ago)
+Alex Thompson😁 I rarely lol, but your comment was to good.👍
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
No they would have lacked the technology
Phil Ghi (4 months ago)
Why do you judge Creationists? There is nothing wrong in believing that we lived with dinosaurs or that the earth is young. Please let people believe what they want. I am sick of living in a society in which everyone judges. Please have some respect.
Broken Crotales (3 months ago)
Phil Ghi Because it's wrong. The real problem comes when those people push their beliefs as fact and try to teach it to other people and children.
Richard Abram (4 months ago)
until we have been doing this for atleast 20k plus years, i dont think it can be trusted . in just 200 years our science and the way we view have changed so dramatically, the idea of believing our dating accuracy is a big gigantic leap of faith.
Richard Abram (3 months ago)
+Fernando Giubilei I did, its just not what I hear through various other sources and not just creationist. Or let me say its not the only thing I hear .
Fernando Giubilei (3 months ago)
No it's not, you didn't listen? did you?
Rod Glad (4 months ago)
It is laughable to me that when faced with evidence of a young Earth (supporting the Biblical view), it is explained away somehow as "incorrect evidence." Only the "evidence" that supports the evolutionist's religious view is accepted. I wish they would stop preaching their religion at taxpayer's expense!
Fernando Giubilei (3 months ago)
Because they suck at science, that's why, as shown in the video.
T Kat (4 months ago)
I love the coma/analog clock analogy. Brilliant!
Paul Babcock (4 months ago)
That can't be correct. The bible is pretty clear that creation happened only 6-10 thousand years ago. Ha ha.
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
+Paul Babcock no I believe the world is older than 6000 years but not nearly as old as a billion(because the dating methods are flawed). I hope this link will help you https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_609.cfm However even if the bible does say the world is 6000 years old all recorded evidence doesn't go pass that so that might be possible as well. Good luck! :)
Paul Babcock (4 months ago)
Alex Thompson If your point is that "days" means billions of years, then I will cede that it is possible you are correct. But if you are telling me that your bible is that vauge, unclear, imprecise, indecernable, and confusing that it reads as if it is wrong by many orders of magnitude. But then you are admiting your bible it that vauge, confusing, imprecise, indecernable, and confusing. In which case, Idk how you think you can glean anything from it. Have it your way.
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
+Paul Babcock actually it is that very list that I'm compiling. And the bible gives the ages when they died as well. So based on this very list you gave me that I've not even finished calculating I've gotten more than 10,000 years. Also the word "yom" translated as days in the creation week has many different meaning from season, to months, years to age and so forth. So the base definition of yom would be a period of time and as such cannot be completely classified day. Also take into account that the bible stated in 2 peter 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So the creation weeks "days" could very well be 1000 years. This would be understandable since yom can mean long periods of time.
Paul Babcock (4 months ago)
Alex Thompson Yeah. I know t point of all that biblical "scholarship" was to demonstrat a young Earth. That is why it can be shown to be wrong. What else were you figuring my point was? Anyway, Here is one of t many "begats" lists in t bible. They often contradict each other. But this one goes from Adam to Jesus. According to bible , Jesus was around time of Herod and Pilate . And we know when they were. Also we know when a couple other biblical events occured like when Nebachanazer was alive. So we dont need it to go all t way to when bible was created to figure when t week t Earth and Adam were created according to t bible. They added up numbers like yours and coupled it w lists like this and known dates. And they came up w a date or few ridiculously short of t 14 or so billion since t big bang and t 5 or so billion since our Sun and Earth were formed If you want to assert that 6 thousand is wrong in favor of 10 or 35 thousand, then you are still of by many orders of magnitude. Luke 3:23-38 New International Version (NIV) 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josek, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b] the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
+Paul Babcock creation.com tries to tackle this problem. https://creation.com/6000-years They said "we know that the Flood happened in 1656" umm.. how do you know that? It was never stated but was assumed without evidence. Lets add it up 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were *930* years, rand he died. Thus all the days of Seth were *912* years, and he died. Thus all the days of Enosh were *905* years, and he died Thus all the days of Kenan were *910* years, and he died. Thus all the days of Mahalalel were *895* years Thus all the days of Jared were *962* years, and he died Thus all the days of Methuselah were *969* years, and he died. 1 Thus all the days of Lamech were *777* years, and he died. Calculations: 777+969+962+895+910+905+912+930 =7260years( aka more than 6000 years old) Noah died after more than *600* years And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad *500* years and had other sons and daughters. And Arpachshad lived after he fathered Shelah *403* years and had other sons and daughters. And Shelah lived after he fathered Eber *403* years and had other sons and daughters. And Eber lived after he fathered Peleg *430* years and had other sons and daughters.  And Peleg lived after he fathered Reu *209* years and had other sons and daughters. And Reu lived after he fathered Serug *207* years and had other sons and daughters. 22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he fathered Nahor. 23 And Serug lived after he fathered Nahor *200* years and had other sons and daughters. 24 When hNahor had lived 29 years, he fathered Terah. 25 And Nahor lived after he fathered Terah *119* years and had other sons and daughters. 26 When hTerah had lived *70* years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Hara 70+119+200+207+209+430+403+403+500+600=3141 3141+7260=10,401(aka already past the 10000 limit mark) 😧 this is tire some I'll continue it later today.
Dan More (4 months ago)
Could carbon in their steel saw blade also be a source of contamination?
Sam Gamgee (4 months ago)
When I was young they always said the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Now you say it was 66 million years.Gosh, I'm getting old!
Gerard Trigo (4 months ago)
Can you say contamination?
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
No they make sure to rule those things out especially when dealing with carbon dating
Timxx3868 (4 months ago)
The problems always lies in that no knowing the WHOLE subject and getting false positives. "something from nothing" sounds silly to the layman yet if you open you hand, thers nothing there right. No, most people realise all the bacteria and dead skin cells ect but their eyes deceive them. The human senses worked well when we survived on the plains but in the modern world are tricked all the time. From nothing you do get something (still being worked out but very promising) and the smartest guys are wrestling with this now.- Sadly for the Faithful, the last bastion of God before the BB, may simply be the fundamental realisation of particles popping into and out of existence where there shoudnt be any. This presides explaining the start of (our) universe (no real biggy haha), it can have massive implications as to what the "story" may be- why, how, and all that- mistaken for a higher being but way more simple or fascinating and complex and may give us through quantum mechanics access to worm holes or even popping through a transporter beam. This stuff is incredibly complex in the math and the physics laws are really pushed as well as problems come up with frankly only the smartest people on the planet barely have a hope of working all this out if it can be. These guys ideas are berated by "average" and the faithful and its so wrong as they give you the things you already use so when they say that you NEED nothing to get all the matter to make this universe, then you should listen and not dismiss so easily. The universe may not make sense to most of this planet, however its still there and is real so it just needs explaining just like everything else science has explained so far. If you dont understand something, either shut up or OPEN your mind from old silly flat earth nonsense and learn about the subject and soon 6 day old Earth WILL seem stupid....
Timxx3868 (4 months ago)
The single most important discovery on how the universe (ours?) begun is what Lawrence Krauss and top physicists are working on now. "something from nothing" They have found that you need nothing to get something- What you say? thats silly!!- so was curved space and satellites that go so fast that Earth has to keep correcting the time bases by millions of a sec periodically. Yes all this brought to you by scientist who KNOW these subjects. Its all very real as we live with all this every day. Earth round you know that. WAIT its flat , i can see it with my own eyes. Wheres the curve? You know you cant see it with you own eyes yet you accept its round because of observations and what scientist say. Common sense yes. Well those same scientist are tell you that if you take away all matter. particles from a sample of space, you get absolutely nothing. BUT they found particles popping into and out of existence and it seems that these particles through other very complex stuff is needed to start the something. SO it possible and its very early days !! that you actually need "nothing" to get something. YES amazing but so are the pyramids. They cant have been built? well they are there!! FACT. The universe started in some way- FACT- God? or just simple physics that we keep discovering every day. So far every old idea that we thought was from God, is just maths and physics and now we traced it all back to a fraction of a second before the BB. All physics so far. Maybe god now? logic says no. Just more physics. Who invented physics ect haha. Yes thats a tough one- maybe God- Everything i said is very real- we live with it everyday so still a creator? thats your decision to make. Its hard to get rif of old ideas . Man is very stubborn and very imaginative- so i leave that to you what is real and what is a story only. IF you dont understand something, please dont turn to "creationist" or other clueless people. This stuff CAN be understood and if not, dont berate these guys. The fact humans are alive now from diseases ect are owned to these men . So read up and learn or leave it alone to very hard working "smart" people who cant actually do this work.
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
So your using a fallacy known as arguement from authority. Just because they are smart doesn't mean they can't get it wrong and this proves that they got it wrong. Before the big bang it is stated that nothing was there. Then boom everything! If that ain't magic I don't know what is. The laws of the universe only affect things of the universe but if there was nothing there to affect the big bang can't happen
Lindsey Corum (4 months ago)
You are a liar, different methods of radiometric dating give wildly different results. Example: fresh lava from the Hawaiian volcano was dated as 300,000 years old, an obvious error of 300,000 years and yet for rock of unknown age we are expected to believe it's accurate. I call BS!
John King (4 months ago)
If you research dating methods you discover that there are around 30 methods of dating things. The cretinous and the ignorant (or, to use the technical term: Christians) have only heard about carbon dating so they attack it. These people are too stupid to understand that a 30,000 year old age proves that their idiot book is nonsense. You have to accept deep time or admit your stupid ignorance.
Atomic Priesthood (4 months ago)
I love your channels, man. You give me fuel that makes it so much easier for me to explain evolution and how science works to my science illiterate family members as well as strangers I might strike a conversation with about this stuff.
cs (4 months ago)
well done.
shane hester (4 months ago)
what!this just cant be,,no way.
Pablo Novi (4 months ago)
THE third source of error: CONFIRMATION BIAS - they WANTED to confirm the hypothesis they are pushing - so, "surprise", they found "confirmation".
Ricky Thewise (5 months ago)
If the fossil is older than 75,000 years old there should be no carbon-14 at all
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
+Robert C. Christian they ruled out contamination tho
Robert C. Christian (3 months ago)
Can't organic material grow though cracks in rock? If so it can be contaminated.
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
+Stated Casually the problem is that that doesn't cause enough carbon to get a good date. That is just a silly explain away. Oh what you guys said from before was wrong? Well then you just make up stuff about cosmic rays causing the contamination. Or as the are doing now saying that fossil fuels is what is affecting carbon dating. It's always some awful explain away for contradictory evidence
Stated Casually (5 months ago)
Carbon 14 is constantly produced at a low rate in samples when nitrogen is hit with cosmic rays. This happens more in the upper atmosphere than down here on Earth but it happens here too. This is one reason there is an ever increasing error bar in carbon 14 dates the older you go (de novo generation is exponentially more of a problem the older your sample is). It also enters samples through contamination as shown in this video. You can read a laymen's explanation of it here: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm
Ernest Van Tent (5 months ago)
One tool you do not need in the box is , Stated Casually
Carrie W (5 months ago)
you also have to keep in mind that these people did not WANT an accurate result. Young earth creationists do not look at the evidence and go where it leads them. They are desperately trying to find evidence to fit their belief that their god created the world a short time ago, and they're either trying to cram it to fit into their time line, or when they can't, they're trying to debunk it as fake so that they can sleep at night, snug in their belief that their god is real.
Fierysaint1 (5 months ago)
WRONG WRONG! If carbon dating was the wrong method and the bones are truely millions of years then they should get NO clicks from their geiger counter. But they're getting them. So let's blame contamination right? The daters were very aware of contamination and state that they dated pure dino bone on multiple occasions to be sure. And let's not forget the soft tissue of the T-Rex that was discovered. Confirmed T-Rex may i add.
Danny Hong (25 days ago)
I found no mention of Geiger counter clicks on the webpage explaining the supposed ~30k year old Triceratops, let alone whether they got any or not.
Deemantos (5 months ago)
Isn't there some kind of worst pseudoscience of the year award ? Then again this isn't even pseudoscience. It is an error filled attempt at using science to disprove science. It is a huge logic fallacy to think scientists from all over the world, including enemy states, are conspiring together against creationism.
CodGeronimo (4 months ago)
Can't really blame creationsts for thinking that, it's the only way to make it legitimate to them, because god knows they could never change their minds.
Seán O'Brien (5 months ago)
Just learnt so much from this video. Thanks so much
RW2996 (5 months ago)
Creationists think that proving one scientific method wrong or questionable, somehow proves the Sky Genie. Hey, that rock isnt really as old as geologist said. So therefore. .......SKY GENIE...smh
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
+RW2996 ummm...what? Debunking evolution would give no evidence for God. That is a fallacy many creationists use but no me.
RW2996 (4 months ago)
+Alex Thompson And this somehow proves Sky Genie? Evolution can be proven wrong tomorrow. Still doesn't prove a God.
Alex Thompson (4 months ago)
No. This method is directly tied to the ages. If you prove the ages wrong then evolution follows since it needs those ages. Carbon 14 is not supposed to be found in fossils that are 65 million years old. Finding them in there simply means they are younger than that.
Craig McGrath (5 months ago)
Wrong! Get owned! Your science is from Satan! Turn to God and repent from your wickedness! Just kidding, I liked the video 😀
Magic Transistor Radio (5 months ago)
That doesn't seem like a scientific dating method. You have to assume the approximate age before dating it?
Stated Casually (5 months ago)
You don't have to assume. You have to find 3 methods that agree with your date unless you already know the rough true date. Watch the video again. I explain it and show pictures.
Good Ideas (5 months ago)
Sorry but do you know how silly that sounds ? - "if you know how old something then you can use a certain test for it" - to what, basically confirm what you think it already is....sorry but that's just silly. The whole point is to accurately determine how old something is - by not using pre-conceived ideas, which is basically what your saying.. this is how modern science works unfortunately...estimate how old something is then test it until it matches what you thought it was....this is NOT science.. Also they said they cut the bone open so in other words, no tree roots had affected it....nor was anything growing though it - fungus doesn't grow through fossils last I time I checked..
For the Love of Plot (4 months ago)
Actually tree roots can grow through the permineralized bones. Bones of any animal have various blood vessels and porous openings running through them. The minerals that replace the bones take on their shape like a cast and mold. The roots of plants can run through those “pores” growing through it. It is actually very annoying in preparing fossils that have been what we call “root chewed” because those roots destabalize the bones and make them fall apart easier
James Athersmith (5 months ago)
You know dateing methods when used on things in the right time frame will give the same time and since we luckily have several saying methods with overlapping times we cab test a fossil with about 3 or 4 different dating methods which will give you reliable results. Also C14 dating doesn't work on rocks, it kinda needs it to be an organic material. Also the soft tissue may not even be soft tissue for starters, and if it is all the actually soft tissue is gone leaving the fibres behind.
Shane Williams (5 months ago)
@stated causally Your a liar. It was a horn not a leg bone. Here is the Master degree scientists that found it. https://youtu.be/We_XIq-k66c
Eugene Kingi (5 months ago)
@stated casually Whose telling the truth ? https://youtu.be/zvWdWbLcJvQ obviously you don't know the process.
Kevin Canuckster (5 months ago)
I am surprised you haven't updated your erroneous analysis in recent years. The tests that they have done are much deeper than your explanation attempts to deflect. Contamination has been completely ruled out and the number of bones tested has increased, despite an attempt to stop the testing, and it continues to show these younger ages. Carbon 14 should not show any residual trace. I don't believe in a young earth myself but sure would like scientists to follow the evidence rather than huddle together and attempt to hide evidence and maintain the status quo. The issue is not creationism or Christianity, the issue is that 30,000 - 40,000 years is not enough time for evolution to happen...which means science is going to need to re-visit some of their foundational theories...
POPPA SMURF (5 months ago)
carbon dated my feces, turns out i haven't been born yet. just kidding, i'm a poe
roland watts (6 months ago)
Great video. Well done.
Femi Babalola (6 months ago)
This analysis is flawed because if the specimen is out of Carbon 14 range, then you should not find any carbon 14 in the specimen at all. If you do, it means the specimen IS within the age range of carbon 14. Which is between 100 to 75,000 years as the presenter says. Second, this bogey of possible contamination is the main cop out for deep age evolutionists. But when you now find C14 in Diamond, which is NOT open to contamination, they simply do not know what to say. The reason why C14 is not used for fossil bones is because it gives them dates that do not fit into their world view. Now we are finding blood and protein tissue in "70 million year old" T. Rex, and these guys are scrambling all over the place. Suddenly, this house of cards cannot stand.
Femi Babalola (6 months ago)
First you say I am parroting creationist propaganda. Next you say it is rejected by most creationists. You seem confused to me. And it is not 'propaganda'. It IS science, even if it does not say what you want to hear.
Stated Casually (6 months ago)
You are parroting creationist propaganda that is actually rejected by most creationists. I'm sorry you are so bent on remaining ignorant. There is nothing I can do to help you at this point.
Femi Babalola (6 months ago)
The only cop out you people ever have is 'contamination' and 'impurity'. It does not cut it. Diamonds at every level have C14 intrinsic, surface or otherwise. The same argument goes for Helium in Granite. helium is NOT supposed to be present in granite IF the world is billions of years old, because it diffuses fast. All these point to a young earth, but you guys will always invent an OORT cloud copout.
Stated Casually (6 months ago)
I'm sorry but you simply don't understand the physics involved in the production of carbon 14 from nitrogen. Most diamonds have impurities such as nitrogen that are trapped inside the crystal. The same process that transforms nitrogen into carbon 14 in the atmosphere (thermal neutrons are absorbed by nitrogen), also transforms nitrogen trapped inside diamonds. The conversion of nitrogen to carbon 14 slows the further down you go through the Earth's crust (because less neutrons make it down that far). This is why diamonds near the surface usually have a tiny amount of detectable carbon 14, while diamonds deep in the Earth's crust often have no detectable carbon 14. Here's a video on T-rex soft tissue: https://youtu.be/bSaOS7erEOk
Here's the Pork (6 months ago)
If that triceratops horn was 30,000 years old it wouldn't be a triceratops because evolution would have taken place and the triceratops would be very different if they found the whole skeleton and said it was a triceratops it would probobly be fake
Omid Tenkaren (6 months ago)
This is the best channel on the internet for debunking "young earth creationism science", not just because the explanations are awesome but also because of humble attitude and emphasis that this is not primarily a debate between religion and science, but between false science and real science.
Juan Valadez (6 months ago)
With carbon and of radiometric dating, how do they know the initial quantities of what they’re measuring? For example, take carbon dating. Is there no variance at all in the beginning quantities of carbon isotopes? Do they assume that every single thing they date started with the exact same ratio of carbon isotopes? If so, how do they know this assumption is correct?
Stated Casually (6 months ago)
We get our carbon ratios from the food we eat, which, if you follow the food chain, comes from plants pulling it from the atmosphere (C02 used in photosynthesis). Atmospheric ratios hardly change but can increase slightly when solar radiation increases. Because of this, we have calibrated carbon dating against tree rings going back 11,000. Here's an article on the process: https://www.radiocarbon.com/tree-ring-calibration.htm Other methods use atoms found in lava crystals called zircon. When zircon crystals form, they push out any impurities, just like ice pushes out salt when freezing. This lets us measure the ration of Uranium to Lead. Uranium is the starting material, lead is decayed uranium. https://www.amnh.org/explore/resource-collections/earth-inside-and-out/zircon-chronology-dating-the-oldest-material-on-earth/ When collecting from a volcano site, it's important to distinguish rock that formed from lava in the eruption you are trying to date, vs rock that mixed in with it during the explosion but was laid down earlier. Failing to do so will give you contradictory dates. Creationist, Steve Austin, does a scam where he goes to volcanic sites and purposely collects obviously dirty samples and sends different parts to different labs. This lets him trick his audience into thinking the dating process is not consistent.
richo61 (6 months ago)
Excellent video - I would also recommend as another entertaining explanation of why you shouldn't attempt to use C14 dating on dinosaur bones is Potholer54 's excellent "There's no f***ing Carbon in it !" Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY
Eric Patterson (6 months ago)
And this is not the only case of this happening. Many different scientists have carbon dated dinosaur bones and came up with similar results, some only show the dinosaur being 24,000 years old, so it even goes down.
Eric Patterson (6 months ago)
so explain to me how this would even register on the scale since its 66 million years old. All of carbon 14 should be out of it. I could understand if the test came back with a result of unreadable, or the highest year possible, but it did not.
Eric Patterson (6 months ago)
I get that, but there should be absolutely no carbon, so why does it measure carbon???
Richie Rich (6 months ago)
That's why C-14 dating is not used to date rocks and fossils. C-14 is only used to date specimens that have died >75,000 years ago.
maloc1824 (7 months ago)
By their own experiment the earth would still be at least 30000 years old not 6000.
Hoonter Barrels (7 months ago)
I didn't hear anyone saying there was a conspiracy. Scientists should welcome new information. You make it seem like there is a conspiracy. So you need to know how old something is so you can date it? We are carbon life forms so how do we not contaminate any sample? How about carbon dating something with historical observed science like the rock formed during the eruption of saint helens?
allan bessani (7 months ago)
75000 years of information in 10 minutes. thanks.
OrchestrationOnline (7 months ago)
Using carbon-14 methods to date fossils is like using a nanometer to measure a cruise ship.
Chris Cook (7 months ago)
So the group should have used 1or 2 other radiometric dating tests to support the carbon dating result they received. Could the carbon contamination you mention also contaminate other radiometric dating (non carbon dating) results? Can contamination ever result in multiple radiometric dating types giving a consistent but erroneous date?
Stated Casually (7 months ago)
Each dating method uses its own parent and daughter elements. This means the chances of 2 or more contaminants giving the same date is extremely low unless both contaminants came from the same source.
radar 211 (7 months ago)
There's a Swiss army knife! So out of place, now evidence supports creation, hahaha!!
KLJF (7 months ago)
over the last 6 years I have been comparing believers comments with atheists and it has to be said I would not like to be down on my luck with only atheists around . ... spiteful , childish, illogical, narrow minded, just look at degrasse tyson , smug , sly, vindictive , agressive , selfish, pompous . you really must be blind not to see what a crooked man he is .
Evan (7 months ago)
Probably just wasn't a Triceratops bone.
Noob Saibot (7 months ago)
Wow! No. Do some research bro. There was a triceratops horn fossil discovered that contains soft flexible tissues (as do many dinosaur fossils). Mark Armitage published this in a science journal. Is million year old soft tissue possible... Nope. A similar discovery is credited to Mary Schweitzer who tried to explain the preservation through iron rich blood vessels. She conducted a half arsed experiment to demonstrate the preservation power of iron, which is not used in any context for preserving anything. Funny that you show the dating ranges for the various dating methods. If you actually use any of them from Uranium 234 and below to date igneous rock of known age (100-1000yrs), you will get millions of years with millions of years variation. Keep believing though, if that it makes you happy and ignorant.
Frank Simard (6 months ago)
Go backward if you want science always go foward toward new thing, the iron perservation test was actually a success. Just don't know why you need that to be used? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/ They see it's possible so they test hypothesis. How complex is that to you?
Richie Rich (6 months ago)
not soft tissue. it was collagen. which is a protein. not soft tissue.
dumbcreaknuller (7 months ago)
no dating mathod can be used on any bone because all the methods use some form of decay and compare the difference in quantity between mother to daughter element as proof of age. all theese methods are bogus. they don't work because since they only work in a boundery, its likely they don't work at all. its all bullshit measurments and methods.
Frank Simard (6 months ago)
dumbcreaknuller dumbcreaknuller If you date that rock the build some house today witch date you will get? Probably a lot older then the house. That why in ancient city thats not the building whose was date but other small thing like bone or leather. And with carbon14 we can cross check the result with other elements. It's not only about rock.
dumbcreaknuller (6 months ago)
example. radiometric dating can only work from 50 to 200 million year range and carbon dating from 1 to 20 000 years range. anything between is just guesses. its guesses anyway. i would not bother to explain all the reasons for why these methods give unrealistic long ages as people can not stand my long scrolls but i have quite a list of objections against these methods as i know how they made these methods and that there is many many flaws that can be explaiend to put the methods into question. if we continue using radiometric dating, we end up with difficulty explaing certain cities that is partially embedded in rock and have obvious brick like features but is claimed to be caves because the rocky material on them is dated to many millions of years old or older but a recent mudlfood only tousands of years old would have explaiend the rocky material on the buildings and discarded the long age of the rock itself aswell as the obvious features of buildings like i describe have been made in what looks like bricks. example is some ruins in italy that show obvious sings of a more recently formed river that by science would be believed to be millions of years old because of the dated age of the rock.
Frank Simard (6 months ago)
They work in a boundery so they don't work? How stupid you are to say that? Just need to be used in the boundaries, not like the creationist do. They are also often use with other datation technic so they can know they work in a cretacious layer when they found the bone.
Fred Jacobs (7 months ago)
Radiometric "dating" is actually choosing/picking, and you pointed that out several times with the line "when we know it is older" (conclusion 1)....and they NEVER EVER get the same dates the ALWAYS fly al over the place, this is not broadly know information but it is a well known fact for the people that test samples. You probably mean well, and here and there you do mention some truths, but overal this is just a very silly video. Maybe you should check out the R.A.T.E. project and learn :D
Fred Jacobs (7 months ago)
Shalom, Thanks for your kind respons. The old earthers have a vested interest to keep this data in a place difficult to find don't they....? (could be the reason for putting it behind a paid wall) Consensus doesn't equal truth, remember Phlogiston, Spontaneous generation, Luminiferous aether and so on, all had consensus and now the consensus is that is is wrong. C 14 argument is simple, there shouldn't be any if the material is older then 100.000 years because it is all decayed by that time, the fact that we find measurable amounts well above the detection threshold in all dino bones, coal and even diamonds suggest these things are young. Claiming that contamination must have done it just shows how fast these scientist trow out the dates if the don't fit which is EXACTLY the claim I made at first....so thank you for agreeing with me. Stopping a video because a person believes the earth is 6000 years old is just as an ad hominum as me saying I stop the video as soon as they say the earth is old, one should examine the arguments put fort. If a scientist isn't free to believe what he/she thinks is truth and conduct research to substantiate that believe , then this would go for evolutionists as well wouldn't it...? Again one should be evaluated on the arguments brought forth. You do know that tree dating carries with it assumptions that are up for debate? That mister Randy Isaac gave a reply by no means is the same as that this is a coherent one, just like if you ask me how much is two plus two and I reply that is 5 and certainly not 20, 104 and 2,8..... ;) But here is link to an article with a detailed respons to his respons. Just like you I don't think I can word it better. I ask you (and all that read along) to please look into the (compelling) arguments and data for a young earth, and the answers for the old earth 'evidence" and data (the brackets are deliberately not around data, because that is the same for all). If you don't, that is your prerogative. Yah bless https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm
Albirie (7 months ago)
Fred Jacobs I read your sources, and I'm a little bothered by the fact that the only other sources I could find supporting them were other young earth creationists. I expect that if this was as big a controversy as people claim, there would also be a number of secular members of the scientific community speaking up about it. The first link doesn't do much for me. The author presents the argument that you shouldn't accept dates that contradict eyewitness accounts, but eyewitness accounts are widely seen as one of the least reliable sources of evidence. They then go on to base part of their argument against C-14 dating on the existence of a global flood, which is a bit of a leap considering there isn't anything resembling a scientific consensus that it ever happened. That's a huge claim to make and then not provide any evidence whatsoever. As for the secular sources, I can't examine most of those because they're unfortunately behind a paywall. As for the video, I'm going to be completely honest with you. I clicked away as soon as he said the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I truly don't understand how people can believe the Earth is that young when there are literally living trees older than the Earth supposedly is. Like the first source, he has a conclusion that he wants to come to and he seems willing to keep looking until he finds it, whether the data is correct or not. I won't go into the RATE thing too much, it's a lot of information to go through and I unfortunately don't have the time for it. I will give you an essay I found about it though, it's probably better than anything I could say. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm As for the last video, I feel like I would be repeating everything said in this video if I were to try and argue it, so I won't spend time doing that. Long story short, you can try to date something like a dinosaur bone using C-14, and you will come to an answer, but it's not going to be accurate due to the limitations of the medium. All that said, thank you for your willingness to provide your reasoning for the way you believe. That's much more than what I usually get during these discussions, and I appreciate it greatly. I hope you have a nice day.
Fred Jacobs (7 months ago)
Also an interesting link.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I20t34I8Aos&t=121s
Fred Jacobs (7 months ago)
Shalom, That is indeed a bold claim, so thank you for asking for evidence that is a good way to respond and the way to go forward! If there is no evidence for a claim you can't automatically disregard the claim but it shouldn't be put as truth, if there is (lots of) evidence against a claim it should be disregarded. The problem I highlighted is well know in labs that actually do the testing, but much less know to the public, so I understand your scepticism. Here are some examples: Mungo-man http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/Dating-Mungo-Man.html Unikaret lavaflow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w The (Secular) references to the claims made in those links ARE IN the links, so please don't make another Ad Hominem fallacy like the one you made above (Ken Ham), he also didn't have anything to do with the research from R.A.T.E. so it is irrelevant if he supports or opposes the findings in that study. The research done by R.A.T.E. can be freely accessed in the link below, any substantial critic of that is of course welkom!! http://www.icr.org/rate/ Yah bless
Faith Lewis (8 months ago)
In radiometric dating you must start with an assumption....so the flaws are not really flaws.
kingcopycat (8 months ago)
Flintstones is fake
Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus (8 months ago)
And honestly even if we found a Triceratops or any other non-avian Dinosaur that was 30,000 years old or younger that still wouldn't disprove evolution or somehow prove that the Earth is only thousands of years old. It would just prove that some non-avian Dinosaurs survived the K-Pg mass mass extinction. Now that would be a huge discovery don't get me wrong, it would change everything we know about the fossil record. But it wouldn't disprove evolution, if anything it would just validate it because it would show the adaptability of the non-avian Dinosaurs.
Eric Taylor (8 months ago)
8:20 The type of plaster used to protect fossil samples is REINFORCED plaster, It is the exact same thing the used to use to make casts to protect broken bones. Reinforced plaster uses cotton or plastic in the same way spun glass is used in fiberglass. Cotton would contain carbon 14. Not sure about plastic, I guess it depends on the source of oil used to make it.
Eric Taylor (8 months ago)
Basically they committed a fraud. Why do Creationists need to resort to dishonesty if Creationism is true. You don't need to be dishonest to support a true claim, the truth points to itself. A lie always points *AWAY* from itself.
Cponyman49 (3 months ago)
There have been far more deceptions used by Darwinist people to try and prove the "missing link" . The pilt down man for one example. Still have not found that little jewel yet.Show me the missing link and I will join the Darwin cult. Before you start know that I am not a bible thumper.
Brophanity (8 months ago)
no its more like being stupid and pretending that carbon dating works except when it is used on a dinosaur bone that has C14 still inside of it like the ones they found in the Cambrian layers that are said to be 500 million years old LOL...
Nate Bullard (8 months ago)
You are using circular reasoning by claiming that carbon dating cannot be done because you already "know" the fossil is much older than 50,000 years. How is that any different than a Creationist claiming that other forms of radiometric dating should not be performed because they know the fossil is much younger? You have to be unbiased and take all of the radiometric dating measurements accordingly. Many studies have been done very carefully and meticulously to avoid any contamination and have showed similar results with C14 being present in the soft tissue...
Jesse Collins (8 months ago)
It obviously and I mean very obviously would not mean everyone was lying to hide the true age. When you say that dinosaurs live 65 million years ago or it’s a conspiracy people are lying I start to not believe you. That stupid to say. It would be that people know it’s a triceratops bone so they know already that is 65 million years old and that influences their answer they get. They were told it was a woolly mammoth bones and they dated it and they came up to like 30,000 years and someone said that was actually a triceratops it would reveal maybe there’s a problem with carbon dating and scientist being widely known as atheist have their mind made up there is no God and only there a way you could be possible. No I believe the earth is billions of years old and dinosaur live 65 million years ago but you just don’t sound like you’re being honest. You sound like you’re trying to have all the atheist on your channel on your side because they’re going to think critically they’re just gonna be like “yeah stupid religious people”.
Jesse Collins (8 months ago)
Well young earth creationist don’t believe the earth is even close to 30,000 years old. They believe it’s closer to 7000 or 6000 so I don’t know why they would say it’s 30,000 years old
Seth Sedam (8 months ago)
What if scientist and creationist are both wrong?
voodootree (8 months ago)
"If you want to date something but you have no clue how old that thing is..." Probably best not to ask it out.
Telmo Almeida (8 months ago)
65 TO 66 ? DUDE YOU HAVE 1MILLION YEARS LACK IF SCIENCE IS PRECISON AND PROVE CONTENT YOU CAN NOT EXPECULAT BUT YOU MUST PROVE... EXPECULATION IS GOOD AS BLIEND FAITH , IS YOUR IDEA...
Telmo Almeida (8 months ago)
tanks ,now i get it :D precision, now tell mesure something you have not see ? and you have 3 or more datas ... explain DUDE ...use precision please
Stated Casually (8 months ago)
Here's a lesson for you on how scientific measurements work: https://youtu.be/Gn97hpEkTiM
NORML (9 months ago)
30,000 years.... smhl
CheapPhilosophy (9 months ago)
I do not get it: what "carbon" were they expecting to date, from a fossilized bone??
Stated Casually (9 months ago)
You might be able to get original carbon from fossilized bone if parts of it have been completely sealed early on during the fossilization process, but it would be really hard to prove the source was original.
Southern Israelite (9 months ago)
How would you respond that removing carbon dating as a reliable dating method for dinosaurs is moving the goal posts?
Evil Norman (9 months ago)
Uhno this is wrong...,you can't use carbon 14 dating on "stone" due to it is only reliable up to 50k yrs. You don't have a" fossil bone" but stone in the shape of a fossil bone. Radiometric dating is the preferred method.

Would you like to comment?

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