I am christian, I believe that carbon dating is accurate according to what it does. When you carbon date something, the amount of years you get is precise to the process you perform. However the problem lies within the fact that carbon dating might and half lives could have very well been different in many parts of the world only a couple thousand years ago. Carbon dating works, we are just using it wrong and inaccurately.
Because you pointing out a single mistake from a Discovery channel show, which I doubt you've pointed out a mistake correctly in the first place, does not unmake the whole of radiometric dating.
ask any kid why they think anything is millions of years old and they will say carbon dating the lie was sold to me in high school, and its sold evry day on tv as this evoloutionist said its not worth using on samples beyond 60,000years of age the scary part of this is that most of the scientist on walking with dinosaurs no this to but some how they have the nerve tosay carbon dating proves things this guy says it cant, if they would lie on national tv why the fuck should i beleive anything else
"ask any kid why they think anything is millions of years old and they will say carbon dating"
Because kids are who you should ask...
"the lie was sold to me in high school"
It's not meant to be a lie. it's a simplification like the rule that "because" should never be used at the start of a sentence. Later you learn there's more to it, and it's okay to use "because" at the beginning, if you word the sentence correctly
"if they would lie on national tv why the fuck should i beleive anything else"
First, let me say I doubt they said "carbon dating" rather than "radiometric dating," but assuming they did... The shows are for the layman. They don't expect you to be able to know that carbon dating is one of many forms of radiometric dating.
The discovery channel, TLC, History, and other such channels are not what they used to be.
and by the way dumb ass if the las time watched the discovery channel walking with dinosaurs they claimed that carbon dating proved all these different types of dinosaurs were millions of years old you just said that carbon dating is not effective pst specimens 60,000 years old so why the fuck are slimy evoloutinist saying carbon dating is the sole source of how we no dinosaurs are millions of years old i guess they dont no what you no or their just lying,
"if the las time watched the discovery channel walking with dinosaurs they claimed that carbon dating proved all these different types of dinosaurs were millions of years old..."
Then they were wrong. They should have said "radiometric dating." Carbon dating is just one form of this, and wouldn't have been used in this situation. There are actually dozens all working on separate principles of different elements, and multiple samples are used to date the fossil.
"why the fuck are slimy evoloutinist saying carbon dating is the sole source of how we no dinosaurs are millions of years"
I don't know of a single scientist (or evolutionist as you call us) that would say carbon dating is the sole source of how we no dinosaurs are millions of years old. Just because the discovery channel said something, doesn't mean that's a true or universal statement... They have shows about ghost hunting ffs.
we werent their so we have to assume they were allways at the same temp and same moisture levels for fuck sakes under the rite conditions things that mite take thousands of years, break down in just a few, to even think this method of age calculation works you have to first assume you no that the conditions the specimen was exposed to were allways the same. with all the natural events that take place over 100 year period on earth its ubsurd to make assumptions like that, asses make asumptions.
"you no that the conditions the specimen was exposed to were allways the same."
Actually you don't because carbon dating is the only one that tests the sample directly. The rest take samples of the rock around the sample, and the rocks are tested. The age of rock isn't subject to change in that way.
with evrything this guy just said he still isnt willing to say carbon dating is bullshit, i mean i just learned that from this video he didnt even disprove ken hovind, If their is that many errors being made on based on surrounding factors in things which have just recently died what hope is their in finding sound results in things which have died and been exposed to different conditions for thousands of years we have no idea what conditions they have been exposed to
"what hope is their in finding sound results in things which have died and been exposed to different conditions for thousands of years"
Quite a bit because 1.) we can test it by giving a lab samples of known age and seeing that they come back with a correct answer, 2.) Anything tested is based on the results of several types of radiometric dating. They never use just one.
Carbon Dating is not 100% accurate either, the RATE in which these carbon atoms break down changes... the only reason we have accurate measurements is because we calibrated carbon dating on things that we know for certain are a certain age.
The rate in which carbon (or anything) decays is not linear... it would be great if it was, but it's not. It is always changing, that is why it is so hard to find the true age of materials after about 5,000 years.
@seeheers Potholer54 says in the video Carbon Dating has a half life of about 6.000 years, and is mainly used to date plants and things that absorb carbon from the air, that make out to be about 60.000 years old - using carbon dating.
@seeheers its not linear but its a set rate of decay. Its why we measure how much time it takes for half the sample to decay(half-life) as this is always a set amount of time.
Its pointless to spat with these people. If you are so sure scientific dating methods dont.work heres and idea....do an experiment. Take something you k.ow how old it is and use samples to date if its waaaaay off publish it inv the news you might even win.a prize. But creationism cant and.wount.actually test they would rather quibble over these phantom.variations
@nosajresarf - "Study the true data": Good advice, I did exactly that. In order to find out how often carbon dating gives a wrong result, what we need is not theories and arguments but a massive blind trial with at least 10 samples and ~100 labs. The study I referred to (google "Scott-Sec 3.1") is the latest of four such studies. The result: For terrestrial plant matter error rates are about 1% for AMS up to 10% for the older LSC method.
See now, what fun was that? You went and found ACTUAL facts, presented them to the creationist, and they have yet to respond. You know they dont like that!
maybe i will respond. first i find it funny that every time there is a problem with a date, it is explained by some anomoly, but all the dates that supposedly fit into the broad spectrum of what would be acceptable are assumed to not be subject to anomolies. secondly, radiometric dating cannot be accurate because the original level of parent isotope is assumed by scientists. there is no way to determine that original level and thus no way to know how much has decayed.
Yea, Im going to trust the word of a person who puts religious dogma first over the majority consensus of scientists who use this technology every day.
Man, you people are really loosing the battle. I LOVE it.
those who have told you that carbon dating is accurate are the ones putting religious dogma first. the problem is that NO ONE can explain how we can know how much parent isotope there was thousands and millions of years ago. why do you believe in this religion?
Yes, actually they can explain it. The ratio they use for determining the amount of carbon there was at the beginning is explained in the calibration method for carbon dating and is done prior to any carbon dating.
Your personal lack of desire to research this does not justify your personal stupidity nor your analogy that science is somehow a religion.
trust me, no lack of desire has stopped me from researching radiometric dating AND the flawed calibration methods. dont worry, you were supposed to use this post to bring up calibration. this conversation is taking the proper line. i will now use this comment, as i always do, to explain that all calibration methods are flawed due to unscientific and provably false assumptions and i would also like to ask why you think "calibration" can be used to know the original parent isotope level.
"unscientific and provably false assumptions" - two positions which you can't validate.
"why you think "calibration" can be used to know the original parent isotope level." - because the mathematics are sound and plants stop taking in carbon from the atmosphere after the death of the plant. If you want to suggest that plants don't take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, I can put a plastic bag over your head and watch you turn blue until you realize where your oxygen comes from.
unfortunately you dont understand what im talking about so i will have to educate you. i wish i would only have to do this once. so we know that plants, for instance, stop taking in carbon when they die, and that the C14 decays at a predictable rate, so that the ratio of C14 to C12 becomes smaller over time. but that ORIGINAL ratio of C14 to C12 is unknown. so calibration is supposed to address this. i want to know why you think these calibration methods are anything other than fiction.
@jndillaha : Does it matter how calibration works? No. The relevant question is does it give the right answer. Arguments are trumped by evidence.
Once again, every few years, there is a massive BLIND trial with ~10 samples of varying ages sent to ~100 labs; they are dated and the results compared to one another and to the known ages where known. And the result? The latest method (AMS) agree 99% of the time. The oldest methods 90%. Google "Scott-Sec 3.1" for the details.
none of this is relevant since we are talking about dates that are unknown. scientists acknowledge the obvious need for calibration in order to determine the original amount of parent isotope in the specimen. but every single one of the calibration methods is flawed. we are talking about using dendrochronology and ice cores to determine how much C14 was in the atmosphere back then. but ice cores and tree rings can easily form more than once a year so these methods are a farse.
how can i prove a negative? no scientists is going to admit that their system is flawed because they dont know the original isotope level. i am simply challenging you to explain what methods they use to determine that original level. you cannot do that, just like every other person i have ever debated on this topic.
you are not talk origins, you are TheMrgoku1985, and i am debating you. you cannot rely on a website to think for you. i can articulate my position. you can only point me to a website that you think can refute me. but let me inform you of something: talk origins is about as effective as you are in refuting me. i have looked at their articles pertaining to this and they practically ignore my argument.
They use peer revied material they can answer your question using lab tested facts showing there work. I gave you a source to answer your question now you are trying to argue your way out of it now.
Reworked arguements don't debunk shit you are making opinions not lab tested facts.
Quit copy and pasting creationist website I want peer reviewd sources. You also lied they do answer your questions. 9th comandment dont be deceptive.
@jndillaha : You seem to think that denro is our only source of dates. Humans have produced histories over 1-2000 years, and loads of dated artifacts, eg stave church timbers. So we can check dendro against history, dendro against C14, and C14 against history. Result: While some softwoods produce lots of ring errors, European oaks are very accurate (one error in 1816 why?). C14 also. Evidence trumps argument.
But maybe trees behaved differently before human history. Do you have evidence of that?
but the trees that are necessary for dating thousands of years back, bristlecone pines, are notorious for errors. there are no accurate dating methods of any kind for any artifact about 4000 to 5000 years old or more. the point is that there is no way to know what the carbon14 in the atmosphere was like 4500 years ago, so it doesnt matter how accurate it is 1000 years ago. that is why carbon dating is absolutely flawed.
It is well know that since the 1960, the consentration of C14 has doubled it self due to nuclear experiments and other man made industrial processes.
The difference between C14 consentration1000 years ago and 20000 years ago is abscured, cosmic ray effect is influanced largely by the activity of the sun and the earth magnetic field, the difference is no great in a time period of 50,000 years which is the scale for C14 dating.
"the difference is no [sic] great in a time period of 50,000 years"
if there is little to no difference, then why are calibration methods (which are also seriously flawed) used to correct the supposed problem of the unknown amount of carbon14 during that time period? this is a problem which you dont seem to acknowledge even though the scientific concensus which you presumably hold so dear accepts it and attempts to correct it?
To limitate the error, it's not like if they don't do that they are going to get an error by a factor of 10,000 as hovind suggests.
There are always errors, it doesn't mean that it doesn't works.
"this is a problem which you dont seem to acknowledge even though the scientific concensus which you presumably hold so dear accepts it and attempts to correct it?"
you dont understand, its not about errors. the fact is that the dating method is based entirely on assumptions. there is no way to know how much carbon14 was in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago. so how can you know how much carbon14 has decayed if you dont know how much there was to begin with? its not possible. its junk science.
It is not based on assumptions and definently not entirely on assumptions.
The key factor of radiocarbon rate in the atmosphere is the radiation from the sun, which is effected by the earths magnetic field, something that is 100% measurable and traceable due to evidence from volcanic rocks.
If we know the amount of cosmic ray we can know the amount of energy and the rate in which nitrogen is fused into C14.
but how do they know how much cosmic radiation occured thousands of years ago? again, the ages of volcanic rock are based on the same exact assumptions as carbon dating. what other types of methods would one use to corroborate a date acquired by carbon dating? "well oild propaganda machine" what would be unusual about that? again, i would like you to explain just how the amount of C14 in the atmosphere thousands of years ago can be known.
so you are aware of the fact that the method used in your source to calibrate carbon dating is dendrochronology, right? could you please explain to me why dendrochronology is used when it is well known that it is quite common for trees (especially the bristlecone pine, which is the oldest tree and thus the best tree for calibration) to form multiple rings per year, and there is no way of knowing how old the tree really is? why would they use such an inaccurate method?
yes i believe i recieve that medication from the indoctrination centers most call college. i find it interesting that most people either block me or insult me as a means of avoiding my questioning. some engage me but eventually it devolves into insults when they have nothing left to say. why dont you take a stab at my previous comment? it is scientifically proven that the calibration methods used to fix the inherent inaccuracies of radiometric dating are flawed in themselves.
@jndillaha This might be because you do happen to have a mental illness so your rational thinking is hindered by that illness. Its rather common and nothing to be ashamed of but proper treatment is going to be needed for you to come to grips with reality. I am not going to debate the subject of radiometric dating because that would be like arguing that reptiles don't run the government, someone that believes something so ridiculous will never be convinced with reasoned argument and evidence.
i find it interesting that certain people will spend time debating the merits of this argument while most, like yourself, sling insults and then refuse to debate. why is it that everyone who insults me refuses to debate me? i wonder if the insults are an avoidance tactic...your real problem here is that you know you cant argue with the fact that not only can the original level of isotope not be known, but the methods for trying to figure out those levels are flawed as well.
@jndillaha The same reason people don't debate you and insult you instead is the same reason people don't usually debate a flat earther, or people that believe the world is controlled by lizard men and instead insult them. I am very well informed about evolution and biology in general but I see no need even arguing with someone that thinks that one of the most proven theories in history is wrong and the earth is 6000 years old.
Like I said, you are insane and reasoning with crazy is silly.
you have been fully indoctrinated. im not sure there is much help for you. why dont you start by trying to explain how carbon dating can be accurate if there is no way to know how much C14 was there to begin with. you have actually submitted yourself to this idea without thinking about it. you simply trust the priests you tell you what to believe. but no one can explain how they know how much C14 was there before it started to decay. i am the only one thinking, you are faithful.
actually i was waiting for you to address the fact that it is impossible for anyone to know how much of the parent isotope was present before it started to decay. im not sure why you put your faith in a belief system when you cant explain how it works. you sound very faithful.
that is because you cannot debate. the truth is that, like all others i have encountered, you have no answers for me. you believe in your religion with faithful zeal because you have been told to, and you dont question it. it is much easier to refuse to debate than to take the time to figure out if there is any merit to your religion. you believe that carbon dating is legitamate when it is actually impossible. there may be no help for you.
@jndillaha I don't have a religion. I have studied the subjects you are talking about and I believe you are crazy. This will be the last comment I make, you wont get anymore time out of me. You wasted enough so far. Please get professional medical help and soon. Trust me on this, it is very wise to do so. You won't regret it.
you are mistaken. you are very religious because you believe something based on your faith. you have faith that when a scientist says that carbon dating is accurate, he is telling the truth. though,it is scientifically proven that it is not accurate, it doesnt matter to you, so long as one of your priests tell you it is. the proof is in the pudding. i have asked you to explain, if you can, how the original isotope level can be known, and you cant explain it. hint: it cant be known.
well, it is well known that scientists attempt to determine the amount of the parent isotope (in carbon dating, this is C14) at the time the organism died using well-known calibration techniques. but the problem is that these techniques are fatally flawed as well. for instance, we know that trees, especially the bristlecone pine which is the oldest, form rings more than once a year on occasion. the same goes for ice core rings. so carbon dating is inherently inaccurate.
@jndillaha theres a big difference between "impossible" and "inaccurate" is carbon dating impossible? no. is it inaccurate? i guess if you want to split hairs you have a point but the reality is, carbon dating wont give you an exact date but more of a really really good estimate and we understand this ;)
now you are making baseless assuptions. you dont know whether its close because we cant know how much C14 was in the atmosphere when the organism died. scientists will admit that without calibration, carbon dating is highly inaccurate. i have shown that the calibration techniques are highly inaccurate. the C14 in the atmosphere in any given year can be markedly different from an adjacent year. and since the year the organism died cant be determined, carbon dating is utterly useless.
but i am more interested in why you believe it is accurate. surely someone who puts so much faith in a belief system has taken these inaccuracies into consideration and has come up with a reasonably good explanation for it. by the way, if you were able to provide an explanation for why scientist rely on dendrochronolgy and ice core rings for calibration when they can form multiple rings per year, you would be the first that i have talked to, and ive talked to quite a few.
Every dating method is good if you know what you are doing, interestingly, when a sample is dated by several methods there's always consistency, so either all thses methods are wrong or we got a well oild propaganda machine aimed to distort the academic discourse.
btw, the fact that the change of C14 concentration during the last decades is almost entirely artificial puts hovids C14 equilibirum argument to rest.
@gregrutz-I debated whether or not to reply to you based off of your comments to others, but you'll get this from me. STUDY the TRUE data about how carbon dating works and you'll see that it indeed has too many possible variables it can run into causing interference giving inaccurate results even under conditions that we think the data should be okay. It's just a "reliable sometimes" process. No biggie.
The good thing about this question is that it is easy to get a definitive answer. All you have to do is get a load of samples of known or unknown age, and send them to 100 radiocarbon labs without telling them the age of the samples. See if the results agree with one another, and with the known ages where available.
@pinewoodsparrow - I too am scratching my head. This video actually portrays carbon dating as inaccurate, which overall it is. Poor Potholder54...he failed again.
@nosajresarf You should watch it again. Listen at :40 . He also explain why some things can't be carbon dated, like fossils, snails and seals. 8000 year old Egyptian artifacts are easily dated.
The thing I took from this video is that carbon dating is not reliable and therefore does not work...... This makes the title very misleading or at least as unreliable as carbon dating.
@pinewoodsparrow The point of this video is showing that it is known that under certain circumstances certain things do not work. Would you say Advil/tylanol doesn't work because it doesn't prevent pregnancies. Certain things only work under certain circumstances. Advil works great for what it is made for, carbon dating works great for what it is used for.
@NewAgeOfDogg Using your reasoning I am going to assume that you want me to believe that carbon dating does not prevent pregnancies. You did not present any facts but I would have to agree with you in spite of the evidence.... based on your reasoning of course.
@pinewoodsparrow My metaphor went right over your head, yet I doubt that. You probably are just trolling lol. Have fun. I actually face-palmed at first. You make me giggle XD
@NewAgeOfDogg Lol. I never troll, I often read unreasonable arguments by evolutionists and desire to understand their thought process that ignores the entire scientific process then they preach how creationists never use this same process. It shows a lack of wisdom, even though many are quite knowledgeable. By the way, I did enjoy your metaphor, Over the years I've noticed that evolutionists only speak in metaphors when presenting facts or making points... :) A sincere smile!
This video didn't even address the core issue of the problem. Which is, the half-life of carbon is based on current atmospheric conditions and doesn't take into account the fact that the atmosphere changes. (The greatest change caused by the flood) Carbon dating works fine for organic matter between now & 2000 BC.
@cornflakeclusters Yes There Is! The remains of Noah's Ark can be seen from space at 39.440647*N, 44.23482*E in Uzengili, Turkey and is exactly the length and width described in the Bible (300 Royal Egyptian Cubits: 515ft by 50: 86ft) There is a Turkish Visitor Center which acknowleges that it is Noah's Ark. Excavations have found petrified animal dung, metal rivets, and more.
@ConfederatePatriot Wow you found a land formation in the desert with animal shit, now how do you reconclie this with the 70 other claims of Noah's Ark in different Asian, European, and African countries?
@buttface112211 First: The Ark can be in no other country than Turkey as the Bible says "it came to rest in the mountains of Ararat." (eastern Turkey).
Second: I've never heard of any other substantial claim, especially one that matches the exaxt biblical dimensions. In the 1960 time magazine photos of the site (before the earthquake there) no one could disagree that it was a man made object and not just a coincidental (symetrical and size perfect) formation.
Thank you so very very much for your posts.As well as your Humorous yet direct calling on these creationists and thier Total BS/Lies.These people are nuts ..and what is worse they are spreading.A closed Elem.School here in my rural part of Oregon has been converted into a mega church by some Creationist affliates.People i used to have rational convo's with and went to small churches have been sucked in and are now crazy.These people are dangerous.The Romans were right ...Feed em to the Lions.
Recent news states that the Grand Canyon is only about 150 years old and was just a side project dug by industrious Chinese when they were building the railroad.They were told to gig latrine holes....and they did.Took about a month or so to dig it...Also they were so smart that it was dug with a constant updraft.Can't jump in...go ahead,try it!
@suddenlyitsobvious and anything that that is presented by authority you instantly assume there MUST be a conspiracy, so you start looking for any evidence which supports that, without checking the facts.
'and anything that that is presented by authority you instantly assume there MUST be a conspiracy, so you start looking for any evidence which supports that, without checking the facts.'
No, I don't actually. I've done my homework and don't assume anything. Have you done yours? I know you haven't. Just keep on uncritically believing, lad.
Perhaps you should try to bring some fun, creativity, joy and expressiveness into your life, that judging by your channel and 'discourse' must be pitifully barren and bleak.
Otherwise I found your buzzword-larded post very uninformative and not worth redacting. YOUR TYPE always has a problem in the department of provision of substance.
What's so funny, well, it would be if it wasn't tragic, is you don't realize you're a religious bigot. You're a believer, which is why you HATE bible-believers and you HATE people who UNLIKE YOU are not interested in believing, because they have access to PERSONAL STANDARDS AND SKILLS allowing them to process reality rather than taking it over.
For 21 years old you've already got the psychology of an old, rigid bigot. Your loss. The end.
@suddenlyitsobvious Can you people just fuck off forever? Us normal people are so bored of having to listen to you conspiracy nut-jobs. "The government are controlling our minds with microwaves, man!" Yeah, whatever, good luck with that shit.
I used to believe in that 9/11 conspiracy crap, I finally got some sense in me though and I don't buy into that stuff anymore. Believing in a load of spurious horse-shit doesn't make you an iconoclast or independent thinker, it just makes you gullible.
...suffice and the case can't withstand scrutiny, what else can you do but bash the opposition.
Hovind btw is of course the CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, a puppet peddling the 'religious' arguments.
It's amazing how utterly unaware evolutionists are of EVERYTHING, of social engineering, how uncritical they are and how they give in to their perverse authority-fetish. They'll believe ANYTHING validated by authority, the 9/11 narrative of course, that any fool instantly sees is full of holes,...
@suddenlyitsobvious Oh my God, you people are so pathetic. The internet is full of retards like you. You're one of these narcissistic morons who thinks he's a fucking iconoclast who "stands up to the man!" You people think you have some kind of profound insight into how everything works. You sound like you've been watching Zeitgeist too much. I bet you're the kind of retard who says shit like "You've been brainwashed by the government man! You're just a puppet for the fat-cats!"
What's interesting about YOU PEOPLE is you're always so enraged. There is a good number of standard characteristics defining the scientistic atheist pathetically clinging to his 'reality':
no sense of humour, metallic voice always on cynical mode, talking in slogans, confusing regurgitation with thinking, being extremely nervous & itchy, and a list of other ills.
Unlike you btw I am NOT part of a collective of people or cultish movement or zeitgeist dictating my thoughts.
@suddenlyitsobvious "no sense of humour, metallic voice always on cynical mode"
What are you fucking talking about you moron? I'm the most hyperactive person I know of. I'm not a fucking robot.
"Perhaps you should try to bring some fun, creativity, joy and expressiveness into your life, that judging by your channel and 'discourse' must be pitifully barren and bleak."
Oh wow, you're a fucking retarded cunt. Do you think my life revolves around my fucking Youtube channel?
'What are you fucking talking about you moron? I'm the most hyperactive person I know of. I'm not a fucking robot.'
You obviously have reading-comprehension issues. You are not replying to the accusations, presumably because I hit a nerve and you immediately blocked them out.
'Us normal people'
You mean you and other silly cunts still wet behind the ears? He he he.
It seems you are one of these people who have integrated insult into their argumentarium in the delusion...
...it provides your manic prose with additional weight. It doesn't. It just shows you've barely outgrown your pubescent moodiness and lack of control. Do you really think I want to argue with a spoiled brat? You're no match for me, pork chops. Count yourself lucky we are so mismatched I don't challenge you to a debate you couldn't sustain and that would see you utterly humiliated, since you obviously aren't exqctly a Nobel-laureate.
@suddenlyitsobvious Jesus Christ, you are one self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, self-indulgent prick.
I may want to punch you in the face and put you into a coma, but I would never say anything as douchey and arrogant as "I'm sooo smart! I would so win an argument against you! I'm the smartest guy ever!" You make me fucking cringe. Stop flattering yourself.
Pfft. What a dumb technique to edit pieces on Hovind in order to push evolutionism. Hovind is irrelevant.
The reason evolutionism in pushed onto society through OPPOSITION to religion (Dawkins fi, but the ENTIRE issue has been contextualized in this dualistic fashion) is that it doesn't stand on its own right. Mobilizing anti-religious sentiment is required for a hegelian binary that can be controlled by the social engineers.
Seems their ploy is working pretty well. When arguments don't...
I have concluded that Stephen Hawking is correct. Science will win (against religion) because it works. The creationist videos usually have more dislikes than likes. The evolution videos always have a substantially large amount of likes. As Charlie Sheen says "Winning"
sry my other responses got cut off, let me just stop what I was saying and say this,
@ICECREAMPAINTJ0B, it is wonderful that you believe man, it truely is. As an esoteric creationist christian, I thank you for what your trying to do. But this really isn't the way to go. You have to argue religon with religon and science with science.
Carbon-14 does work, simple as that. Now don't get the wrong idea, keep trying man, but you have to take other peoples opionions into account.
@adamlmyers89 'Carbon-14 does work, simple as that.' Because generic assertions really comes under the banner of fighting 'science with science.' If any of you actually think you have something viable that falsifies c14 dating then feel free to inbox me.
@adamlmyers89 I do but i dont understand why people dont believe that God helps people. he helps me and im a christian black man and my life was all messed up before i started praying to God and working to better myself through Him. i dont believe it only works for me i know it would work for others too i want people to try
Respond to this video... i dont want anybody to be left out. i pray every night that more and more people will get their piece of evidence too. He is in our hearts, the love it is true. LOVE you cant ignore it. can anyone just explain away LOVE which is what Jesus's biggest lesson was? can anyone disagree that the most important thing is to love one another? when I feel angry and go on a rampage with bad comments i have to stop myself because its not right. why bother wit dat?
@AgApE010 The theory of evolution directly contradicts the bible.You are probably one of those christians who pick out the parts they like and completely ignore the slavery,rape and genocide
No, I'm one of those Christians who's familiar with ancient Near eastern writings and modern scholarship on the Bible. You must be one of those a-holes who sits behind a computer presuming to speak on everything they don't know about.
@AgApE010 You said that you can have evolution and christianity.It is a proven fact that the human species has evolved.According to the bible we did not evolve.We were created by god.WITHOUT evolving.Forgive me but I cannot understand how one can have 2 conflicting opinions at the same time.It is obvious that you ignore parts of the bible which conflict with modern science so that you can keep your silly believes.
It's spelled "beliefs." And you don't know what my beliefs are, obviously. So how can you call them silly? Logic much?
Modern scholarship on the Bible, in light of many archaeological finds in the past century, recognizes that the book of Genesis contains stories that were common in that time and culture. God was not tying to teach ancient Jews science. He simply used familiar stories of the day that the Jews knew to relay His teachings to them.
@AgApE010 Do you think i care about grammar on the internet?So you are one of those christians that has his own version of christianity.Because of these familiar stories the ancient Jews slaughtered and enslaved tribes.Because of them they killed women that were raped withing city limits.It's funny how your god is supposed to be perfect but he fucks up pretty much everything.Whatever what your beliefs are it was obvious that they involve god.They are silly.
@matrixlone Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
@matrixlone I am arguing with you,not a video.If you can't explain what you saw in it you don't really understand it.So...can you explain why god isn't an immoral fuck?
@lishey100 no you dont understand I mean your not listening to me so i simply am trying to help you understand even if i didnt know i would research but if you dont want my help then whatever i aint forcing you to do anythin mkay.
@matrixlone You are a christian.You believe that the bible is the perfect word of god.The bible is says that I deserve eternal suffering.If you are a christian its logical to assume that you think that I deserve eternal suffering.
I am christian, I believe that carbon dating is accurate according to what it does. When you carbon date something, the amount of years you get is precise to the process you perform. However the problem lies within the fact that carbon dating might and half lives could have very well been different in many parts of the world only a couple thousand years ago. Carbon dating works, we are just using it wrong and inaccurately.
Spinner198 10 hours ago
i still roflmao because of the "There is not fucking carbon in it"
Aanthanur 3 days ago
I want ''Therei s no fucking carbon in it'' as my text message noise
roadkill1001 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I can't help laughing everytime the video states 'There is no f*&king carbon in it!'
cloudstone123 1 week ago
how is this debunking anything but itself
listenup345 1 week ago
@listenup345
Because you pointing out a single mistake from a Discovery channel show, which I doubt you've pointed out a mistake correctly in the first place, does not unmake the whole of radiometric dating.
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
ask any kid why they think anything is millions of years old and they will say carbon dating the lie was sold to me in high school, and its sold evry day on tv as this evoloutionist said its not worth using on samples beyond 60,000years of age the scary part of this is that most of the scientist on walking with dinosaurs no this to but some how they have the nerve tosay carbon dating proves things this guy says it cant, if they would lie on national tv why the fuck should i beleive anything else
listenup345 1 week ago
@listenup345
"ask any kid why they think anything is millions of years old and they will say carbon dating"
Because kids are who you should ask...
"the lie was sold to me in high school"
It's not meant to be a lie. it's a simplification like the rule that "because" should never be used at the start of a sentence. Later you learn there's more to it, and it's okay to use "because" at the beginning, if you word the sentence correctly
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@listenup345
"if they would lie on national tv why the fuck should i beleive anything else"
First, let me say I doubt they said "carbon dating" rather than "radiometric dating," but assuming they did... The shows are for the layman. They don't expect you to be able to know that carbon dating is one of many forms of radiometric dating.
The discovery channel, TLC, History, and other such channels are not what they used to be.
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
and by the way dumb ass if the las time watched the discovery channel walking with dinosaurs they claimed that carbon dating proved all these different types of dinosaurs were millions of years old you just said that carbon dating is not effective pst specimens 60,000 years old so why the fuck are slimy evoloutinist saying carbon dating is the sole source of how we no dinosaurs are millions of years old i guess they dont no what you no or their just lying,
listenup345 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@listenup345
"if the las time watched the discovery channel walking with dinosaurs they claimed that carbon dating proved all these different types of dinosaurs were millions of years old..."
Then they were wrong. They should have said "radiometric dating." Carbon dating is just one form of this, and wouldn't have been used in this situation. There are actually dozens all working on separate principles of different elements, and multiple samples are used to date the fossil.
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@listenup345
"why the fuck are slimy evoloutinist saying carbon dating is the sole source of how we no dinosaurs are millions of years"
I don't know of a single scientist (or evolutionist as you call us) that would say carbon dating is the sole source of how we no dinosaurs are millions of years old. Just because the discovery channel said something, doesn't mean that's a true or universal statement... They have shows about ghost hunting ffs.
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
we werent their so we have to assume they were allways at the same temp and same moisture levels for fuck sakes under the rite conditions things that mite take thousands of years, break down in just a few, to even think this method of age calculation works you have to first assume you no that the conditions the specimen was exposed to were allways the same. with all the natural events that take place over 100 year period on earth its ubsurd to make assumptions like that, asses make asumptions.
listenup345 1 week ago
@listenup345
"you no that the conditions the specimen was exposed to were allways the same."
Actually you don't because carbon dating is the only one that tests the sample directly. The rest take samples of the rock around the sample, and the rocks are tested. The age of rock isn't subject to change in that way.
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
with evrything this guy just said he still isnt willing to say carbon dating is bullshit, i mean i just learned that from this video he didnt even disprove ken hovind, If their is that many errors being made on based on surrounding factors in things which have just recently died what hope is their in finding sound results in things which have died and been exposed to different conditions for thousands of years we have no idea what conditions they have been exposed to
listenup345 1 week ago
@listenup345
"what hope is their in finding sound results in things which have died and been exposed to different conditions for thousands of years"
Quite a bit because 1.) we can test it by giving a lab samples of known age and seeing that they come back with a correct answer, 2.) Anything tested is based on the results of several types of radiometric dating. They never use just one.
KemaTheAtheist 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
Carbon Dating is not 100% accurate either, the RATE in which these carbon atoms break down changes... the only reason we have accurate measurements is because we calibrated carbon dating on things that we know for certain are a certain age.
The rate in which carbon (or anything) decays is not linear... it would be great if it was, but it's not. It is always changing, that is why it is so hard to find the true age of materials after about 5,000 years.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Potholer54 says in the video Carbon Dating has a half life of about 6.000 years, and is mainly used to date plants and things that absorb carbon from the air, that make out to be about 60.000 years old - using carbon dating.
Schneboll 3 weeks ago
@seeheers its not linear but its a set rate of decay. Its why we measure how much time it takes for half the sample to decay(half-life) as this is always a set amount of time.
TheCrankyCow 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
floyd316 3 weeks ago
get me a shirt that says There's no f***ing carbon in it!
PowerChord617 4 weeks ago
@PowerChord617 OH YEAH MAN!
So genius!
CYellowan 3 weeks ago
wait, kent hoven was a TEACHER in a SCHOOL whats wrong with our world.
snipesnrifles 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
Can we PLEASE get "There's no fucking carbon in it!" printed on a t-shirt?
JoeLaTurkeyIII 1 month ago
@JoeLaTurkeyIII YES!
thesparitan 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
There's not fuciking carbon in it!
TheBadcop69 2 months ago
THERES NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT
fromdirttodustpro1 2 months ago
awww, this is priceless
JewsusKreist 2 months ago
Comment removed
3nasacova 2 months ago
Its pointless to spat with these people. If you are so sure scientific dating methods dont.work heres and idea....do an experiment. Take something you k.ow how old it is and use samples to date if its waaaaay off publish it inv the news you might even win.a prize. But creationism cant and.wount.actually test they would rather quibble over these phantom.variations
Seamn31 2 months ago
"There's no f***ing carbon in it" has to rank up there with "GRAVITY" as a YouTube quote of note.
dondude69 3 months ago
@dondude69 Where's the "GRAVITY" quote come from?
VetinariClone 3 months ago
@VetinariClone It's in a Desertphile video, can't remember which one though.
dondude69 2 months ago
How unfortunate that carbon dating is still bullshit as it is affected by the sun.
HaphazardCrappola 3 months ago
@HaphazardCrappola how...?
Pirate44444 3 months ago
@Pirate44444 Supposedly the sun emits particles that speeds up radioactive decay. Search
"The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements"
HaphazardCrappola 3 months ago
@nosajresarf - "Study the true data": Good advice, I did exactly that. In order to find out how often carbon dating gives a wrong result, what we need is not theories and arguments but a massive blind trial with at least 10 samples and ~100 labs. The study I referred to (google "Scott-Sec 3.1") is the latest of four such studies. The result: For terrestrial plant matter error rates are about 1% for AMS up to 10% for the older LSC method.
KevinC112358 3 months ago
@KevinC112358
See now, what fun was that? You went and found ACTUAL facts, presented them to the creationist, and they have yet to respond. You know they dont like that!
Bad evolutionist! :p
sakar181 3 months ago
@sakar181
maybe i will respond. first i find it funny that every time there is a problem with a date, it is explained by some anomoly, but all the dates that supposedly fit into the broad spectrum of what would be acceptable are assumed to not be subject to anomolies. secondly, radiometric dating cannot be accurate because the original level of parent isotope is assumed by scientists. there is no way to determine that original level and thus no way to know how much has decayed.
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha
Yea, Im going to trust the word of a person who puts religious dogma first over the majority consensus of scientists who use this technology every day.
Man, you people are really loosing the battle. I LOVE it.
sakar181 2 months ago
@sakar181
those who have told you that carbon dating is accurate are the ones putting religious dogma first. the problem is that NO ONE can explain how we can know how much parent isotope there was thousands and millions of years ago. why do you believe in this religion?
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha
Carbon dating is a religion? HAHAHAHAH
First, look up the definition to that word, then weep for your willful ignorance.
sakar181 2 months ago
@jndillaha
Yes, actually they can explain it. The ratio they use for determining the amount of carbon there was at the beginning is explained in the calibration method for carbon dating and is done prior to any carbon dating.
Your personal lack of desire to research this does not justify your personal stupidity nor your analogy that science is somehow a religion.
Xerock 2 months ago
@Xerock
trust me, no lack of desire has stopped me from researching radiometric dating AND the flawed calibration methods. dont worry, you were supposed to use this post to bring up calibration. this conversation is taking the proper line. i will now use this comment, as i always do, to explain that all calibration methods are flawed due to unscientific and provably false assumptions and i would also like to ask why you think "calibration" can be used to know the original parent isotope level.
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha
"unscientific and provably false assumptions" - two positions which you can't validate.
"why you think "calibration" can be used to know the original parent isotope level." - because the mathematics are sound and plants stop taking in carbon from the atmosphere after the death of the plant. If you want to suggest that plants don't take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, I can put a plastic bag over your head and watch you turn blue until you realize where your oxygen comes from.
Xerock 2 months ago
@Xerock
unfortunately you dont understand what im talking about so i will have to educate you. i wish i would only have to do this once. so we know that plants, for instance, stop taking in carbon when they die, and that the C14 decays at a predictable rate, so that the ratio of C14 to C12 becomes smaller over time. but that ORIGINAL ratio of C14 to C12 is unknown. so calibration is supposed to address this. i want to know why you think these calibration methods are anything other than fiction.
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha : Does it matter how calibration works? No. The relevant question is does it give the right answer. Arguments are trumped by evidence.
Once again, every few years, there is a massive BLIND trial with ~10 samples of varying ages sent to ~100 labs; they are dated and the results compared to one another and to the known ages where known. And the result? The latest method (AMS) agree 99% of the time. The oldest methods 90%. Google "Scott-Sec 3.1" for the details.
KevinC112358 2 months ago
@KevinC112358
none of this is relevant since we are talking about dates that are unknown. scientists acknowledge the obvious need for calibration in order to determine the original amount of parent isotope in the specimen. but every single one of the calibration methods is flawed. we are talking about using dendrochronology and ice cores to determine how much C14 was in the atmosphere back then. but ice cores and tree rings can easily form more than once a year so these methods are a farse.
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha
Peer reviewd sources for your arguments please? Your claims need to be falsified.
Arguing don't debunk shit all you are doing is voicing opinion.
You also admitted on ZOMGitscriss video you do not use peer reviewd material or sources.
You fail.
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
how can i prove a negative? no scientists is going to admit that their system is flawed because they dont know the original isotope level. i am simply challenging you to explain what methods they use to determine that original level. you cannot do that, just like every other person i have ever debated on this topic.
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha
You are not debunking shit just voicing an opinion not lab tested fact,Talk origins website will answer your questions.
Reworked arguements are not proof of a young earth lab work is. You are being deceptive 9th commandment.
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
you are not talk origins, you are TheMrgoku1985, and i am debating you. you cannot rely on a website to think for you. i can articulate my position. you can only point me to a website that you think can refute me. but let me inform you of something: talk origins is about as effective as you are in refuting me. i have looked at their articles pertaining to this and they practically ignore my argument.
jndillaha 2 months ago
@jndillaha
They use peer revied material they can answer your question using lab tested facts showing there work. I gave you a source to answer your question now you are trying to argue your way out of it now.
Reworked arguements don't debunk shit you are making opinions not lab tested facts.
Quit copy and pasting creationist website I want peer reviewd sources. You also lied they do answer your questions. 9th comandment dont be deceptive.
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
@jndillaha : You seem to think that denro is our only source of dates. Humans have produced histories over 1-2000 years, and loads of dated artifacts, eg stave church timbers. So we can check dendro against history, dendro against C14, and C14 against history. Result: While some softwoods produce lots of ring errors, European oaks are very accurate (one error in 1816 why?). C14 also. Evidence trumps argument.
But maybe trees behaved differently before human history. Do you have evidence of that?
KevinC112358 2 months ago
@KevinC112358
but the trees that are necessary for dating thousands of years back, bristlecone pines, are notorious for errors. there are no accurate dating methods of any kind for any artifact about 4000 to 5000 years old or more. the point is that there is no way to know what the carbon14 in the atmosphere was like 4500 years ago, so it doesnt matter how accurate it is 1000 years ago. that is why carbon dating is absolutely flawed.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha
It is well know that since the 1960, the consentration of C14 has doubled it self due to nuclear experiments and other man made industrial processes.
The difference between C14 consentration1000 years ago and 20000 years ago is abscured, cosmic ray effect is influanced largely by the activity of the sun and the earth magnetic field, the difference is no great in a time period of 50,000 years which is the scale for C14 dating.
PRJking 1 month ago
Comment removed
PRJking 1 month ago
@PRJking
"the difference is no [sic] great in a time period of 50,000 years"
if there is little to no difference, then why are calibration methods (which are also seriously flawed) used to correct the supposed problem of the unknown amount of carbon14 during that time period? this is a problem which you dont seem to acknowledge even though the scientific concensus which you presumably hold so dear accepts it and attempts to correct it?
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha
To limitate the error, it's not like if they don't do that they are going to get an error by a factor of 10,000 as hovind suggests.
There are always errors, it doesn't mean that it doesn't works.
"this is a problem which you dont seem to acknowledge even though the scientific concensus which you presumably hold so dear accepts it and attempts to correct it?"
Pot calling the kettle black?
PRJking 1 month ago
@PRJking
you dont understand, its not about errors. the fact is that the dating method is based entirely on assumptions. there is no way to know how much carbon14 was in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago. so how can you know how much carbon14 has decayed if you dont know how much there was to begin with? its not possible. its junk science.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha
It is not based on assumptions and definently not entirely on assumptions.
The key factor of radiocarbon rate in the atmosphere is the radiation from the sun, which is effected by the earths magnetic field, something that is 100% measurable and traceable due to evidence from volcanic rocks.
If we know the amount of cosmic ray we can know the amount of energy and the rate in which nitrogen is fused into C14.
PRJking 1 month ago
@PRJking
but how do they know how much cosmic radiation occured thousands of years ago? again, the ages of volcanic rock are based on the same exact assumptions as carbon dating. what other types of methods would one use to corroborate a date acquired by carbon dating? "well oild propaganda machine" what would be unusual about that? again, i would like you to explain just how the amount of C14 in the atmosphere thousands of years ago can be known.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha Read this: MARINE04 MARINE RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION, 0–26 CAL KYR BP
Diamonddavej 1 month ago
@Diamonddavej
so you are aware of the fact that the method used in your source to calibrate carbon dating is dendrochronology, right? could you please explain to me why dendrochronology is used when it is well known that it is quite common for trees (especially the bristlecone pine, which is the oldest tree and thus the best tree for calibration) to form multiple rings per year, and there is no way of knowing how old the tree really is? why would they use such an inaccurate method?
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha They have medication for your illness.
thesparitan 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@thesparitan
yes i believe i recieve that medication from the indoctrination centers most call college. i find it interesting that most people either block me or insult me as a means of avoiding my questioning. some engage me but eventually it devolves into insults when they have nothing left to say. why dont you take a stab at my previous comment? it is scientifically proven that the calibration methods used to fix the inherent inaccuracies of radiometric dating are flawed in themselves.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha This might be because you do happen to have a mental illness so your rational thinking is hindered by that illness. Its rather common and nothing to be ashamed of but proper treatment is going to be needed for you to come to grips with reality. I am not going to debate the subject of radiometric dating because that would be like arguing that reptiles don't run the government, someone that believes something so ridiculous will never be convinced with reasoned argument and evidence.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
i find it interesting that certain people will spend time debating the merits of this argument while most, like yourself, sling insults and then refuse to debate. why is it that everyone who insults me refuses to debate me? i wonder if the insults are an avoidance tactic...your real problem here is that you know you cant argue with the fact that not only can the original level of isotope not be known, but the methods for trying to figure out those levels are flawed as well.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha The same reason people don't debate you and insult you instead is the same reason people don't usually debate a flat earther, or people that believe the world is controlled by lizard men and instead insult them. I am very well informed about evolution and biology in general but I see no need even arguing with someone that thinks that one of the most proven theories in history is wrong and the earth is 6000 years old.
Like I said, you are insane and reasoning with crazy is silly.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
you have been fully indoctrinated. im not sure there is much help for you. why dont you start by trying to explain how carbon dating can be accurate if there is no way to know how much C14 was there to begin with. you have actually submitted yourself to this idea without thinking about it. you simply trust the priests you tell you what to believe. but no one can explain how they know how much C14 was there before it started to decay. i am the only one thinking, you are faithful.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha Be sure to get that professional help I was talking about.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
actually i was waiting for you to address the fact that it is impossible for anyone to know how much of the parent isotope was present before it started to decay. im not sure why you put your faith in a belief system when you cant explain how it works. you sound very faithful.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha I don't debate flat earthers or creationist.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
that is because you cannot debate. the truth is that, like all others i have encountered, you have no answers for me. you believe in your religion with faithful zeal because you have been told to, and you dont question it. it is much easier to refuse to debate than to take the time to figure out if there is any merit to your religion. you believe that carbon dating is legitamate when it is actually impossible. there may be no help for you.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha I don't have a religion. I have studied the subjects you are talking about and I believe you are crazy. This will be the last comment I make, you wont get anymore time out of me. You wasted enough so far. Please get professional medical help and soon. Trust me on this, it is very wise to do so. You won't regret it.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
you are mistaken. you are very religious because you believe something based on your faith. you have faith that when a scientist says that carbon dating is accurate, he is telling the truth. though,it is scientifically proven that it is not accurate, it doesnt matter to you, so long as one of your priests tell you it is. the proof is in the pudding. i have asked you to explain, if you can, how the original isotope level can be known, and you cant explain it. hint: it cant be known.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha "you believe that carbon dating is legitamate when it is actually impossible" what evidence do you have to support this claim?
squizill 1 month ago
@squizill
well, it is well known that scientists attempt to determine the amount of the parent isotope (in carbon dating, this is C14) at the time the organism died using well-known calibration techniques. but the problem is that these techniques are fatally flawed as well. for instance, we know that trees, especially the bristlecone pine which is the oldest, form rings more than once a year on occasion. the same goes for ice core rings. so carbon dating is inherently inaccurate.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha theres a big difference between "impossible" and "inaccurate" is carbon dating impossible? no. is it inaccurate? i guess if you want to split hairs you have a point but the reality is, carbon dating wont give you an exact date but more of a really really good estimate and we understand this ;)
squizill 1 month ago
@squizill
now you are making baseless assuptions. you dont know whether its close because we cant know how much C14 was in the atmosphere when the organism died. scientists will admit that without calibration, carbon dating is highly inaccurate. i have shown that the calibration techniques are highly inaccurate. the C14 in the atmosphere in any given year can be markedly different from an adjacent year. and since the year the organism died cant be determined, carbon dating is utterly useless.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha
but i am more interested in why you believe it is accurate. surely someone who puts so much faith in a belief system has taken these inaccuracies into consideration and has come up with a reasonably good explanation for it. by the way, if you were able to provide an explanation for why scientist rely on dendrochronolgy and ice core rings for calibration when they can form multiple rings per year, you would be the first that i have talked to, and ive talked to quite a few.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@jndillaha
Junk science and a nobel prize winer.
Every dating method is good if you know what you are doing, interestingly, when a sample is dated by several methods there's always consistency, so either all thses methods are wrong or we got a well oild propaganda machine aimed to distort the academic discourse.
PRJking 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jndillaha
btw, the fact that the change of C14 concentration during the last decades is almost entirely artificial puts hovids C14 equilibirum argument to rest.
PRJking 1 month ago
@gregrutz-I debated whether or not to reply to you based off of your comments to others, but you'll get this from me. STUDY the TRUE data about how carbon dating works and you'll see that it indeed has too many possible variables it can run into causing interference giving inaccurate results even under conditions that we think the data should be okay. It's just a "reliable sometimes" process. No biggie.
nosajresarf 3 months ago
The good thing about this question is that it is easy to get a definitive answer. All you have to do is get a load of samples of known or unknown age, and send them to 100 radiocarbon labs without telling them the age of the samples. See if the results agree with one another, and with the known ages where available.
Sort of like this: google "Scott-Sec 3.1"
KevinC112358 3 months ago
@pinewoodsparrow - I too am scratching my head. This video actually portrays carbon dating as inaccurate, which overall it is. Poor Potholder54...he failed again.
nosajresarf 3 months ago
@nosajresarf You should watch it again. Listen at :40 . He also explain why some things can't be carbon dated, like fossils, snails and seals. 8000 year old Egyptian artifacts are easily dated.
gregrutz 3 months ago
5:20 :)
burn70u7 3 months ago
"THERE'S NO $!@&ING CARBON IN IT!" Hahaha!
FluctuatingThought 3 months ago
The thing I took from this video is that carbon dating is not reliable and therefore does not work...... This makes the title very misleading or at least as unreliable as carbon dating.
pinewoodsparrow 3 months ago
@pinewoodsparrow The point of this video is showing that it is known that under certain circumstances certain things do not work. Would you say Advil/tylanol doesn't work because it doesn't prevent pregnancies. Certain things only work under certain circumstances. Advil works great for what it is made for, carbon dating works great for what it is used for.
NewAgeOfDogg 3 months ago
@NewAgeOfDogg Using your reasoning I am going to assume that you want me to believe that carbon dating does not prevent pregnancies. You did not present any facts but I would have to agree with you in spite of the evidence.... based on your reasoning of course.
pinewoodsparrow 3 months ago
@pinewoodsparrow My metaphor went right over your head, yet I doubt that. You probably are just trolling lol. Have fun. I actually face-palmed at first. You make me giggle XD
NewAgeOfDogg 3 months ago
@NewAgeOfDogg Lol. I never troll, I often read unreasonable arguments by evolutionists and desire to understand their thought process that ignores the entire scientific process then they preach how creationists never use this same process. It shows a lack of wisdom, even though many are quite knowledgeable. By the way, I did enjoy your metaphor, Over the years I've noticed that evolutionists only speak in metaphors when presenting facts or making points... :) A sincere smile!
pinewoodsparrow 3 months ago
@pinewoodsparrow It is tough talking to uneducated people, like home schooled creationists. What's an 'evolutionist'?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Oh I get it! You made a pun..... What's an evolutionist? A tough talking uneducated person! Very clever, and so true!
pinewoodsparrow 3 months ago
@pinewoodsparrow The more educated people accpet evolution. Dumb Southern Fuddies don't.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@pinewoodsparrow HERP DA DERP DERP
BackInTheCage 3 months ago
This video didn't even address the core issue of the problem. Which is, the half-life of carbon is based on current atmospheric conditions and doesn't take into account the fact that the atmosphere changes. (The greatest change caused by the flood) Carbon dating works fine for organic matter between now & 2000 BC.
ConfederatePatriot 4 months ago
@ConfederatePatriot But there's no evidence of Noah's ark.
cornflakeclusters 4 months ago
@cornflakeclusters Yes There Is! The remains of Noah's Ark can be seen from space at 39.440647*N, 44.23482*E in Uzengili, Turkey and is exactly the length and width described in the Bible (300 Royal Egyptian Cubits: 515ft by 50: 86ft) There is a Turkish Visitor Center which acknowleges that it is Noah's Ark. Excavations have found petrified animal dung, metal rivets, and more.
ConfederatePatriot 4 months ago
@ConfederatePatriot Wow you found a land formation in the desert with animal shit, now how do you reconclie this with the 70 other claims of Noah's Ark in different Asian, European, and African countries?
buttface112211 3 months ago in playlist Potholer54debunks
@buttface112211 First: The Ark can be in no other country than Turkey as the Bible says "it came to rest in the mountains of Ararat." (eastern Turkey).
Second: I've never heard of any other substantial claim, especially one that matches the exaxt biblical dimensions. In the 1960 time magazine photos of the site (before the earthquake there) no one could disagree that it was a man made object and not just a coincidental (symetrical and size perfect) formation.
ConfederatePatriot 3 months ago
lmfao@"Theres no f$ckin' carbon in it!" Beautiful Potholer.
chiefkyle1 4 months ago
Thanks for posting this :-)
roseandserene 4 months ago in playlist potholer54 debunks as playlist
"Bare with me here, here's a little article from uh ... (wait, i need to hold my credibility, do NOT say answers in Genesis) and uh an article, ok"
chadd990 4 months ago
Thank you so very very much for your posts.As well as your Humorous yet direct calling on these creationists and thier Total BS/Lies.These people are nuts ..and what is worse they are spreading.A closed Elem.School here in my rural part of Oregon has been converted into a mega church by some Creationist affliates.People i used to have rational convo's with and went to small churches have been sucked in and are now crazy.These people are dangerous.The Romans were right ...Feed em to the Lions.
copycoonie 4 months ago
I love how Big Jerry doesn't want to mention what he's reading from. "It's an article from..uhh..err.......it's an article."
VesusSheist 4 months ago
Recent news states that the Grand Canyon is only about 150 years old and was just a side project dug by industrious Chinese when they were building the railroad.They were told to gig latrine holes....and they did.Took about a month or so to dig it...Also they were so smart that it was dug with a constant updraft.Can't jump in...go ahead,try it!
gplito 4 months ago
There's no FUCKING carbon in it!
Nervousification 4 months ago
@Nervousification Priceless
HugoNav9 4 months ago
@Nervousification Shit, I just got to that part. Just about laughed my ass off.
amazingwave 4 months ago
5:21 LMFAO
pat5168 4 months ago
*evolutionism is pushed
suddenlyitsobvious 5 months ago
...the moonlanding, endless war lies, really ANYTHING they are presented with by authority they will simply ingurgitate.
suddenlyitsobvious 5 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious and anything that that is presented by authority you instantly assume there MUST be a conspiracy, so you start looking for any evidence which supports that, without checking the facts.
zippidy0 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zippidy0
'and anything that that is presented by authority you instantly assume there MUST be a conspiracy, so you start looking for any evidence which supports that, without checking the facts.'
No, I don't actually. I've done my homework and don't assume anything. Have you done yours? I know you haven't. Just keep on uncritically believing, lad.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Please fuck off with your fruity little conspiracy theories. Make sure your tin-foil hat doesn't fall off.
cornflakeclusters 4 months ago
@cornflakeclusters
Perhaps you should try to bring some fun, creativity, joy and expressiveness into your life, that judging by your channel and 'discourse' must be pitifully barren and bleak.
Otherwise I found your buzzword-larded post very uninformative and not worth redacting. YOUR TYPE always has a problem in the department of provision of substance.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@cornflakeclusters
What's so funny, well, it would be if it wasn't tragic, is you don't realize you're a religious bigot. You're a believer, which is why you HATE bible-believers and you HATE people who UNLIKE YOU are not interested in believing, because they have access to PERSONAL STANDARDS AND SKILLS allowing them to process reality rather than taking it over.
For 21 years old you've already got the psychology of an old, rigid bigot. Your loss. The end.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Can you people just fuck off forever? Us normal people are so bored of having to listen to you conspiracy nut-jobs. "The government are controlling our minds with microwaves, man!" Yeah, whatever, good luck with that shit.
I used to believe in that 9/11 conspiracy crap, I finally got some sense in me though and I don't buy into that stuff anymore. Believing in a load of spurious horse-shit doesn't make you an iconoclast or independent thinker, it just makes you gullible.
cornflakeclusters 4 months ago
...suffice and the case can't withstand scrutiny, what else can you do but bash the opposition.
Hovind btw is of course the CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, a puppet peddling the 'religious' arguments.
It's amazing how utterly unaware evolutionists are of EVERYTHING, of social engineering, how uncritical they are and how they give in to their perverse authority-fetish. They'll believe ANYTHING validated by authority, the 9/11 narrative of course, that any fool instantly sees is full of holes,...
suddenlyitsobvious 5 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Oh dear a moronic creationist. Read some books you utter cretin.
UnknownUserName4267 4 months ago
@UnknownUserName4267
Fuck off, dumb programmed bitch.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious you sir are a moron
phoenixofdeth 4 months ago
@phoenixofdeth
Your post is very uninformative. Perhaps you're not intellectually equipped to formulate an argument?
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious go preach some conspiracy theories you silly little man
phoenixofdeth 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious go preach some conspiracy theories you silly little man
phoenixofdeth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@suddenlyitsobvious go preach some conspiracy theories you silly little man
phoenixofdeth 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Oh my God, you people are so pathetic. The internet is full of retards like you. You're one of these narcissistic morons who thinks he's a fucking iconoclast who "stands up to the man!" You people think you have some kind of profound insight into how everything works. You sound like you've been watching Zeitgeist too much. I bet you're the kind of retard who says shit like "You've been brainwashed by the government man! You're just a puppet for the fat-cats!"
cornflakeclusters 4 months ago
@cornflakeclusters
What's interesting about YOU PEOPLE is you're always so enraged. There is a good number of standard characteristics defining the scientistic atheist pathetically clinging to his 'reality':
no sense of humour, metallic voice always on cynical mode, talking in slogans, confusing regurgitation with thinking, being extremely nervous & itchy, and a list of other ills.
Unlike you btw I am NOT part of a collective of people or cultish movement or zeitgeist dictating my thoughts.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious "no sense of humour, metallic voice always on cynical mode"
What are you fucking talking about you moron? I'm the most hyperactive person I know of. I'm not a fucking robot.
"Perhaps you should try to bring some fun, creativity, joy and expressiveness into your life, that judging by your channel and 'discourse' must be pitifully barren and bleak."
Oh wow, you're a fucking retarded cunt. Do you think my life revolves around my fucking Youtube channel?
Prick.
cornflakeclusters 4 months ago
@cornflakeclusters
'What are you fucking talking about you moron? I'm the most hyperactive person I know of. I'm not a fucking robot.'
You obviously have reading-comprehension issues. You are not replying to the accusations, presumably because I hit a nerve and you immediately blocked them out.
'Us normal people'
You mean you and other silly cunts still wet behind the ears? He he he.
It seems you are one of these people who have integrated insult into their argumentarium in the delusion...
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@cornflakeclusters
...it provides your manic prose with additional weight. It doesn't. It just shows you've barely outgrown your pubescent moodiness and lack of control. Do you really think I want to argue with a spoiled brat? You're no match for me, pork chops. Count yourself lucky we are so mismatched I don't challenge you to a debate you couldn't sustain and that would see you utterly humiliated, since you obviously aren't exqctly a Nobel-laureate.
So long, kid.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Jesus Christ, you are one self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, self-indulgent prick.
I may want to punch you in the face and put you into a coma, but I would never say anything as douchey and arrogant as "I'm sooo smart! I would so win an argument against you! I'm the smartest guy ever!" You make me fucking cringe. Stop flattering yourself.
Come on then David Icke, make me look stupid.
cornflakeclusters 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cornflakeclusters
'Come on then David Icke, make me look stupid. '
You already did that yourself arse-wipe. What on earth wouyld make you think I follow guru's?
You just need a good spanking and I'd give it to you too, but I suppose you'd merely gasp with pleasure and beg for more, so what's the point?
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
Pfft. What a dumb technique to edit pieces on Hovind in order to push evolutionism. Hovind is irrelevant.
The reason evolutionism in pushed onto society through OPPOSITION to religion (Dawkins fi, but the ENTIRE issue has been contextualized in this dualistic fashion) is that it doesn't stand on its own right. Mobilizing anti-religious sentiment is required for a hegelian binary that can be controlled by the social engineers.
Seems their ploy is working pretty well. When arguments don't...
suddenlyitsobvious 5 months ago
I now have an impossible task....I was asked to carbon date the brains of the people who disliked this video.
HEY, POTHOLER54! WE CAN'T CARBON DATE THAT! THERES NO F&^%ING CARBON IN IT!
Plausiblesarge 5 months ago
Oy, Miller, we can't carbon date that, there's no f%@ing carbon in it!
thieflord555 5 months ago
At least he includes references with his claims... That's something I guess.
nikanj 6 months ago
I have concluded that Stephen Hawking is correct. Science will win (against religion) because it works. The creationist videos usually have more dislikes than likes. The evolution videos always have a substantially large amount of likes. As Charlie Sheen says "Winning"
batistaker123 6 months ago
"Here's an article from... an article."
That line always cracks me up.
SoundOfScilence 6 months ago
sry my other responses got cut off, let me just stop what I was saying and say this,
@ICECREAMPAINTJ0B, it is wonderful that you believe man, it truely is. As an esoteric creationist christian, I thank you for what your trying to do. But this really isn't the way to go. You have to argue religon with religon and science with science.
Carbon-14 does work, simple as that. Now don't get the wrong idea, keep trying man, but you have to take other peoples opionions into account.
adamlmyers89 6 months ago
@adamlmyers89 'Carbon-14 does work, simple as that.' Because generic assertions really comes under the banner of fighting 'science with science.' If any of you actually think you have something viable that falsifies c14 dating then feel free to inbox me.
Scienceandorigins 6 months ago
@adamlmyers89 I do but i dont understand why people dont believe that God helps people. he helps me and im a christian black man and my life was all messed up before i started praying to God and working to better myself through Him. i dont believe it only works for me i know it would work for others too i want people to try
ICECREAMPAlNTJ0B 6 months ago
Respond to this video... i dont want anybody to be left out. i pray every night that more and more people will get their piece of evidence too. He is in our hearts, the love it is true. LOVE you cant ignore it. can anyone just explain away LOVE which is what Jesus's biggest lesson was? can anyone disagree that the most important thing is to love one another? when I feel angry and go on a rampage with bad comments i have to stop myself because its not right. why bother wit dat?
ICECREAMPAlNTJ0B 6 months ago
@ICECREAMPAlNTJ0B
This video doesn't have to do with Christianity. You can have evolution and Christianity.
Fundamentalism =/= All of Christianity.
AgApE010 6 months ago
@AgApE010 The theory of evolution directly contradicts the bible.You are probably one of those christians who pick out the parts they like and completely ignore the slavery,rape and genocide
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100
No, I'm one of those Christians who's familiar with ancient Near eastern writings and modern scholarship on the Bible. You must be one of those a-holes who sits behind a computer presuming to speak on everything they don't know about.
AgApE010 6 months ago
@AgApE010 You said that you can have evolution and christianity.It is a proven fact that the human species has evolved.According to the bible we did not evolve.We were created by god.WITHOUT evolving.Forgive me but I cannot understand how one can have 2 conflicting opinions at the same time.It is obvious that you ignore parts of the bible which conflict with modern science so that you can keep your silly believes.
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100
It's spelled "beliefs." And you don't know what my beliefs are, obviously. So how can you call them silly? Logic much?
Modern scholarship on the Bible, in light of many archaeological finds in the past century, recognizes that the book of Genesis contains stories that were common in that time and culture. God was not tying to teach ancient Jews science. He simply used familiar stories of the day that the Jews knew to relay His teachings to them.
See Dr. Waltke's O.T. Theology.
AgApE010 6 months ago
@AgApE010 Do you think i care about grammar on the internet?So you are one of those christians that has his own version of christianity.Because of these familiar stories the ancient Jews slaughtered and enslaved tribes.Because of them they killed women that were raped withing city limits.It's funny how your god is supposed to be perfect but he fucks up pretty much everything.Whatever what your beliefs are it was obvious that they involve god.They are silly.
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100
Well you certainly sound open-minded. Thanks for your time.
AgApE010 6 months ago
@AgApE010 I used to be open minded.That changed when I read the bible.
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100 the bible is the word of god chek my playlist
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100 GEt to the point was this supposed to prove something?
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone That your god is an immoral fuck.
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100 LOL no answer is good enough for you so just keep walking away with your ignorance then.
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone Because your answers are trying to justify the dashing of children to death.
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100 Here sweetheart I faved a vid just for you feel free to leave a comment on it thanks!
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone I am arguing with you,not a video.If you can't explain what you saw in it you don't really understand it.So...can you explain why god isn't an immoral fuck?
lishey100 6 months ago
@lishey100 whats stoping you from messaging the person's video that i faved how hard are you honestly trying to understand anyway lol so whatever.
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone Nothing,but that's not the point.If you cant explain what the video says then you don't really understand it.
lishey100 5 months ago
@lishey100 no you dont understand I mean your not listening to me so i simply am trying to help you understand even if i didnt know i would research but if you dont want my help then whatever i aint forcing you to do anythin mkay.
matrixlone 5 months ago
@matrixlone No,you are only threatening me with eternal suffering.
lishey100 5 months ago
@lishey100 REALLY? like when?
matrixlone 5 months ago
@matrixlone You are a christian.You believe that the bible is the perfect word of god.The bible is says that I deserve eternal suffering.If you are a christian its logical to assume that you think that I deserve eternal suffering.
lishey100 5 months ago
@lishey100 When did I threaten you?
matrixlone 5 months ago