Ok, there are 999 other methods besides the one that used Carbon.
His objective is not telling us that scientitst are 100% wrong.
By what I have watched on other videos from this guy, he is trying to show that many scientific themes are based on assumptions and theories - which means many things may be wrong. He is saying that it is not science because it is based on assumptions.
That is what I believe to be his point on many of these videos.
Modern dating methods Hovind also needs to prove wrong: 1 Uranium-lead dating method 2 Samarium-neodymium dating method 3 Potassium-argon dating method 4 Rubidium-strontium dating method 5 Uranium-thorium dating method 6 Radiocarbon dating method 7 Fission track dating method 8 Chlorine-36 dating method 9 Luminescence dating methods
@gregrutz Fossils don't have carbon? i guess the carbon from CARBON based lifeforms just Disappeared. Vanished. As for Dating methods, if a dating method isn't within millions of years, it is thrown out. Rate of radio activity doesn't stay the same. different radioactive materials have different half lives. For example, my favorite Polonium 218. With a half life of a few minuets (found in base rock granite, try explaining that one if the earth cooled over more than a minuet...)
@theP3rSonhuRocks Fossils are mostly rock, yes the carbon went away. The rate of decay is always the same for each radioactive element. Every element has a different rate and half life but does not change.
@gregrutz From "Yes, there is no f**king carbon in fossils." to "Fossils are mostly rock, yes the carbon went away." Now we are getting somewhere. Carbon dating assumes that carbon leaching from fossils is a constant. But can you really tell for sure? I assume you are going to say yes, so I will give you an illustration. Suppose a teacher says he is going to fill a glass of water to his class before class ends. He turns the tap on but it drips a drop at a time.
@theP3rSonhuRocks He then asks the class to leave the room. The class returns and see that the glass is full. What happened? Did the water drip a drop at a time, or was it tampered with. The teacher says that he would alternate pouring more to less water in at a time. Modern day scientist who believe in carbon dating believe that the carbon leaching was a constant. Not so. It would be foolish to believe carbon leaching, for millions of years, has been leaching in a constant
@gregrutz Really? Carbon dating is used to sample the amount of Carbon left within a fossil and based upon how much the carbon has leached depends on how long ago it died. Wait, maybe your next comment will have something to say about carbon Dating
@theP3rSonhuRocks NO, they know how much C14 is in all living materal and when it dies the C14 decays and they measure the abount that is left. The half-life is 5,730 years so it is all gone in 60,000 years. So it does not work on fossils (rock) or really old things.
You might was to do some research so you know what you are talking about.
@gregrutz Carbon is in everything EVEN FOSSILS. Have you not been listening? I gave you a realistic illustration on the leaching of Carbon, why carbon is not a constant, and why you are running in circles. If Carbon dating doesn't work on rock "So it does not work on fossils (rock) or really old things...."
, THEN WHY ARE SCIENTISTS USING CARBON DATING ON ROCK!!!
@gregrutz Scientists within the community know Carbon dating is false, and most defiantly not a constant. If it were a constant the C14 answers would be the same. However more than 50% of carbon-14 dates are thrown out. Hmmm.... I thought there would be actual evidence to back your theories this time. Do bring some next time, you got my hopes up.
Kent Hovind can prove every dating method ever invented wrong. Hovind can prove every scientist in the world wrong. Hovind can show you how to avoid paying taxes, wrong.
Yes, dinosaurs died, sabertooth tigers died, neanderthals died, all those strange creatures that lived in the Cambrian Period all died. In fact most of the things that ever lived died. I wonder is there is a theory to expalin this ! Hmmmm?
@gregrutz Some Scientists, Geologists, and Chemists still believe that the Earth isn't over 6000 years old? well i guess if they go against other scientists their opinion is wrong. Give up scientists gregrutz has more scientific know how then you...
Göbekli Tepe, is a hilltop sanctuary erected on the highest point of an elongated mountain ridge some 15 km northeast of the town of Şanlıurfa, in southeastern Turkey and 500 miles away from Istanbul, Turkey. It is the most astonishing archaeological discovery in modern times and also thought to be the oldest advanced civilization on Earth. It is 12,000 years old.
@gregrutz Not true, accomplished scientists are creationists, even previous ones Louis Agassiz, Charles Babbage, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Sir David Brewster, Georges Cuvier, Sir Humphry Davy, Jean Henri Fabre. Stating that there is an old tree doesn't prove anything, I said the Earth was 6000 years not 4400, What are you trying to prove... my point
@theP3rSonhuRocks ''accomplished scientists are creationists'' And that proves what?
Kunt Hovind says there was a global flood 4400 years ago which is impossible if tree rings can be traced back 10,000 years and early Egyptians and Chinese were not all killed.
Sorry but he can't prove every scientist in the world wrong.
@gregrutz It PROVES that not everyone is blind to Evolution and spontaneous generation. Chinese and Egyptians were first recorded as a colonization circa 3740 BC. Please read your ancient history textbooks, their not all bias. Tree rings? seriously? The tree rings you speak of are the sequoias, which are never older than 4000 years.But wait, scientist have found Yet another tree.
@theP3rSonhuRocks Edmund Schulman discovered a tree within the White Mountains of California, called bristlecone Pines (Pinus Longalva) which had tree rings ranging to roughly 1200 years. This is double the date that Creationists have, But another scientist by the name of Walter Lammerts, a botanical scientist found that during seasonal rains the tree would grow more than 2 rings. In fact most trees can grow more than 2 rings in favorable conditions. Anything else...
@gregrutz How do you know which tree produces one ring per year? Which Dinosaurs had Feathers? Archeopteryx is a fake, declare so by most of the scientific community. And It is only logical why marsupials moved to The southern part of the world, they are significantly easy to hunt by big predators around the world and hunters. Now answer me this: Why are there no more bears in the middle east or Lions in Britain?
@gregrutz Glad you took my words to heart... Anyway. Archeopteryx isn't a fake eh? All the Archeopteryx fossils were found in a limestone quarry in Solnhofen, Germany (near Eichstatt) in 1861-1877. And I mean all... Each were found and sold by the quarry for a high price. In 1985, six of the leading scientists of the time one being proclaimed scientist Fred Hoyle (an avid evolutionist) proclaimed the fossil to be fake, The feathers indent seemed to be carved in to the stone-
@theP3rSonhuRocks And the feathers were unscathed (in perfect condition) despite being encased in mud. as for "make some shit up", it sure wasn't creationists who faked the Piltdown man.
@gregrutz We, Creationists do not try to prove Science is wrong, we prove evolution is wrong, silly. Dinosaurs with feathers, onto this point. Alright, just because someone pastes feathers on dinosaurs doesn't make it real. Today I am going to list to you why Dinosaurs, actual lizards with feathers on them are false Through a series of questions you could ask yourself while studying the fossil.
@theP3rSonhuRocks 1. How can Scales turn into feathers? Not by Mutation, Mutation is subtracting DNA and Code, Not adding. 2. Does it have hollow bones? Modern, to any Bird must have hollow bones to fly. 3. Does it have modern feathers? Which all of them do, proving that there was a sudden Jump to perfect feathers. 4. Were there transitional samples of the intermediate feathers? 5. if there are "wings" are they built for flight? 6. is there a sternum?
@theP3rSonhuRocks If any of these questions are answered with a no, then you know that the fossil you are looking at is either a fake, or a dinosaur with feathers grafted into the strata it lays in. I don't need to say a thing. Judge for yourself, your smart enough to put two and two together.
@theP3rSonhuRocks Why are most of the species that ever lived on the earth extinct? Why do you deny dinosaurs had feathers. They have over 20 of them know. When are you going to put 2 and 2 together?
@theP3rSonhuRocks Everything you think of as bird like dinosaurs had; feathers, hollow bones, oval eggs in nests, warm blood, 3 forward toes, etc. etc. etc.
Half a wing is called a dinosaur arm with feathers. Yes there are 'intermediate' feathers. Down feathers and modern 'flight' feathers. They didn't need to fly to have feathers.
@gregrutz Now you, like all of the other people I have spoken to, are using circular reasoning. The "feathers" on all the Bird-dinosaurs are MODERN flight feathers. They are completely fake. No Intermediate feathers were ever found, just Modern feathers. Like a dinosaur was hatching to a baby dinosaur then was like "whoa, the baby has feathers?!". That is called the "Hopeful Monster theory". the fact is "They didn't need to fly to have feathers." Why would they "evolve" to fly?
@theP3rSonhuRocks Read a History book. ‘’By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC’’.
@gregrutz Naming Spontaneous Generation under a different name makes it no different then before. It was proven wrong before, just because you call it something fancy doesn't change anything. hopefully, if you stick with this discussion, unlike many other faithless evolutionist extremists, we can figure that out.
@theP3rSonhuRocks Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. Hovind is spinning his wheels. He can't prove every dating method ever invented wrong.
No Kent, Fossils prove something lived. And most of the things that lived are extinct. Gone, No dinosaurs, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers, no Neanderthals. You can't explain them so you say fossils mean nothing.
@gregrutz Oh, that's what i thought you said. Well I'm glad you didn't do what most evolutionists do by just stating there is something with no references, but your bigger then that, right. And it's pretty funny how a non existent person existed before the 6000 year old earth was formed.
@theP3rSonhuRocks Read a History book. ‘’By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC’’.
@gregrutz Oh Boy. Challenging me on history now are we, you wanna play ball. Egyptians were first depicted colonized Circa 2420 BC. Al Fayyum is the depiction of a Egyptian City, the Origin of Egyptian Colony if you will. The colonization of this is Circa 3000. 6000 BC, A civilization was in the making. Descendants of Adam. They did live in around North Africa or around Egypt and they had the technology of great buildings and Metelurgy
-Hundreds of thousands of missing links and transitions have never been found. There are no fossil transitions from vertebrae to in-vertebrae. No cave men have ever been found between man and ape and the same can be said for all the other animals that has been said to have evolved from a different kind.
Understand that his is my work and you can argue it until your blue in the face. Now can you show me the same flaws in genetic intelligent design.
-It takes life to produce life and our physical bodies are not determined by evolution but from the DNA of our parents.
-Darwin’s Tree has been cut down even by die hard evolutionists. Evolutionists are still in heated debates due to Darwin’s tree of life being inconsistent. Darwin himself admitted that he doubted his theory and that there is no fossil evidence to back up his theory.
-RNA needs protein to exist and proteins need RNA to exist which would make it impossible for them to evolve without each other.
-DNA is said to be a engineering mastermind and you can not have a book without a writer. There is so much information in a simple tea spoon of DNA to produce 350 times the worlds population and still make us all unique.
-The universe is in a mathematical order and math is a product of intelligence. A big bang as presented in the evolution text books could have never produced such a perfect order in the universe
-Living matter (life) can not come from dead matter. It has been proven to be impossible. All experiments by adding a created earth’s atmosphere of extreme head and electricity has failed. Various other experiments have also failed over the many decades of trying.
-you can get something from nothing (Big Bang theory states that all the matter in the universe came from nothing)
-Energy can not be created or destroyed therefore matter can not be created or destroyed thus the big bang theory is thrown out the window even by evolutionists.
-The laws of centrifugal force go against the big bang theory.
Whoops I misspelled limiting in my last post. I thought I would catch it before you through at me the same ol spelling argument
God however does not have a limiting factor, the genetic blueprint of life shows his existence and the more we learn about it through research the more we are seeing intelligent design. Have you ever asked any of the professors that teach evolution what the flaws are? Do so and you can hear them right out of a atheists mouth.
I asked you first where did Genetics come from? I have yet to here an answer from anyone.
Where did God come from, you will have to ask him that,lol however, I can tell you that energy can not be created nor destroyed which is a limmiting factor to evolution and stops the big bang theory dead on its tracks.
No I am all for science and I believe in scientific evolution that happens within species. I follow genetic research which shows a engineering mastermind.
Genetics is the blue print of life and you can not have a book without a writer. You don't even have to be religious to agree with that.
I can provide a paper that I wrote myself in point form if you would like to see its flaws. Can you provide me in return this question, where did genetics come from?
Lol! Love the scientific papers you're using there to disprove carbon dating, that one about the dinosaurs from the highly acclaimed journal "readers digest". I love the way you forgot to mention the burning of fossil fuels and atomic bomb testing in the upper atmosphere which has created the increased levels of radiocarbon too.
here's a simple question I use to make evolutionist rethink think their ideals// "have you ever studied an animal that has died in a feild and left and not buried. It will within a few months be completly gone even the bones will decay or sorley deminished with a year or so." So a fossile found in the rock or ground had to been buried to be persurved until now. Think about that .... please feel free to use this question at ur pleasure :) Love you brother Ken keep up the great work
@catmandaddy What is you point? Fossils are rare, we know that. Fossils need to be buried quickly, no. They can sink into oxygen free water or fall into tar pits, buried in river floods or land slides.
Fossils are in different layers so it was not just one event. Most of the fossils are not of things that live today, they are all extinct, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers. Feel free to think about that.
The living penguins, seals, and mollusks which dated several thousand years old. It's interesting how they all live near the water. There's an interesting thing called the reservoir effect. Carbon-14 in water is unreliable because it can swirl around for a few thousand years before an animal drinks it and gives that animal a false age reading.
And those mammoths with different ages. They were two different mammoths.
"They'll change the dates" And he thinks that's wrong? Lol.All that does is prove that science is willing to admit it doesn't know anything to 100% certainty and is attempting to find the true answer, not attempting to make a false answer seem true.
@9hello123 Nothing in that comment made any sense. Do you think changing, thus falsifying, is "finding the true answer"? They carbon-date, and if it doesn't fit in their pre-determined theory, they throw it away, because it "can't be true". But when they get a result from carbon-dating, and it fits the theory, they embrace it. Carbondating only "works" if it fits in, but alot of the times (all the times), it doesn't.
@9hello123 I don't even need to know 1+1, that your argument doesn't make sense. "We corrupt our results to try to make it true", that's how I interpreted it.
WOWOWOWOWO just a wait a tic... you are using all the old stupid creationist claims and you always forget to read the whole fucking paper... plus you do realize they barely ever do one type of dating on the same material, they attempt to VERIFY results unlike SOMEONE. Another thing, you do realize that the miller story is overused and false. They ended up dating the organic materials used to help preserve the bones, not the fossil, because there was NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT.... MORON
Hovind speaks the truth :) If someone wants to believe in the theory that every living thing has evolved from a single cell, or to be more specific from a rock(!), fine by me, but it still takes a giant leap of faith to believe something like that. But you cant even call it science because its not empirically provable.
"Well this Ammonite, may have drowned in the flood- Probably did."
OK, wait, hang on, hold up... You're saying that a marine cephalopod, whos natural habitat is a gigantic body of water, drowned in a flood, of more water...
Just what kind of water are we talking about here, parson? And where can I get it?!
When the invisible wizard in the sky decided to make animals, did he use a magic wand or some form of voodoo stick? Or was it just hand gestures with lightning coming out of his finger-tips?
When he did this miracle did he say "Alakazam!" or "Mapichubabu!" or some kind of dramatic incantation to mark the occassion? Or was he just silent the whole time?
Also, does this omnipresent magician dude talk to you inside your head?
People keep saying there's no carbon in carbon dating. Then why do they call it carbon dating if they don't use carbon to date it. Evolutionist constantly state Hovind is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about yet they never give any examples of what he is stupid about. They try to bring up his theory because there is no way for him to prove it. The majority of scientist are not evolutionist. That is a lie perpetrated by the illuminati to disqualify people from the kingdom of christ.
@NavaGator29 I understand exactly what you are saying,its hard sometimes to get people to understand that evolution is stupid just because they don't want to accept Christ.And since creation is the only alternative they would rather believe a lie.2nd peter 3:5
most of your "educated" people believe in the pseudoscience of rock dating, abiogenesis and common ancestry. next time, you should try to refute people with REAL scientific theories... you know... stuff that can actually be observed or tested.
Everything that is "Good" is , and will continue to be under attack these days. So , all you people that do not believe in miricles, and god... you go right ahead believing what you will.... its too bad.. to see our society in such decay... , by the way ... what would you all do, if I told you ..that there are indeed people still on this earth from Bible times? ..... Have a good day...
Estimating the age of the universe was never solely reliant upon carbon dating anyway. So that goes to show what a pile of pig shite this whole video is.
I find it very telling that the negative comments all have to do with Dr. Hovind's personality, background, etc but no comments demonstrating how anything he said in this video is incorrect. All of his sources are clearly documented in the video and everything he says about how carbon dating works is exactly what you would learn from any science textbook. So why when confronted with the obvious fact that "the emperor has no clothes" do people attack the messenger rather than open their eyes?
@Imaginefree69 I find it very telling that the negative comments all have to do with Dr. Hovind's personality, etc but no comments demonstrating how anything he said in this video is incorrect. All of his sources are documented in the video and everything he says about how carbon dating works is exactly what you would learn from any science textbook. So why when confronted with the obvious fact that "the emperor has no clothes" do people attack the messenger rather than open their eyes?
@PastorDaveJohnson "the negative comments all have to do with Dr. Hovind's personality" "Personality"? Hardly. I am talking about his criminal record, his lack of legitimate credentials, his lack of education, and his lies. Jesus himself said to judge a tree by it;s fruit, and the fruit of Hovind is lies and fraud and ten years in federal prison. Also, no legitimate science text says what Hovind says. He tells so many lies that it's just more efficient to expose him as a liar.
Hovind? The failed auto mechanic? The uneducated, violent fraud artist who has been charged with assault, convicted of fraud, and is currently in prison? I mean, okay, he has a white lab jacket, and he's a great poster boy for Creationism, but nobody in their right mind would go to Hovind for scientific facts, reality, or any sort of truth! Even Jesus warned about teachers with rotten fruit. Don't you believe Jesus, either?
@Imaginefree69 Do you copy and paste this on all his videos? If everything he is saying is simply wrong and stupid why do you strive so hard to smear him?
@JamesRideout123 "Do you copy and paste this on all his videos?" Some, not all. Since his videos mostly say the same things over and over, why should I re-write my comment each time? Are you seriously asking me why I bother to speak out for the truth? Why I warn people who may not have the education to assess his ignorance and lies, so that they don't become deceived? I think it's the moral duty of all humans to warn against evil lies when they are in a position to do so. No smears, just truth.
@Imaginefree69 Go to Gospelnews.c o m and look at the predictions that have already come to pass there are hundreds of them if not thousands of predictions that have all come to pass and are still coming to pass that in itself tells me its the word of God. Unlike Nostradamus a true prophet has all predictions come true not just some of them. In the New Testament all of it has come true.
@JamesRideout123 "thousands of predictions that have all come to pass" What rot. In Matthew 16:28 Jesus predicted "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Yet the kingdom has not appeared yet, and I've met no 2,000 year-old disciples. So your "predictions" are evidence AGAINST your 'prophet." Fail.
@Imaginefree69 I have a major Shock for you, that I already know Im completely wasting my time telling you .. but I will anyway.... I have personally seen...and comunicated with a person from Bible times... I know, I know.. ... Im just another nut case... .. thats ok.... go right on believing what you will ... The end....
Do you know how you date the strata? By the fossils found in it. And do you know how you date the fossil? By the strata it's found in. That's called circular reasoning
i like his veiws, he is correct in saying it is wrong, the different dates prove that. but if you all want to believe the evolution delusion than you all can, but you cannot prove him wrong. science is good, but not the lies. (other scientific lies: global warming, the big bang, abiogenesis, ect.)
You again? This guy doesn't even understand that carbon dating doesn't work on things without carbon in them. there are about a dozen other radiometric dating techniques that they use for older materials. Those dates were on animals that had been contaminated by exposure to carbon 14 in the water where they live. That's why carbon dating isn't used on fossils. He's always wrong. Climate change is real and we should try to prevent it. No pollution, no deforesting, no crude oil.
apparently YOU do not understand that NO dating process would work on that! he is not saying it would work, he is giving an example. one thing you just can't seem to comprehend.
Incorrect, he botched the tests so what they say is irrelevant. He doesnt even understand that you cant carbon date something without carbon in it (i.e. a fossil). What was dated was the protective coating on the outside of the fossil that the museum put on. He said carbon dating, he did not mention or even show signs that he knew there were other dating methods. When done correctly all dates are correct.
We date the strata the fossil was found in. There is no evidence whatsoever that those tests are rigged. The fossils had carbon based lacquer on them and he dated sea life, something you don't use carbon dating on due to the erratic amounts of carbon 14 in different bodies of water. It's usually used on trees.
... I like most of Kent Hovind's stuff... except at 1:10... why would an ammonite die in the flood?
... I guess it could've been killed by the fresh water, or some mineral deposite in the water from areas not normally covered... But aquatic dinosaurs shouldn't have died due to a flood.
It doesn't matter if something is aquatic or not, in turbulent waters and all the sediments being sloshed around it isn't to hard to imagine anything being buried alive, even in mass graves.
A flood doesn't necessitate sediment being sloshed around or that the waters would be particularly turbulent. Perhaps you could assume that the flood came right before a catastrophic earth quake, that earth quake would cause turbulent waters and sediment sloshing... but that's purely speculation. No biblical or observable evidence of a massive earth quake at the time of the flood.
@dasgregorian Why would you need an earthquake for turbulence? Gen 7:11 When the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows(canopy) of heaven were opened. This would create plenty of turbulence.
Hovind just lays the truth out in the best way that it can be laid out, because egotistical conceited atheists will always have excuses. Hovind tackles many excuses atheists use and proves them wrong. Great series.
FACT? Facts are the stuff of Mathematics alone. Carbon Dating is a theory supported by overwhelming evidence. Everything Hovind says about RCD is contrived and misleading,,, because sleight of hand is all he has. Just like you. Kinda sad man,,, I pity you.
True, Also evolutionists claim he's been debunked, no some idiot made a video saying that a dinosaur bone wouldn't have C14 in it. Then he tries to support carbon dating with the same fallicious assumptions.
well you've got me there but there still has to be a God seeing the the universe and time aren't eternal and time is needed to bring change around so you have a problem in that something outside of time had to bring around change the big bang is hardly satisfactory seeing it doesn't actually even address that
All 3 of these are true. Mutations DO add information to the genome. If you argue they don't, it's similar to arguing that if you copy a piece of paper over and over, that the new "changes" aren't NEW information, OF COURSE THEY ARE!
This happens via mutation.
Such mutations HAVE been observed and are being observed. Dr. Richard Lenski recently mapped the evolution of E. Coli. It dramatically changed and he is in the process of mapping those exact changes. Evolution HAS been observed .
@9pt9: Carbon dating demolished? Ya think so, eh? watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
In case you missed it, the line delivered by potholer54 is classic: "Oi, Hovind! We can't carbon-date this! There's no %*&@ing carbon in it!" Best ownage of a half-wit YECer ever seen.
heh i'll be the thousand'th person to inform you that kent hovind is an idiot and a liar which is why hes in prison right now
furthermore potholer54 completely destroys this morons pathetic claims with his video " carbon dating doesn't work debunked" video
heh i know you WISHED that kent hovind had taken evolutionists to school but he didn't and no creationist ever will. you and hovind are laughibly wrong, and scientists are right and always will be
Yes, hovind is a mentally bereft, intellectually impotent pygmy.
Not a single one of his points stand up to even the most peripheral rigor - the only kiind of person he appeals to are the unthinking, easily manipulated and ignorant masses..
Evidence? What evidence could there possibly be for that!?
Overlooking the fact that the weight of such a canopy would crush every living thing beyond recognition, that canopy would block out all light from earth making life impossible in the first place.
Lead does not fit in the crystal structure so they know the sample had no Lead in it to start with.
With Carbon 14 they know the amount of carbon is the same in most living things, not snails and seals.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
TAKE THIS SCIENTISTS... YOUR CHARTS ARE METHODS AND MAN MADE THEORIES... NOT FACT.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
the ammoite drowned in the flood
ammonites are marine
the idea of a marine animal 'drowning' is just stupid
whitesquirrel7 2 weeks ago
was reccomended this video... will no longer take reccomendations. Who is this Jesus you speak of?
jesusrazzledazzle 1 month ago
I believe you guys are losing the point here.
Ok, there are 999 other methods besides the one that used Carbon.
His objective is not telling us that scientitst are 100% wrong.
By what I have watched on other videos from this guy, he is trying to show that many scientific themes are based on assumptions and theories - which means many things may be wrong. He is saying that it is not science because it is based on assumptions.
That is what I believe to be his point on many of these videos.
uraharagreenhat 1 month ago
@6:15 '' This is a dinosaur bone, it has been replaced by minerals'' !!
THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT A FOSSIL
AND THAT MEANS THERE IS NO CARBON IN IT, DUMMY.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Your actually incorrent on your hypothesis.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x I stated a fact dummy. Fossils are mostly rock.
It is also a fact that dinosaurs had feathers.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
gregrutz 1 month ago
gregrutz 1 month ago
Yes, they know the daughter product started at zero.
Yes, the rate of radioactive decay stays the same.
Yes, the different dating methods cross-check each other in double blind tests.
Yes, there is no f**king carbon in fossils. [see potholer54debunks]
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Fossils don't have carbon? i guess the carbon from CARBON based lifeforms just Disappeared. Vanished. As for Dating methods, if a dating method isn't within millions of years, it is thrown out. Rate of radio activity doesn't stay the same. different radioactive materials have different half lives. For example, my favorite Polonium 218. With a half life of a few minuets (found in base rock granite, try explaining that one if the earth cooled over more than a minuet...)
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Fossils are mostly rock, yes the carbon went away. The rate of decay is always the same for each radioactive element. Every element has a different rate and half life but does not change.
Po218 is part of a chain reaction
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz From "Yes, there is no f**king carbon in fossils." to "Fossils are mostly rock, yes the carbon went away." Now we are getting somewhere. Carbon dating assumes that carbon leaching from fossils is a constant. But can you really tell for sure? I assume you are going to say yes, so I will give you an illustration. Suppose a teacher says he is going to fill a glass of water to his class before class ends. He turns the tap on but it drips a drop at a time.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks He then asks the class to leave the room. The class returns and see that the glass is full. What happened? Did the water drip a drop at a time, or was it tampered with. The teacher says that he would alternate pouring more to less water in at a time. Modern day scientist who believe in carbon dating believe that the carbon leaching was a constant. Not so. It would be foolish to believe carbon leaching, for millions of years, has been leaching in a constant
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Radioactive decay is used to date things, not ''carbon leaching''
IDiot.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Really? Carbon dating is used to sample the amount of Carbon left within a fossil and based upon how much the carbon has leached depends on how long ago it died. Wait, maybe your next comment will have something to say about carbon Dating
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks NO, they know how much C14 is in all living materal and when it dies the C14 decays and they measure the abount that is left. The half-life is 5,730 years so it is all gone in 60,000 years. So it does not work on fossils (rock) or really old things.
You might was to do some research so you know what you are talking about.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Carbon is in everything EVEN FOSSILS. Have you not been listening? I gave you a realistic illustration on the leaching of Carbon, why carbon is not a constant, and why you are running in circles. If Carbon dating doesn't work on rock "So it does not work on fossils (rock) or really old things...."
, THEN WHY ARE SCIENTISTS USING CARBON DATING ON ROCK!!!
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks You don't seem to know the difference between the different RADIOMETRIC Dating methods. Only one of 25 uses C14 isotope.
.
Silicon Dioxide does not have Carbon in it
Calcium Carbonate does not have Carbon in it.
Granite does not have Carbon in it.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks ''Carbon dating assumes that carbon leaching from fossils is a constant''
WTF?!? NO ! C14 is only one of many radiometric dating methods.
Carbon 14 dating measures the C14 left in an organic sample. Not rock.
It is used on things up to 60,000 years old because of it's short half life. Dinosaurs are at least 65,000,000 years old.
Scientists date ash layer above and below dino fossils to get an accurate range. [Ar not C14]
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Scientists within the community know Carbon dating is false, and most defiantly not a constant. If it were a constant the C14 answers would be the same. However more than 50% of carbon-14 dates are thrown out. Hmmm.... I thought there would be actual evidence to back your theories this time. Do bring some next time, you got my hopes up.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks What part of ''THEY DON'T USE CARBON 14 TO DATE FOSSILS" don't you understand?
gregrutz 1 month ago
They must teach quote mining in Sunday School, it all this prison inmate knows how to do.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Good thing Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before Carbon 14 was invented. It does not work of fossils anyway Kent, you dummy.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Kent Hovind can prove every dating method ever invented wrong. Hovind can prove every scientist in the world wrong. Hovind can show you how to avoid paying taxes, wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Yes, dinosaurs died, sabertooth tigers died, neanderthals died, all those strange creatures that lived in the Cambrian Period all died. In fact most of the things that ever lived died. I wonder is there is a theory to expalin this ! Hmmmm?
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz I wonder if there's ignorant people who believe in it... Hmmmmm?
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Geologists proved the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Some Scientists, Geologists, and Chemists still believe that the Earth isn't over 6000 years old? well i guess if they go against other scientists their opinion is wrong. Give up scientists gregrutz has more scientific know how then you...
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Yes, and they all work for ICR or Ken Ham.
There are trees older than 4400 years old.
Göbekli Tepe, is a hilltop sanctuary erected on the highest point of an elongated mountain ridge some 15 km northeast of the town of Şanlıurfa, in southeastern Turkey and 500 miles away from Istanbul, Turkey. It is the most astonishing archaeological discovery in modern times and also thought to be the oldest advanced civilization on Earth. It is 12,000 years old.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Not true, accomplished scientists are creationists, even previous ones Louis Agassiz, Charles Babbage, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Sir David Brewster, Georges Cuvier, Sir Humphry Davy, Jean Henri Fabre. Stating that there is an old tree doesn't prove anything, I said the Earth was 6000 years not 4400, What are you trying to prove... my point
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks ''accomplished scientists are creationists'' And that proves what?
Kunt Hovind says there was a global flood 4400 years ago which is impossible if tree rings can be traced back 10,000 years and early Egyptians and Chinese were not all killed.
Sorry but he can't prove every scientist in the world wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz It PROVES that not everyone is blind to Evolution and spontaneous generation. Chinese and Egyptians were first recorded as a colonization circa 3740 BC. Please read your ancient history textbooks, their not all bias. Tree rings? seriously? The tree rings you speak of are the sequoias, which are never older than 4000 years.But wait, scientist have found Yet another tree.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Edmund Schulman discovered a tree within the White Mountains of California, called bristlecone Pines (Pinus Longalva) which had tree rings ranging to roughly 1200 years. This is double the date that Creationists have, But another scientist by the name of Walter Lammerts, a botanical scientist found that during seasonal rains the tree would grow more than 2 rings. In fact most trees can grow more than 2 rings in favorable conditions. Anything else...
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks You will just deny the facts, just like Hovind does.
Scientists use trees that only produce one ring per year.
Why did dinosaurs have feathers?
Why did the kangaroos only go to Australia with the other marsupials?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz How do you know which tree produces one ring per year? Which Dinosaurs had Feathers? Archeopteryx is a fake, declare so by most of the scientific community. And It is only logical why marsupials moved to The southern part of the world, they are significantly easy to hunt by big predators around the world and hunters. Now answer me this: Why are there no more bears in the middle east or Lions in Britain?
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Archeopteryx is a fake FAKE ? You are lying, it was used to prove evolution 150 years ago.
Piltdown was the only fraud.
They now have 20 dinosaurs with feathers.
Quick, do like Hovind and make some shit up.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Glad you took my words to heart... Anyway. Archeopteryx isn't a fake eh? All the Archeopteryx fossils were found in a limestone quarry in Solnhofen, Germany (near Eichstatt) in 1861-1877. And I mean all... Each were found and sold by the quarry for a high price. In 1985, six of the leading scientists of the time one being proclaimed scientist Fred Hoyle (an avid evolutionist) proclaimed the fossil to be fake, The feathers indent seemed to be carved in to the stone-
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks And the feathers were unscathed (in perfect condition) despite being encased in mud. as for "make some shit up", it sure wasn't creationists who faked the Piltdown man.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks And I am sure that you can prove Microraptor and the other 20 or so dinosaurs with feathers are all fake too.
Why don't you IDiots stop trying to prove all of science wrong?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz We, Creationists do not try to prove Science is wrong, we prove evolution is wrong, silly. Dinosaurs with feathers, onto this point. Alright, just because someone pastes feathers on dinosaurs doesn't make it real. Today I am going to list to you why Dinosaurs, actual lizards with feathers on them are false Through a series of questions you could ask yourself while studying the fossil.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks 1. How can Scales turn into feathers? Not by Mutation, Mutation is subtracting DNA and Code, Not adding. 2. Does it have hollow bones? Modern, to any Bird must have hollow bones to fly. 3. Does it have modern feathers? Which all of them do, proving that there was a sudden Jump to perfect feathers. 4. Were there transitional samples of the intermediate feathers? 5. if there are "wings" are they built for flight? 6. is there a sternum?
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks If any of these questions are answered with a no, then you know that the fossil you are looking at is either a fake, or a dinosaur with feathers grafted into the strata it lays in. I don't need to say a thing. Judge for yourself, your smart enough to put two and two together.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Why are most of the species that ever lived on the earth extinct? Why do you deny dinosaurs had feathers. They have over 20 of them know. When are you going to put 2 and 2 together?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Everything you think of as bird like dinosaurs had; feathers, hollow bones, oval eggs in nests, warm blood, 3 forward toes, etc. etc. etc.
Half a wing is called a dinosaur arm with feathers. Yes there are 'intermediate' feathers. Down feathers and modern 'flight' feathers. They didn't need to fly to have feathers.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Now you, like all of the other people I have spoken to, are using circular reasoning. The "feathers" on all the Bird-dinosaurs are MODERN flight feathers. They are completely fake. No Intermediate feathers were ever found, just Modern feathers. Like a dinosaur was hatching to a baby dinosaur then was like "whoa, the baby has feathers?!". That is called the "Hopeful Monster theory". the fact is "They didn't need to fly to have feathers." Why would they "evolve" to fly?
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Oh crap, not the ''Show me half a feather'' arguments.
I showed you a transitional fossil, dinosaurs with feathers.
'Why would they evolve to fly?'' Creatards have no imagination. Open you eyes, are birds successful or not.
Birds are dinosaurs just like you are a mammal.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Well why don't you prove evolution wrong then?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz i am
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Read a History book. ‘’By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC’’.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks '' It PROVES that not everyone is blind to Evolution and spontaneous generation.''
Spontaneous generation was proven wrong hundreds of years ago.
How life started is called Abiogenesis. It is not part of Evolution dummy.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Naming Spontaneous Generation under a different name makes it no different then before. It was proven wrong before, just because you call it something fancy doesn't change anything. hopefully, if you stick with this discussion, unlike many other faithless evolutionist extremists, we can figure that out.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. Hovind is spinning his wheels. He can't prove every dating method ever invented wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks No one but fuddymentalists think the earth is 6000 years old.
Read a history book or a geology book or an astronomy book or any book that shows how silly Hovind is.
gregrutz 1 month ago
No Kent, Fossils prove something lived. And most of the things that lived are extinct. Gone, No dinosaurs, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers, no Neanderthals. You can't explain them so you say fossils mean nothing.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz Please tell me you didn't just say Neanderthals exist...
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Neaderthal DNA Exists. It proves there were a different kind of human. They went extinct over 30,000 years ago.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Oh, that's what i thought you said. Well I'm glad you didn't do what most evolutionists do by just stating there is something with no references, but your bigger then that, right. And it's pretty funny how a non existent person existed before the 6000 year old earth was formed.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Read a History book. ‘’By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC’’.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Oh Boy. Challenging me on history now are we, you wanna play ball. Egyptians were first depicted colonized Circa 2420 BC. Al Fayyum is the depiction of a Egyptian City, the Origin of Egyptian Colony if you will. The colonization of this is Circa 3000. 6000 BC, A civilization was in the making. Descendants of Adam. They did live in around North Africa or around Egypt and they had the technology of great buildings and Metelurgy
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
Organic life CANNOT be formed from inorganic materials by any law of physics, biology or science.
logicnreason1 6 months ago
@logicnreason1 Off course not, organic life is made with organic molecules. Organic means carbon based.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Comment removed
stomachsittingfan 6 months ago
-Hundreds of thousands of missing links and transitions have never been found. There are no fossil transitions from vertebrae to in-vertebrae. No cave men have ever been found between man and ape and the same can be said for all the other animals that has been said to have evolved from a different kind.
Understand that his is my work and you can argue it until your blue in the face. Now can you show me the same flaws in genetic intelligent design.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
-It takes life to produce life and our physical bodies are not determined by evolution but from the DNA of our parents.
-Darwin’s Tree has been cut down even by die hard evolutionists. Evolutionists are still in heated debates due to Darwin’s tree of life being inconsistent. Darwin himself admitted that he doubted his theory and that there is no fossil evidence to back up his theory.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
-RNA needs protein to exist and proteins need RNA to exist which would make it impossible for them to evolve without each other.
-DNA is said to be a engineering mastermind and you can not have a book without a writer. There is so much information in a simple tea spoon of DNA to produce 350 times the worlds population and still make us all unique.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
-The fossil record shows the Cambrian explosion showing all fossils of life showing up abruptly.
-All forms of matter go from a complex state to a un-complex state meaning that everything breaks down.
-Lower forms of life such as bacteria are all complex forms of life with no evidence of evolving from a lower life form.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
-The universe is in a mathematical order and math is a product of intelligence. A big bang as presented in the evolution text books could have never produced such a perfect order in the universe
-Living matter (life) can not come from dead matter. It has been proven to be impossible. All experiments by adding a created earth’s atmosphere of extreme head and electricity has failed. Various other experiments have also failed over the many decades of trying.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
You want some flaws of evolution, here are some.
-you can get something from nothing (Big Bang theory states that all the matter in the universe came from nothing)
-Energy can not be created or destroyed therefore matter can not be created or destroyed thus the big bang theory is thrown out the window even by evolutionists.
-The laws of centrifugal force go against the big bang theory.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
Whoops I misspelled limiting in my last post. I thought I would catch it before you through at me the same ol spelling argument
God however does not have a limiting factor, the genetic blueprint of life shows his existence and the more we learn about it through research the more we are seeing intelligent design. Have you ever asked any of the professors that teach evolution what the flaws are? Do so and you can hear them right out of a atheists mouth.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
I asked you first where did Genetics come from? I have yet to here an answer from anyone.
Where did God come from, you will have to ask him that,lol however, I can tell you that energy can not be created nor destroyed which is a limmiting factor to evolution and stops the big bang theory dead on its tracks.
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
No I am all for science and I believe in scientific evolution that happens within species. I follow genetic research which shows a engineering mastermind.
Genetics is the blue print of life and you can not have a book without a writer. You don't even have to be religious to agree with that.
I can provide a paper that I wrote myself in point form if you would like to see its flaws. Can you provide me in return this question, where did genetics come from?
KOTWBaron 8 months ago
@KOTWBaron
Watchmaker argument. Ok. I'll play this game. Where did god come from?
radioactiveego 8 months ago
Kent Hovind is stupid, and the cause of stupidity in others...
evolutionisscience 8 months ago
Disagree all you want with Carbon Dating, but genetics is still a engineering mastermind and you can not have a book without a writer.
Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution has flaws and many evolutionists state that life could not have started on earth.
So if life did not start on earth then how did we get here?
KOTWBaron 9 months ago
@KOTWBaron
Who admit it has flaws? Can you provide a paper? Sounds like you're listening to other people who are against science.
radioactiveego 8 months ago
Lol! Love the scientific papers you're using there to disprove carbon dating, that one about the dinosaurs from the highly acclaimed journal "readers digest". I love the way you forgot to mention the burning of fossil fuels and atomic bomb testing in the upper atmosphere which has created the increased levels of radiocarbon too.
bikeminx 9 months ago
here's a simple question I use to make evolutionist rethink think their ideals// "have you ever studied an animal that has died in a feild and left and not buried. It will within a few months be completly gone even the bones will decay or sorley deminished with a year or so." So a fossile found in the rock or ground had to been buried to be persurved until now. Think about that .... please feel free to use this question at ur pleasure :) Love you brother Ken keep up the great work
catmandaddy 10 months ago
@catmandaddy What is you point? Fossils are rare, we know that. Fossils need to be buried quickly, no. They can sink into oxygen free water or fall into tar pits, buried in river floods or land slides.
Fossils are in different layers so it was not just one event. Most of the fossils are not of things that live today, they are all extinct, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers. Feel free to think about that.
gregrutz 9 months ago
The living penguins, seals, and mollusks which dated several thousand years old. It's interesting how they all live near the water. There's an interesting thing called the reservoir effect. Carbon-14 in water is unreliable because it can swirl around for a few thousand years before an animal drinks it and gives that animal a false age reading.
And those mammoths with different ages. They were two different mammoths.
Kent Hovind is in jail for being dishonest.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
water cant filter radiation
bellyzbad 1 year ago 2
"They'll change the dates" And he thinks that's wrong? Lol.All that does is prove that science is willing to admit it doesn't know anything to 100% certainty and is attempting to find the true answer, not attempting to make a false answer seem true.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 Nothing in that comment made any sense. Do you think changing, thus falsifying, is "finding the true answer"? They carbon-date, and if it doesn't fit in their pre-determined theory, they throw it away, because it "can't be true". But when they get a result from carbon-dating, and it fits the theory, they embrace it. Carbondating only "works" if it fits in, but alot of the times (all the times), it doesn't.
PirateXzibit 11 months ago
@PirateXzibit Lol, what? Guessing you don't understand statistical analysis, uncertainty or error bars.
9hello123 11 months ago
@9hello123 I don't even need to know 1+1, that your argument doesn't make sense. "We corrupt our results to try to make it true", that's how I interpreted it.
PirateXzibit 11 months ago
@PirateXzibit Results are not corrupted.
9hello123 11 months ago
@PirateXzibit That is why they use several dating methods, all of them prove the earth is old.
gregrutz 9 months ago
WOWOWOWOWO just a wait a tic... you are using all the old stupid creationist claims and you always forget to read the whole fucking paper... plus you do realize they barely ever do one type of dating on the same material, they attempt to VERIFY results unlike SOMEONE. Another thing, you do realize that the miller story is overused and false. They ended up dating the organic materials used to help preserve the bones, not the fossil, because there was NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT.... MORON
braedencowbrough 1 year ago
Wow, some people are dumb. Does anyone even believe this shit.
MrDiJ1980 1 year ago
Hovind speaks the truth :) If someone wants to believe in the theory that every living thing has evolved from a single cell, or to be more specific from a rock(!), fine by me, but it still takes a giant leap of faith to believe something like that. But you cant even call it science because its not empirically provable.
TheNorseman99 1 year ago
@TheNorseman99 You don't even know what empirically means.
9hello123 1 year ago
You also know the fossils above it and below it are different.
gregrutz 1 year ago
1> Carbon dating only dates living things; those snail shells can from a living organism but they themselves are not living material.
2> tree ring example will not date correctly if the tree is alive.
3> dinosaur example will not date if the sample is more than 80,000 years old and will be less accurate the closer they are to that age.
4> mistakes and anomalies happen in any field of science. To point to an exception and insinuate that it's the rule is intentionally misleading.
swilson3d 1 year ago
@swilson3d Thats right. But that idiot Hovind believes his own shit.
stevjen1 1 year ago
1:00
"Well this Ammonite, may have drowned in the flood- Probably did."
OK, wait, hang on, hold up... You're saying that a marine cephalopod, whos natural habitat is a gigantic body of water, drowned in a flood, of more water...
Just what kind of water are we talking about here, parson? And where can I get it?!
CripNinja 1 year ago
What a retard.
dkfjheo 1 year ago
Question for all the creationists:
When the invisible wizard in the sky decided to make animals, did he use a magic wand or some form of voodoo stick? Or was it just hand gestures with lightning coming out of his finger-tips?
When he did this miracle did he say "Alakazam!" or "Mapichubabu!" or some kind of dramatic incantation to mark the occassion? Or was he just silent the whole time?
Also, does this omnipresent magician dude talk to you inside your head?
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
People keep saying there's no carbon in carbon dating. Then why do they call it carbon dating if they don't use carbon to date it. Evolutionist constantly state Hovind is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about yet they never give any examples of what he is stupid about. They try to bring up his theory because there is no way for him to prove it. The majority of scientist are not evolutionist. That is a lie perpetrated by the illuminati to disqualify people from the kingdom of christ.
NavaGator29 1 year ago
@NavaGator29 I understand exactly what you are saying,its hard sometimes to get people to understand that evolution is stupid just because they don't want to accept Christ.And since creation is the only alternative they would rather believe a lie.2nd peter 3:5
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Creation is the only alternative?!?!?!?
so everything that science doesn't understand should be filled in with God's magic?
every time science makes a mistake it's evidence of God's magic?
Even if science's mistakes rendered religion the only option, why not Zeus, Vishnu, Hadad (<-may be Yahweh's brother) , Moloch, Ra, Jupiter or Allah?
swilson3d 1 year ago
@NavaGator29 hes wrong on the facted that water can filter radiation he does not explain how long oil takes to form it takes longer then 6000 years
bellyzbad 1 year ago
Can you say, ''WAATER''?
gregrutz 1 year ago
''All you know is it died.''
So palontologiest study fossils and the don't know how big the animal is?
They know dinosaurs had feathers, 20 different ones did.
Carbon dating does not work on seals or snails, they know that.
THEY DON'T USE CARBON 14 TO DATE FOSSILS. Dummy.
Watch Carbon dating doesn't work- debunked.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1:08 This probibly doesn't have any carbon, it has been totally replace by minerals. Let's ASSUME it does.
WTF?!?
HOY HOVIND, WE CAN'T CARBON DATE THIS, THERE AIN'T NO F*CKING CARBON IN IT.
gregrutz 1 year ago
kent is a nutcase and ill tell him to his face when he gets out of prison
KARTRACE9 1 year ago
GOD WINS. People that watch this and disagree are plain dumb. probally homosexuals. lol the cheese fell out of their sandwhich
pAtZeLtM 1 year ago
@pAtZeLtM god wins?!? hovind is not god.
All educated people disagree with this IDiot.
but the are 'probally homosexual'
Thanks for showing all the evidence against Carbon 14 dating.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
most of your "educated" people believe in the pseudoscience of rock dating, abiogenesis and common ancestry. next time, you should try to refute people with REAL scientific theories... you know... stuff that can actually be observed or tested.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theREALiceveela observed or tested, you mean like evolution. It has been observed in nature and in the lab.
And don't forget tree rings that go back 10,000 years unbroken, oops, no flood.
.
Geologist found out the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Evolution is ridiculous. Just like the Big Bang theory is ridiculous.
bladderfish 1 year ago
Yes, if you find a fossils you know it lived. Trilobites lived, dinosaurs lived.
99% of all life on earth lived in the past, they are extinct. All of them.
They make the fossils record. Something Kent won't look at.
Carbon dating does not work on mollusks, they don't get there C14 from the air. They know that, they know the limits of Carbon dating, Kent doesn't.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Just a note: EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GEOLOGY IT'S BIOLOGY YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
keithpetro 1 year ago
Everything that is "Good" is , and will continue to be under attack these days. So , all you people that do not believe in miricles, and god... you go right ahead believing what you will.... its too bad.. to see our society in such decay... , by the way ... what would you all do, if I told you ..that there are indeed people still on this earth from Bible times? ..... Have a good day...
bladderfish 1 year ago
@bladderfish I'd say your a delusional goof ball and suggest you seek help.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
Estimating the age of the universe was never solely reliant upon carbon dating anyway. So that goes to show what a pile of pig shite this whole video is.
HughieDixon 1 year ago
I find it very telling that the negative comments all have to do with Dr. Hovind's personality, background, etc but no comments demonstrating how anything he said in this video is incorrect. All of his sources are clearly documented in the video and everything he says about how carbon dating works is exactly what you would learn from any science textbook. So why when confronted with the obvious fact that "the emperor has no clothes" do people attack the messenger rather than open their eyes?
PastorDaveJohnson 1 year ago
Kent Hovind's "Doctoral dissertation"
which is such an embarrassment to science
that he has tried to suppress it's public distribution,
can be seen on several sites.
Some of these are listed on my Profile page
under the heading "Movies."
See for yourself!
Don't let anyone pull the wool over your eyes!
If my kid had written this for a Grade 5 assignment
I would have been humiliated.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 I find it very telling that the negative comments all have to do with Dr. Hovind's personality, etc but no comments demonstrating how anything he said in this video is incorrect. All of his sources are documented in the video and everything he says about how carbon dating works is exactly what you would learn from any science textbook. So why when confronted with the obvious fact that "the emperor has no clothes" do people attack the messenger rather than open their eyes?
PastorDaveJohnson 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This is why... SCIENTISTS DON'T USE CARBON DATING FOR FOSSILS
shorty962 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Do you copy and paste this on all his videos? If everything he is saying is simply wrong and stupid why do you strive so hard to smear him?
JamesRideout123 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Go to Gospelnews.c o m and look at the predictions that have already come to pass there are hundreds of them if not thousands of predictions that have all come to pass and are still coming to pass that in itself tells me its the word of God. Unlike Nostradamus a true prophet has all predictions come true not just some of them. In the New Testament all of it has come true.
JamesRideout123 1 year ago
@JamesRideout123 Huh?
You're leaping from Hovind and carbon dating
to so-called prophecies of the Bible?
Is this a diversionary tactic
to draw attention away from Hovind's "doctoral thesis"?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 I have a major Shock for you, that I already know Im completely wasting my time telling you .. but I will anyway.... I have personally seen...and comunicated with a person from Bible times... I know, I know.. ... Im just another nut case... .. thats ok.... go right on believing what you will ... The end....
bladderfish 1 year ago
@bladderfish
Let me be sure we are communicating-
are you referring to some organization called "Bible Times"
or are you saying you talk with people
who were alive 2,000 years ago?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@bladderfish Im completely wasting my time telling you .. but I will anyway.... I have personally seen that you are just another nut case.
And you know it. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
Do you know how you date the strata? By the fossils found in it. And do you know how you date the fossil? By the strata it's found in. That's called circular reasoning
hansengid 1 year ago
i like his veiws, he is correct in saying it is wrong, the different dates prove that. but if you all want to believe the evolution delusion than you all can, but you cannot prove him wrong. science is good, but not the lies. (other scientific lies: global warming, the big bang, abiogenesis, ect.)
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
You again? This guy doesn't even understand that carbon dating doesn't work on things without carbon in them. there are about a dozen other radiometric dating techniques that they use for older materials. Those dates were on animals that had been contaminated by exposure to carbon 14 in the water where they live. That's why carbon dating isn't used on fossils. He's always wrong. Climate change is real and we should try to prevent it. No pollution, no deforesting, no crude oil.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
apparently YOU do not understand that NO dating process would work on that! he is not saying it would work, he is giving an example. one thing you just can't seem to comprehend.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
Incorrect, he botched the tests so what they say is irrelevant. He doesnt even understand that you cant carbon date something without carbon in it (i.e. a fossil). What was dated was the protective coating on the outside of the fossil that the museum put on. He said carbon dating, he did not mention or even show signs that he knew there were other dating methods. When done correctly all dates are correct.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
then i guess NO bones can be dated and i am still correct.
when "fixed" all dates are correct, these dates are not true, and there is much evidence proving that.
"he botched..." proof please?
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
We date the strata the fossil was found in. There is no evidence whatsoever that those tests are rigged. The fossils had carbon based lacquer on them and he dated sea life, something you don't use carbon dating on due to the erratic amounts of carbon 14 in different bodies of water. It's usually used on trees.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
Evolution doesn't work. Just look at the guy.
It can't take billions of years to come up to that.
davidvanelslande 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes, let's carbon date something that doesn't contain carbon:
"oy hovind! we can't carbon date this, there's no f@#king carbon in it! "
conceac 2 years ago
Things to consider about Carbon Dating:
Samples of Known Ages are tested → It Doesn't Work
Unknown Ages are tested → It's Assumed to Work
...That's...not...Science.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
... I like most of Kent Hovind's stuff... except at 1:10... why would an ammonite die in the flood?
... I guess it could've been killed by the fresh water, or some mineral deposite in the water from areas not normally covered... But aquatic dinosaurs shouldn't have died due to a flood.
dasgregorian 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if something is aquatic or not, in turbulent waters and all the sediments being sloshed around it isn't to hard to imagine anything being buried alive, even in mass graves.
neoverse 2 years ago
A flood doesn't necessitate sediment being sloshed around or that the waters would be particularly turbulent. Perhaps you could assume that the flood came right before a catastrophic earth quake, that earth quake would cause turbulent waters and sediment sloshing... but that's purely speculation. No biblical or observable evidence of a massive earth quake at the time of the flood.
dasgregorian 2 years ago
@dasgregorian Why would you need an earthquake for turbulence? Gen 7:11 When the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows(canopy) of heaven were opened. This would create plenty of turbulence.
neoverse 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No wonder this joker is in prison.
jucklowe 2 years ago
@jucklowe
Hovind just lays the truth out in the best way that it can be laid out, because egotistical conceited atheists will always have excuses. Hovind tackles many excuses atheists use and proves them wrong. Great series.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Typical God-botherer response ,,, now stick you fingers in your ears and shout LA-LA-LA NOT LISTENING LA-LA-LA. rofl.
jucklowe 2 years ago
@jucklowe
I don't get how you people come to the conclusion that Hovind's a liar.
There are 2 simple reasons why he's not:
1. The facts he presents have evidence shown right there to support it (the reference to newspapers, etc)
2. Whenever he has an OPINION, he says so CLEARLY - he starts by saying "I think"
Even if his theory is WRONG, it's just his theory, and he SAYS that.
Therefore he's not lying, he's just saying what he thinks. It would only be lying if he told you it was FACT.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
FACT? Facts are the stuff of Mathematics alone. Carbon Dating is a theory supported by overwhelming evidence. Everything Hovind says about RCD is contrived and misleading,,, because sleight of hand is all he has. Just like you. Kinda sad man,,, I pity you.
jucklowe 2 years ago
True, Also evolutionists claim he's been debunked, no some idiot made a video saying that a dinosaur bone wouldn't have C14 in it. Then he tries to support carbon dating with the same fallicious assumptions.
micah1116 2 years ago
no...the cheeze dun fell outta yer sandwich kent hovind
fishyfish420 2 years ago
well you've got me there but there still has to be a God seeing the the universe and time aren't eternal and time is needed to bring change around so you have a problem in that something outside of time had to bring around change the big bang is hardly satisfactory seeing it doesn't actually even address that
bloodshadow1997 2 years ago
seeing you don't knwo what your talking about I shed some light on the matter
three things are needed for evolution to occur
1 A long period of time
2 Mutations in which informations is positively added to the genome
3 natural selection( the selection of a positive mutation)
mutations such as specified have not been discovered so until then you have a problem
If this does not affect you position on the matter then you are obviously not seeing things clearly and being willingly ignorant
bloodshadow1997 2 years ago
All 3 of these are true. Mutations DO add information to the genome. If you argue they don't, it's similar to arguing that if you copy a piece of paper over and over, that the new "changes" aren't NEW information, OF COURSE THEY ARE!
This happens via mutation.
Such mutations HAVE been observed and are being observed. Dr. Richard Lenski recently mapped the evolution of E. Coli. It dramatically changed and he is in the process of mapping those exact changes. Evolution HAS been observed .
herbiethebarber 2 years ago
Carbon dating = demolished.
So glad I don't believe in the ev-illusion anymore!
9pt9 2 years ago
@9pt9: Carbon dating demolished? Ya think so, eh? watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
In case you missed it, the line delivered by potholer54 is classic: "Oi, Hovind! We can't carbon-date this! There's no %*&@ing carbon in it!" Best ownage of a half-wit YECer ever seen.
magick205 2 years ago
heh i'll be the thousand'th person to inform you that kent hovind is an idiot and a liar which is why hes in prison right now
furthermore potholer54 completely destroys this morons pathetic claims with his video " carbon dating doesn't work debunked" video
heh i know you WISHED that kent hovind had taken evolutionists to school but he didn't and no creationist ever will. you and hovind are laughibly wrong, and scientists are right and always will be
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
@theeyeisblind I find it funny that rapists and pedophiles who are the real problem with society will get off with less then what Hovind got.
JamesRideout123 1 year ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
This guy says he's criticising carbon dating with common sense.
But yet he says there was once a canopy of water around the earth!?!?
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago 2
Uhhh... Yeah...
goatmilk222 2 years ago
actually GM - that's exactly what hovind says.
Yes, hovind is a mentally bereft, intellectually impotent pygmy.
Not a single one of his points stand up to even the most peripheral rigor - the only kiind of person he appeals to are the unthinking, easily manipulated and ignorant masses..
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
There's evidence to it.
goatmilk222 2 years ago
Evidence? What evidence could there possibly be for that!?
Overlooking the fact that the weight of such a canopy would crush every living thing beyond recognition, that canopy would block out all light from earth making life impossible in the first place.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
there wasn't a canopy in the state of liquid water.
goatmilk222 2 years ago