Bob Enyart calls Jack Horner about carbon dating a T-rex fossil

[RoadRunnerLaser]

To coin a phrase - "There's no f***in' carbon in it!"

When a creature fossilises, there's nothing of the original creature left in the fossil. Look up fossilisation and you will understand why you won't find significant amounts of carbon in fossils. As another commenter has pointed out, a fossilised bone isn't bone. It's rock which formed where the bones WERE.

[kauzmic1]

Jack Horner is not squirming at all. He's probably pondering the futility of discussing this with you because: "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

as you have proven by claiming that he is "squirming" over this.

[clongoram]

I dont hear any squirming on Jacks part. Thats the way he always is. Look at his talks and you will see for yourself. Why are you insulting Jack? Does his findings and talks go against your teachings? If so what is the problem? Every other religion will go against your teachings. Why not pick a bone with them? That I would like to hear. Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is the study of the supernatural world. Why people keep confusing the two is beyond me.

[watercup123456]

How high are these morons to attack proven science?

[USERNAMEfieldempty]

Jack Horner was not 'running scared' of your 'devastating scientific challenge'. He was running scared of the Cretard Propaganda Machine. You are provably a bunch of lying, cheating, untrustworthy, quote-mining spin-doctors who cannot be relied on to behave like grown ups (let alone scientists). In this phonecall Jack distinctly and politely told you that he was not interested in staging a 3-ring circus with a bunch of amateur clowns. And you totally ignored him and spun it as cowardice. QED

[wodentoad1]

Fossilization is a process by which organic materials are slowly over time replaced with inorganic material by way of decay and leaching. A fossilized tree is not made of wood but of rock, but it happens to be in the same structure and shape of a tree. A bone that is millions of years old is not a bone, but a bone shaped rock. I have heard no useful or realistic alternate theory of fossilization, but if you come up with one, I would be happy to read your peer reviewed scientific paper.

[bestvalue]

@wodentoad1 Know all that too. It proves my point that a 70 million year old dinosaur fossil should not have red blood cells and soft tissue much less carbon 14 in it. Stop making excuses and admit you're wrong. Oh, no you can't because then you would have to admit God exists and you couldn't live an immoral lifestyle.

[wodentoad1]

@bestvalue I'm not an Atheist. So you have made an assumption of facts not in evidence. Also, there were no red blood cells, in spite of what Mr. Enyart asserts, and like Mr. Enyart, you don't seem to know the difference between an assertion and evidence. I can assert that there is a pie, but without evidence, we all go hungry. Finally, you do not have a working predictive and testable model that even remotely compares to real science. When you do, get it peer reviewed and call me.

[MrPianoJames]

@bestvalue Your ignorance is saddening, sir.

[RuinSonic]

@bestvalue He already explained why he doesn't want to do it. A. Creationist attention, B. improper dating could give wild results. Creationists have already done this trick with new lava formations. The theory behind the dating is more important than what date you can get out of something by dating it incorrectly.

[LeonhardEuler1]

@bestvalue (1) Evolutionary biology and atheism are not the same thing- stop trying to conflate the two. (2) There are numerous moral/ethical systems which have been developed independent of any god, so not believing in god does not mean abandoning morality. Please make an actual effort in educating yourself before making any more videos.

[wodentoad1]

I see, you admit you don't understand how these things work. That's fine. Science is a large knowledge base and difficult to know much in each discipline. Carbon-14 is only useful in land creatures in dry burials for 10k-75k years. Beyond that, the carbon that will be present will not be original carbon. Usually Argon/argon dating is used to date rocks if an area has not been already dated. This has a half-life of 1.2bn years. Fossilization will be explained in the next post.

[bestvalue]

@wodentoad1 I know all that pal.

[wodentoad1]

Small question: Do YOU understand how fossilization works?

As a follow-up: Do YOU know how carbon-14 dating works?

Because by your response to the first poster, you seem to be a little lost on both of these concepts. There are many great books already in existence that can help you on these subjects. Many of them are written for young children, so you shouldn't have trouble reading them.

[bestvalue]

@wodentoad1 Very much so. Fossilization requires rapid burial. It doesn't happen slowly like the textbooks say. And yes, carbon-14 dating only works on fossils under about 50,000 years or so (half life of 5,730 years). That's why there should be no carbon-14 left in a 70 million year old dinosaur fossil. But there is. Why? Because it's not 70 million years old.

[sol3a1]

@bestvalue "Fossilization requires rapid burial. It doesn't happen slowly like the textbooks say" half correct. Fossilization does require the animal to be buried rapidly (almost always that it to ensure it's not eaten, carted off in chunks or smashed)

But the actual fossilization from tissue to essentially rock replacement does take a long, long time

"That's why there should be no carbon-14 left in a 70 million year old dinosaur fossil" I take it you've never heard of contamination

[sol3a1]

@bestvalue "Why? Because it's not 70 million years" actually, it is. Contamination is the most likely cause for the low C14 reading. Keeping it clean from C14 is usually not a consideration when dealing with fossils and rocks that are known to be old

[Cozur1234]

If god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it himself?

Just trying to use your logic.

[bestvalue]

@Cozur1234 THAT is not using my logic. It's logically incoherent. There are many things God cannot do. Something that is logically impossible is one of them. God can also not make a square circle or a married bachelor. I'm writing a book called "How To Debate An Atheist" and I put this argument in as sort of a joke because I thought most atheists were too smart to use it. But I've actually gotten it twice in the past few days. It's even worse than "Who made God?" (though not much worse).

[Cozur1234]

Seems to be some major misunderstanding in how carbon dating works. Don't claim victory if you're an idiot.

[bestvalue]

@Cozur1234 Bob knows very well how carbon-14 dating works. And he knows there should not be any carbon-14 in the fossil. But they both know there will be - and that's the point. The victory came already when they found soft tissue and red blood cells in the first place.

[bestvalue]

@CamW30 Te biofilm argument has been falsified. There's no getting around that it is soft tissue.

[CamW30]

@bestvalue - "Te biofilm argument has been falsified."

By whom? Creation science? I hardly think so.

"due to the short half-life of carbon-14... (and all creationists) know that"

50 - 70,000 years, when the Earth is supposed by YECs (like Enyart) to be 6 - 10,000 years old? Does none of your "kind" see a problem with this?

As I said, "Pitiful, just pitiful."

At least you are among a small minority. There may be hope for the world, yet.

BTW, Hell would be having to spend eternity with YECs.

[CamW30]

@bestvalue - "Bob knows very well how carbon-14 dating works."

Um, no he doesn't. I have debated him in another video, & he didn't know the parameters where C-14 dating works. The same ignorance of C-14 dating by Enyart is obvious in this video as well.

I also think that there was some creative editing in this video. Some of Horner's explanation seems to be missing from the original transcript.

Just another case of "lying for god". Pitiful, just pitiful.

[bestvalue]

@CamW30 "he didn't know the parameters where C-14 dating works"

If you mean that it only works on something that was once alive and, due to the short half-life of carbon-14 (5730 years) it is only good for about 50,000 years, then yes he, (and all creationists) know that. That's the whole point. To claim that carbon-14 does not work on a dinosaur bone that is 65 million years old is to use circular reasoning and misses the point completely.

[sol3a1]

@bestvalue "If you mean that it only works on something that was once alive and, due to the short half-life of carbon-14 (5730 years) it is only good for about 50,000 years, then yes he, (and all creationists) know that" but there's so much more they don't know nor seem to care about

One of the tricks YECs use is to take benthic lifeforms and subject them to C14 dating. Anyone who honestly knows how C14 is formed knows deap water animals aren't getting C14 from the atmosphere

[bestvalue]

@sol3a1 There's only one problem with your logic: basically EVERYTHING. We're not talking about "benthic lifeforms." We're talking about land-dwelling dinosaurs.