Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked

Living snails that carbon-date to 2,300 years old, a living seal that was carbon-dated at 1,300 years old, and 8,000-year-old living penguins. Not to mention dinosaur bones that dated to 20,000 years ago. Obviously carbon dating doesn't work, unless you understand it. Here's the explanation that even a 5th-grader can understand.
See also "The Age of our World Made Easy" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4 for reference.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Potholer54
• carbon
• dating
• atheism
• christianity
• evolution
• evolutionism
• darwin
• darwinism

[IlersichProductions]

@Spinner198 "it gives them the numbers they want" no scientist wants any numbers, their entire goal is to find out the numbers based on evidence. do you have a source on this information that carbon miraculously changes its properties?

[Spinner198]

@IlersichProductions The decay rate could have been different. If the half life decay rate was indeed lower or higher in the past then carbon dating wouldn't be an accurate method of dating. However, scientists assume it was the same in the past, as it gives them the numbers they want, which is why it's probably the most quoted proof for old age earth.

[IlersichProductions]

@Spinner198 the properties of carbon were different a couple thousand years ago? what?

[Spinner198]

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.

[Aanthanur]

i still roflmao because of the "There is not fucking carbon in it"

[roadkill1001]

I want ''Therei s no fucking carbon in it'' as my text message noise

[cloudstone123]

I can't help laughing everytime the video states 'There is no f*&king carbon in it!'

[KemaTheAtheist]

@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]

@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]

@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