Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Brett Keane Friend Kent Hovind explains Carbon Dating Flaws

Transcript

Brett Keane Friend Kent Hovind explains Carbon Dating Flaws · Brett Keane and Eve Show

0:15
Carbon dating. I get asked this question all
0:17
the time. Jonathan spent $70 to get this
0:19
book right and the new ones out its $80 million $80.
0:24
Okay. Radio isotopes in the age of the
0:26
Earth. The rate project are a te.
0:29
I am sure. Not that world's expert on
0:31
carbon dating but I think I can explain things.
0:34
I'm a teacher, I can explain it as best.
0:37
I can't that's what a teacher supposed to do.
0:39
Take the complex and explain it where the average person can get
0:42
it and say yeah since I operate about fourth grade level you
0:44
know I got to understand it myself first so I can explain
0:47
it. Let me explain how carbon dating
0:48
is supposed to work and then tell you the serious problems
0:51
with it. Carbon carbon dating was not
0:54
invented until 1949 in the last 60 years.
0:58
So when they started telling the kids, the Earth is billions of
1:01
years old back in 1830. They didn't tell him because of
1:04
carbon dating, they never thought of carbon dating never
1:07
been heard of, okay? Why were they teaching the Earth
1:10
is billions of years old 160 years ago?
1:13
Well, because they needed billions of years to make their
1:15
Theory look good. That's why I mean if I told you
1:18
a frog, could turn into a prince, if you kiss it you don't
1:20
say well that's a fairy tale. But if I told you, hey kids, the
1:23
Frog can turn to the prince if you wait billions of years old,
1:26
maybe. So now, it becomes believable.
1:29
No, it's still a fairy tale. It's a stupid idea.
1:32
But the geologic column is where it all started.
1:35
We covered that on video for and some more on video six about the
1:37
geologic. Column the Earth was divided up
1:40
into the layers, cenozoic, Mesozoic Paleozoic archaea sort.
1:43
Each layer was assigned a name and age and an index fossil.
1:46
We cover that on video for Then they said, now we have to prove
1:51
these layers are old. So they pick the numbers out of
1:54
the clear blue sky. And any dating technique that
1:56
comes along like carbon dating or any other has to match the
1:59
geologic column, or it's rejected only because the
2:03
geologic column has been taught for 180 years now.
2:07
So surely. It's true.
2:09
Now I'll just because it's been taught hundred years doesn't
2:11
make it true but that's the logic.
2:13
They'll scientists will have. Well we know the geologic column
2:15
is established there for any carbon dates.
2:17
We get should match that if they don't we'll throw them out and
2:20
we'll keep testing till we do, they might have to test a sample
2:22
five or x times till they get the number they want.
2:26
Well, how do you know any of them are right?
2:27
Then, if you're getting different number every time, how
2:29
would, you know, any of them are right?
2:31
Radiometric, dating would not have been feasible, if the
2:34
geologic column had not been erected.
2:36
First, ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th
2:39
century fossils have been and still are the best and most
2:43
accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which
2:46
they occur. Apart from very modern examples,
2:51
which really are archaeology. I can think of no cases of
2:54
radioactive decay used to date fossils.
2:56
They don't date fossils by carbon dating, they date them by
2:59
their geologic position. That's how it's done.
3:02
But here's here's what happens. Earth's atmosphere is about 100
3:06
miles, thick space shuttle. In order to get free from
3:09
friction, has to get up about 100 miles to be able to outside
3:12
the air and, you know, straight up 100 miles.
3:15
It not that far from here to halfway to Tallahassee, you
3:18
know, but but if you go look at the atmosphere, it has different
3:22
very distinct layers to it, which is kind of interesting.
3:24
It has a heat sink where it gets very, very cold up about seven
3:27
or eight miles up like 80 or 90 or 100 below zero, but the
3:31
Earth's atmosphere contains mostly nitrogen. 78%, nitrogen,
3:35
20% 21%. Oxygen a little bit of CO2 for
3:38
plants to breathe. Well, these don't breathe, it,
3:40
they're fake, but plants, breathe in carbon dioxide and
3:43
there's a very tiny little bit of radioactive carbon 14. .000
3:48
is 07, 65 percent. This radioactive carbon-14 is
3:53
different than regular carbon, it's produced by radiation
3:57
striking the sun, striking, the atmosphere sunlight strikes.
4:01
The atmosphere slaps, the nitrogen around and turns it
4:05
into carbon 14. So it all starts by the sunlight
4:08
hitting, the atmosphere. Just to give you the procedure
4:11
here about 21 pounds of carbon-14 is produced every year
4:15
and that is spread out all over the world.
4:18
If I told you there's 21 pounds of gold but it spread out
4:21
equally all over the world, forget it.
4:23
I'm not even gonna go look for it.
4:24
Okay, so you're not going to find it, real tiny amounts.
4:28
If you look at a periodic table, carbon and nitrogen are right
4:31
next to each. Other nitrogen has an atomic
4:33
weight of 14. Carbon has an atomic weight of
4:36
12, but if the sunlight slaps, the nitrogen around.
4:40
It'll knock a few things off of it and it becomes carbon 14. so,
4:45
it still weighs as much as the nitrogen, but now it's
4:47
considered a carbon It's called radioactive which does not mean
4:51
it. Listen to the radio.
4:52
It's just it's unstable and it's going to break apart.
4:55
It's like three guys dating the same girl that relationship is
4:58
not going to last. Okay forever.
5:00
Something will go wrong. I know when you want, Jonathan
5:03
just marry her and be happy to rest your life, right?
5:05
Carbon-14 is unstable. It does not like being
5:08
carbon-14, it wants to get out of this situation.
5:12
So it breaks down about half of it.
5:14
Will break down on a statistical average about half of it is
5:17
going to fall apart every 57. For years.
5:20
Now it is doing this on a purely random procedure.
5:24
I mean, you got a pilot molecules, you never know which
5:26
one is going to fall apart. But statistics tell us about
5:29
half of them will fall apart every 5,700 years roughly.
5:34
Now while it is, carbon-14 it's floating around in the
5:37
atmosphere like the rest of the carbon and it latches onto
5:41
oxygen like carbon often does and becomes carbon dioxide and
5:45
hook up and they're happily floating around the atmosphere
5:47
and the plants are breathing in. 02.
5:51
Animals come along and eat the plants.
5:54
So the only way carbon-14 gets into the living world is from
5:58
the atmosphere is produced by the sun, striking the atmosphere
6:01
plants. Breathe it in animals, eat the
6:03
plants, probably during your lifetime, you've either eaten
6:06
plants or you've eaten animals that have eaten plants.
6:09
I mean, I've ever done that before, like today for lunch,
6:12
right? Okay.
6:13
Everything we do is walk from one of those two sources, its
6:15
plants or its animals that eat plants.
6:17
Well, the plants are absorbing CO2, some of it is radioactive.
6:21
Active. So if the atmosphere contains
6:24
point zero zero zero zero seven, six five percent, it is assumed
6:28
that the plants also have point zero zero, zero, zero, seven
6:32
six, five percent probably a reasonable assumption and I
6:34
don't argue with them. I just point out, this is one of
6:37
dozens of assumptions that can enter into really mess up,
6:40
things like carbon dating. So probably you have point zero
6:45
zero zero zero seven six five percent carbon in you.
6:49
Because you been eating these plants or you meet the animals,
6:51
that would be in the plants. So probably it's all balanced in
6:54
nature when the plant or animal dies it stops eating stops
6:58
taking in more c14 it stops breathing.
7:00
Okay, now whatever it had is going to decay It was decaying
7:05
while it was alive, but now there's nothing to replace it.
7:08
So what they do is they compared the amount of c14 in the fossil
7:12
with the amount in the atmosphere and say, wow, this
7:15
fossils only got half as much. Therefore, it's been dead for
7:17
one, half-life 5,700 years because it continues to Decay
7:21
after it died but now it can't be replaced.
7:24
So while I was alive it should have had about point zero, zero,
7:26
zero, zero seven six five percent if it's only got point,
7:29
zero zero zero zero three eight, two, five percent.
7:31
It's been dead for one half-life or two half-lives or three
7:34
half-lives Etc. In theory, it never goes to 0.
7:38
But for practical purposes, you can't measure Beyond a certain
7:42
amount. You know you're going to run out
7:43
of stuff to measure. It goes from a half to a fourth
7:46
to 1/8 to a sixteenth to not enough to measure.
7:50
Great article came out from Institute for creation research.
7:52
They're the ones that did the rate project IC r dot org.
7:55
They said with their short 5700 year, Half-Life, no, carbon-14
7:59
atoms should exist. In any carbon older than quarter
8:02
million years? You should all be gone yet.
8:04
It's proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon
8:08
below the ice age that does not contain significant amounts of.
8:11
Carbon-14 even though such strata are supposed to be
8:15
millions or billions of years old, conventional carbon 14,
8:18
Laboratories have been uh not have been Aware of this anomaly
8:20
since early 80s and have striven to eliminate it and are unable
8:24
to account for it lately. The world's best such laboratory
8:27
which has learned during two decades of low C. 14
8:30
measurements, how not to contaminate specimens externally
8:33
under contract to creationists. They confirmed such observations
8:36
for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, I think what
8:40
that means. The textbooks will tell you col
8:42
formed 250 million years ago in the Carboniferous era and it
8:47
when they test coal, it still has carbon 14.
8:52
How is that possible? If all the carbon-14 atoms would
8:55
have disappeared in say 30 40 50 thousand years.
9:00
Why would there still be carbon-14 atoms in coal?
9:05
I got an idea, it's not quarter million years old hoop or they
9:09
don't like that answer. They'll keep searching till they
9:11
find another answer because I don't like that one for sure.
9:13
And diamonds, which they say, you know, for millions and
9:16
millions of years ago, you know, they still have carbon 14 in
9:19
them and it's not possible to contaminate one of those things.
9:22
I mean, it's the hardest substance we have.
9:24
So, how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds?
9:27
And when did diamonds form? Well, I'm not sure when they
9:30
formed, I know, Superman makes them in a few minutes.
9:32
You don't take a piece of coal, squeeze, it is got a diamond to
9:34
give to what's-her-name, you know, but olive oil.
9:38
And so it, and they've never learned they've learned today
9:41
just in the last, in the last 20 years.
9:42
I guess how to make diamonds that are just indistinguishable
9:45
from natural diamonds. High pressure.
9:48
They've been doing it for years. Making artificial diamonds but
9:50
they can't get a very big. Now just I think in 2005, they
9:53
were able to get big diamonds with a synthetic process.
9:59
Take your pet. That's right burn the body
10:03
cremated pressure into a diamond.
10:05
You can wear your your dog the rest of your life you know
10:08
something are your ex-wife it or whatever.
10:11
I don't think I'd want to do that.
10:13
We're talking about that on the radio yesterday.
10:15
Anyway, the guy said these diamonds even have carbon 14.
10:18
It says this cannot be contaminated.
10:20
Those constitute very strong evidence.
10:21
The Earth is only thousands not millions of years old.
10:25
Now, the rate project book is Difficult reading heavy.
10:30
Reading Jonathan, you're awful smart.
10:32
How far did you make it to the book about halfway?
10:35
And it's taken almost a year? Yeah, it's heavy reading if you
10:38
want to simplify, you know, don't go down quite so deep
10:41
version. This one is excellent by Donald
10:43
Young thousands. Not billions, he kind of
10:46
summarizes in real English. What they said, different ways
10:51
to show. Look, it's not billions of years
10:53
old but the carbon dating assumptions need to be need to
10:56
be pointed out. They'll say well we know Carbon
10:59
decays at a certain rate and so we know if it's only got half as
11:03
much, it's half as old, there's some assumptions, a mess up
11:06
everything, I'll show you how it works.
11:08
If I said we're going to build a barrel with water.
11:11
So I hand Lea, the hose hardly a fill this barrel with water, but
11:15
what you don't know is I have drilled holes in the barrel.
11:18
While you're putting it in the water is leaking out.
11:22
Kind of like your checkbook, you know, you keep putting it in and
11:24
it keeps leaking out someplace, right?
11:25
I'm going to discover that. As you live along, got the ring.
11:27
Jonathan, you're discovering our well.
11:30
The Earth's atmosphere is kind of like this Barrel.
11:32
It's always getting brand-new carbon 14 21 pounds every year.
11:35
Being put in And it's always leaking out through decay.
11:41
So the question would be how long would it take to reach a
11:45
stage called equilibrium? Now with a barrel you can
11:48
actually do the math and calculate if I'm going to put
11:50
in, you know, certain amount of water per minute and a certain
11:53
amount per minute leaks out. When will I reach equilibrium
11:56
and where they could all be calculated, you know, with a
11:59
little bit of math and with the atmosphere, they said well, when
12:03
would the atmosphere reach equilibrium?
12:05
So the guys who invented carbon dating in the late 40s, said I
12:08
wonder about this Earth. Atmosphere reaching you
12:11
equilibrium. They did a bunch of studies on
12:13
that and said. Now if we took a brand new
12:14
planet Earth created it from scratch poof, got it going
12:18
around the Sun, how long would it take to reach this
12:21
equilibrium point in the atmosphere where the production
12:23
rate and the destruction rate is the same And they determined, it
12:28
would take about thirty thousand years to reach equilibrium.
12:30
I'm not sure how they did all that.
12:32
You could probably see some of the great scientists and figure
12:34
it out, but then, they made two mistakes in my totally unbiased
12:38
opinion. They said, number one, we know
12:40
the Earth is millions years old mistake, number one, number two.
12:45
They said we can ignore the equilibrium problem because we
12:48
would have passed that point thirty thousand years ago.
12:51
You know, they've discovered the Earth has still not reached
12:53
equilibrium. Radiocarbon is still forming 30
12:56
to 40 percent faster than its decaying.
13:00
Now, think about that. If radiocarbon is still forming
13:03
faster than its decaying, that means the Earth is less than
13:06
30,000 years old, number one and number two you can't carbon-date
13:11
anything. Because you'd have to know when
13:14
it lived so that you can calculate when it lived.
13:18
You would have to already know when it lived to figure, how
13:21
much carbon 14 wasn't breathing at that time.
13:24
Doesn't work as a website www.moocchile.com on the Earth
13:29
has not reached equilibrium for on some articles there by Ron
13:32
Cooper. But business is a calibration
13:34
curve. If an animal is still alive, it
13:35
should give you about 16 clicks on your geiger counter per
13:38
minute per gram. If you want to getting eight,
13:40
you say it's been through one half-life or Fork.
13:43
Lecture has been through two half-lives or three half-lives
13:45
Etc, this is called a calibration curve.
13:49
In theory, it sounds like it should work but there are
13:52
several real obvious assumptions and I don't know how they don't
13:54
see it. Suppose you walked into a room
13:57
and I said, I want you to tell me.
13:59
Here's this candle burning on a table.
14:01
When was it lit? Find out.
14:03
It's 7 inches tall. I said, well that won't tell me
14:07
anything. Now we got to measure how fast
14:09
it's burning. We measure the candle for a
14:11
while we get an Olympic stopwatch and we get it down to
14:14
the nearest 40 bazillions of a second.
14:15
Okay? And we all agree, the candle is
14:17
burning an inch an hour. Here's our two facts 7 inches
14:21
tall burning an inch an hour. When was it lit?
14:27
Mary, can't figure it out. Nobody can figure it out.
14:31
Unless you make some assumptions.
14:34
Assumption number one, how tall was the candle and assumption.
14:37
Number two, has it always burned at the same rate.
14:40
Neither of those can be known if you find a fossil in the dirt.
14:45
The amount of carbon can be measured the rate of decay can
14:48
be determined, I don't argue with either of those.
14:51
How much was in it when it lived?
14:53
I don't know. Has it always decayed at the
14:55
same rate? I don't know, has it been
14:58
contaminated sitting there in the ground for all these
15:00
millions of years? There's no way to know those
15:03
things if the Earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere or
15:07
canopy of ice as we cover on seminar to that would have
15:10
blocked out a lot of radiation from the sun, which would have
15:13
prevented most of the carbon 14 from.
15:15
Even for me, so animals that lived before the flood would
15:19
have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with
15:22
maybe none but certainly less. And when we dig up the fossil
15:26
that's been buried for 4,400 years.
15:28
Let's say it started with four. We're today we start with 16.
15:33
We dig it up 4,400 Years After the flood and say, wow, here's
15:36
our Mammoth. They've got buried and its
15:37
carbon date it Well, we're assuming it started at 16.
15:42
When we tested and find us got to we're going to show, has been
15:44
through 4 Half Lives. When it's actually only been to
15:47
one half life. Which is why it never works.
15:50
When they first invented, carbon dating, 1949 Willard Libby, they
15:54
did some testing and they said the lower leg of a mammoth was
15:57
15,000 years old, but the skin was 21,000.
16:01
How can two parts of the same animal?
16:02
Be different ages? Quite obviously we know one of
16:06
the numbers is wrong. So how would, you know, either
16:09
of them are right? And if either one's right, how
16:12
would you know which one I see, no way to tell, well, let's see
16:16
if it's getting better. 14 years later, they tested a living
16:18
mollusk, a clam and it was 2,300 years old, still alive in 1970.
16:25
At the Nobel Symposium. They said, if a carbon date
16:27
supports our theories, we put it in the main text.
16:30
If it is not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote,
16:33
if it's completely out of date, we just drop it.
16:38
I mean they can they can pick and choose any numbers.
16:40
They want exactly correct. The number doesn't fit what they
16:45
expected. They throw the number out. 1971
16:48
freshly killed seal was thirteen hundred years old when they
16:51
carbon-dated it. Troubles with carbon dating are
16:55
undeniably deep and serious despite 35 years of
16:58
technological refinement and better understanding the
17:01
underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings
17:04
are out that radiocarbon dating May soon find itself in a crisis
17:07
situation. Continuing use of the method
17:10
depends on. I fix it as we go approach
17:12
allowing for contamination, Here, fractionation There, and
17:15
calibration, wherever possible. It should be no surprise.
17:18
Then that fully half the dates are rejected.
17:21
Did you follow that out of thousands of carbon dates that
17:25
have been carbon dating times? That they've done it, half of
17:27
the numbers are thrown out, How do they know they're wrong?
17:33
And also how would you know the other half is right?
17:37
If half your test results have to be thrown out, it ought to
17:40
raise red flags in somebody's brain.
17:42
Wait a minute, this is stupid. What are we doing?
17:45
We're wasting our time here. And the article goes on to say
17:49
the Wonder is surely that the remaining half have come to be
17:52
accepted, no matter how useful it is.
17:54
The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate
17:57
and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies.
18:00
The chronology is uneven in relative and the accepted dates
18:03
are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is
18:06
nothing but In Century, Alchemy and I agree.
18:10
That's 1981. I've got all these in
18:12
chronological order. It never gets better. 1984,
18:15
living snails carbonated 27,000 years old 1992 to mammoth found
18:22
side by side. They carbon datum one is 22,000.
18:25
The other is 16,000 which one's right?
18:29
Or are both of them wrong or both of them, right?
18:32
There is no possible way to tell in 1996, Carl Swisher had
18:37
Berkeley University used the most Advanced Techniques today.
18:40
Human fossils says, last spring, he was re-evaluating Homo,
18:43
erectus skulls found in Java. In the 1930s, he was testing the
18:47
sediment found with them. The species was supposed to be
18:51
extinct for quarter million years it's which are used two
18:55
different dating methods. He kept making the same
18:58
startling, find the bones were fifty three thousand years at
19:01
most and Possibly no more than 27,000.
19:05
Well, like to point out two things here.
19:06
He's looking for quarter million as his answer.
19:09
But he keeps getting 53 to 27,000, okay, which is only one
19:14
fourth of what he wants 1/5 of what he wants, okay?
19:18
But he's still getting a 96 percent error.
19:23
I mean is it twenty seven thousand or fifty three
19:25
thousand? This is not an exact science.
19:27
So when they publish an article in the paper and say we found a
19:29
dinosaur bone, our mammoth bone and it was you know seventeen
19:32
thousand two hundred and twenty one years old and six months and
19:35
three days. All right?
19:37
Come on you don't know that they're making up this stuff
19:39
just absolutely making it up. Professor Reiner crotch Vaughn's
19:43
item earlier the February night of 2005 was resigned from
19:48
Professor because he'd been lying about carbon dating for
19:50
years. His frogs were exposed in
19:54
February of 2005, he had dated, the Bish cough Spire skeleton at
19:58
a twenty one thousand three hundred years old.
20:01
But when they tested him at Oxford, they said it said it's
20:03
only thirty three hundred years old, seven hundred percent
20:06
error. He had said, professor professor
20:09
approach had said he had found the oldest German the first
20:12
German to ever moved to Germany, 27,400 years old.
20:17
They tested it at Oxford said it.
20:18
This is an old man that died in 1750 he's 250 years old.
20:23
The professor has been lying about this stuff for decades,
20:26
and so he finally resigned in disgrace.
20:29
Well, you should. Okay.
20:31
One part of a mammoth a two twenty nine thousand years old.
20:34
Another part was 44,000. You talk about a slow birth.
20:38
That would be it. Okay?
20:39
I like this article from Rand McNally, the last two years, an
20:43
absolute date was obtained. For the gondang, beds above the
20:45
triple beds that's in Indonesia. It has the interesting value
20:48
300,000 years plus, or minus three hundred thousand years.
20:54
Or they nailed that one right on the head.
20:55
And they plus or minus, you know, three, three hundred
20:58
percent error in the Geological Survey.
21:01
Professional paper. 862, and I get some Flack over this, but
21:05
I've got the paper in the library somewhere.
21:06
We couldn't find it here. There's all kinds of articles
21:08
about carbon dating things in Alaska.
21:11
I just want to show you a few things here, they carbon-dated
21:14
sample. Number SI 5454, see that on the
21:18
map there on the chart there and said it was seventeen thousand
21:20
two hundred and ten years plus or minus 500.
21:23
Jared. Then they sent tested sample SI
21:27
for 55 and said it's 24,000 140 years old.
21:34
Well, 17,000 for 24,000 say, wow, that's working good.
21:37
Until you find out. That's the same sample as 454.
21:42
Very same. Sample test it again.
21:45
So, is it 17,000 or 24,000 sample?
21:49
Number 92, 99 was less than 20 thousand years old.
21:53
I would look here, it means less than sample number.
21:56
L, 137 x is greater than 28,000. Mr. Wells, that's working good.
22:01
This sample is less than 20,000. This other samples, greater than
22:04
28 until you find out. It's the same sample as 299.
22:09
How can a sample be less than 20 and greater than 28 at the same
22:12
time? I taught algebra for a long
22:15
time. I don't think that's something
22:16
you can do such a thing. That's not not to good living
22:20
Penguins, were dated eight thousand years old.
22:25
Materials from layers. Were dinosaur bones were found
22:27
or carbonated 34 thousand years old.
22:30
I was in a debate. One time in this professor was
22:32
getting so upset. Finally, he said, how can you
22:34
use Reader's Digest as a resource?
22:38
I said, sir, I used Reader's Digest as a resource for the
22:41
picture of the dinosaur bone. Okay.
22:43
That's not the resource for the fact.
22:45
Okay, it's that's right. Got the picture from.
22:48
Okay, okay, so he went on to the debate but yes, dinosaurs ought
22:51
to date, you know, 70 million years old.
22:55
A Russian scientist dated dinosaur bones at less than
22:57
30,000 years. Old Hugh, Miller from Columbus,
22:59
Ohio, to again, for dinosaur bone.
23:01
Samples and said, would you carbon date these and they
23:03
charge like 600 bucks to carbon date?
23:05
Something? The carbon dated him said
23:07
they're less than 20,000 years old.
23:10
He said, oh, by the way, these are dinosaur bones.
23:13
They said, oh well, then they're not 20,000, we got to test them
23:15
again. Why can't they be 20,000?
23:19
They said well, we know dinosaurs lived, 70 million
23:21
years ago. So if you had told us that we
23:23
never would have carbon dated oh One friend of mine died here.
23:28
Several years ago, but he was digging doing a lot of
23:30
archaeology archaeological work and he dug down in this.
23:32
Well, and he found layers of burned wood which is good to
23:36
carbon date because obviously, you know, had carbon in and he
23:39
put him in a baggie sample number a from such-and-such a
23:42
layer, how many feet down? He labeled it a dug down, 10
23:46
more feet, hit another layer of burnt wood.
23:48
A city had been destroyed or 20 feet, whatever it was it able to
23:51
sample, be, he took him into heaven, carbon date, it bait on
23:55
the 600 bucks. They said Sam Apple a is I
23:57
forget 3,000 years old and this one's 4,000 years old.
24:01
He waited six months switch. The labels took them back in.
24:04
Same laboratory said, I want you to carbon date these samples
24:08
Now, sample be the lower one is in the top bag.
24:13
Let's just switch the labels and they give the same results, 3000
24:16
and 4000. It doesn't work.
24:20
It's never worked here. Things to consider about carbon
24:22
dating. When the sample of data sample
24:25
of known age, it doesn't work. If you need a sample of unknown
24:28
age, it is assumed to work. That's not science.
24:32
Okay, as things Decay, they produce helium this helium.
24:39
The amount of helium in the atmosphere is only enough to
24:41
account for a few thousand, a few million years, not billions
24:44
of years, there's a book called The mythology of modern dating
24:47
methods. But I see our if you want to
24:49
read stuff on that they do a lot of testing on this, they're
24:51
probably the experts in the creation Community.
24:54
This guy said the Rocks due date the fossils but the fossils date
24:56
The Rocks, more accurately. That's ludicrous.
25:00
Okay. And it all based on circular
25:02
reasoning, they've known that for centuries recover, more than
25:04
that on video for. I talked to James P Dawson.
25:08
He's going to be on a radio program tonight.
25:10
Actually, Jonathan supposed to call him.
25:12
James Dawson was one of the guys working on The Dating, the moon
25:15
rocks. They brought back moon rocks,
25:18
came to his laboratory and said, how old is the moon rock?
25:21
He took specimen number 100, 17 divided it into six pieces and
25:26
tested it many many times. How old is it?
25:29
They got numbers ranging from Two and a half billion to 4.6
25:32
billion. So, five hundred percent error.
25:37
A hundred percent error. I talked to him back in 99 and
25:40
he's in Oklahoma, there's this phone number.
25:41
He was chief of engineering and operations for the lunar and
25:43
Earth Science division of the manned spacecraft Center in NASA
25:46
in Houston, he worked on lunar samples, including the Genesis
25:50
Rock. He told me, they found ages from
25:51
10,000 years to several billion in the same Rock.
25:56
His website JP Dawson.com, how can one rock be 10,000 years old
26:00
and several billion years old? At the same time, something is
26:03
wrong. Okay, the book bones of
26:05
contention has a great chapter at the end called The Dating
26:09
Game showing how that they will just change the dates whenever
26:12
necessary. If it doesn't fit the theory
26:14
all, Let's test it again until it fits the theory.
26:17
See, the theory is important, the facts are not Evolution, as
26:22
I've said, many times is a carefully protected State
26:25
religion. And that's all it is.
26:27
What about potassium-argon dating does that work actually?
26:30
The numbers are bigger but the problems and assumptions are
26:33
exactly the same and you can demonstrate, it doesn't work,
26:37
potassium decays. Very slowly, this chart shows
26:39
the different elements in their Half-Life carbon has a half-life
26:42
around fifty seven hundred years but potassium it takes 1.3
26:46
billion years with Abby for half of that to disappear very slowly
26:50
decays. By the way, I would like to
26:52
point out your honor just for you know, appeal That all of the
26:56
dating methods are based on the decay of an element Uranium
27:00
decays to lead. Potassium decays to argon
27:04
they're all moving down the periodic table, not up.
27:09
All going down just point out. Keep that in mind case we need
27:12
to appeal this case. All right.
27:14
Eighty percent of the potassium in a small sample of iron,
27:17
meteorite can be removed by distilled water and four and a
27:19
half hours. Well, if you can take out 80% of
27:22
it in four and a half hours, how can you trust any dates?
27:24
You're going to obtain by that. Canadian journal of Earth
27:27
Science ran an article and said in conventional, interpretation
27:30
of potassium. Argon age.
27:32
It's common to discard Ages which are two substantial a
27:35
substantially too high or too low.
27:37
Compared to the rest of the group or with other available
27:40
data such as the geologic time scale, there it is.
27:45
If you test a sample and it's numbers too high or too low or
27:48
doesn't match. The geologic column it gets
27:50
thrown out. Well then why are you wasting
27:52
your time and money? Testing it you already know how
27:54
would you like it to be? Give it a number.
27:57
Pick a number. It's dumb.
28:00
The KBS tough. A tough is a layer of Ash or
28:02
lava are generally. Ash that has been packed and
28:05
turned into rock. It's called tough to you.
28:06
FF K, Brendan Meyer had been dating these samples of
28:11
potential with potassium-argon dating because here's the
28:14
theory, when a volcano erupts, the rocks and stuff coming out
28:18
is really hot and any gases in, it should be able to escape.
28:22
Well, potassium slowly turns into argon and argon is a gas
28:26
that use it for welding over at the shop.
28:28
Argon welding, you know, argon's of gas.
28:31
So since potassium turns to argon when The Rock gets melted
28:35
and Shout out of a volcano, all the gas escapes and so the
28:38
theory says, this new layer should have been that the clock
28:41
is now reset. It is 0 years old.
28:46
Even though when it was in the earth it's you know four billion
28:48
years old, now all the gargons gone because it accumulated this
28:50
argon for millions of years but now poof it melted and the gas
28:53
is gone. So we can potassium-argon date
28:55
this lava or ashore of any volcanic material.
28:59
Well, they had been dating this layer of Ash named after Kay
29:02
Barnes and Marcus. She did research on it.
29:03
They said, it's 212 to 230 million years old.
29:08
All the scientists agreed that layer of Ash is around 200
29:11
million years old. Until Richard Leakey came along
29:16
in 1972 and he's digging around under the KBS stuff and he finds
29:22
a perfectly normal human skull. Everybody panicked said, wow,
29:28
how can you have a normal human skull under 200 million year old
29:32
rock when man didn't even evolve till like 3 million years ago?
29:38
That's not possible. And so they looked for things,
29:41
was this a burial that somebody dig through the Rock and bury
29:44
this person down here? You know, was there an
29:46
earthquake, is there a fault? Line near here someplace?
29:47
Nope, all we can conclude is there's a normal human skull
29:51
under 200 million year old rock. So what do you conclude?
29:56
Well, one group study this and said well that proves aliens
29:58
came here 200 million years ago. Would you would you just
30:03
consider that maybe the Rocks not 200 million years old?
30:06
After they found out, it could not be an intrusion or a burial
30:08
or anything else, it had to be legitimately placed there.
30:11
I mean, it was person was buried under this ash layer.
30:14
They took 10 more samples of the KBS, tough and dated him.
30:17
Again, keep in mind that already dated him a bunch of times.
30:20
And everybody agreed, it's 212 million years old but now they
30:24
take 10 more samples and check them again.
30:27
And so, oh no. It's only point five to two
30:29
point six million. Well, that's way down from 212,
30:34
okay? They dropped a number of way
30:35
down, but they're still getting a five hundred percent error
30:40
from point five to two point. Six, this is not an exact
30:43
science. So, back in 1770, they taught
30:45
the kids, the Earth is 70,000 years old in 1902 to 1905.
30:49
They said it's two billion years old by 1969.
30:52
When I was a kid and they went to the moon they brought back
30:54
moon rocks and said, oh wow, they're four and a half billion
30:57
or three and a half billion years old.
30:59
That was the official age, three and a half billion.
31:02
Today they tell, by the way, they did it with potassium-argon
31:04
dating. See the article from the
31:05
newspaper today, they tell the kids, it's 4.6 billion years
31:10
old. You realize the Earth is getting
31:12
older at the rate of 21 million years per year.
31:15
That's 40 years per minute. Wild dates are always obtained
31:20
with carbon dating or potassium-argon.
31:22
Dating dates that don't fit the theory are rejected.
31:25
Only the correct dates ever get published.
31:28
Well then why are you wasting anybody's time?
31:31
Why it's not science? The original content cannot
31:35
possibly be known. You can't know.
31:36
There's been no contamination. You can't know that it's the
31:40
Decay rates. Always remain the same.
31:41
You can't know those things. Okay.
31:43
Give you a couple examples of potassium argon problems, and
31:46
then we'll take a little break Basalt from Mount Etna in
31:49
Sicily, by the way, I climbed on Mount Etna, when I was over
31:51
there in Sicily, they knew it erupted in 122 BC.
31:56
They said, they knew it erupted 122 BC.
31:58
They were written records with a potassium-argon dating.
32:01
Its it's two and a quarter million years old, excuse me, he
32:05
should be like 2000. When they tested lava from
32:09
Hawaiian volcano, they knew it erupt in 1801.
32:12
They people watched it happen, that's the lava flow.
32:14
That covered our village, you know, 1801, it gave an age of
32:18
1.6 million years old, As a 1968, see if it gets better
32:23
Basalt from volcano in Hawaii erupted 1959.
32:27
When they tested it, it gave an age of eight and a half million
32:30
years old. Another volcano at Mount Etna
32:33
and Ted from the 1964, eruption gave an age of 700,000, the 72
32:38
eruption gave an age of 350,000, he was erupting when I was over
32:42
there in 2002. I believe I don't remember lava
32:46
from Mount st. Helens was tested which my
32:48
sister lives just 60 miles from there.
32:50
They tested the lava from Mount st.
32:51
Helens brand-new a lava coming out of volcano, grab a sample.
32:54
How old is it? They tested it five different
32:57
ways and got five different numbers.
32:59
All the way from three and 350,000 to 2.8 billion.
33:04
Notice all five numbers are different number one and all
33:07
five numbers are wrong. Number two, They're wrong, it
33:12
doesn't work. So again, when you test a sample
33:14
of known age, it's assumed to work.
33:15
And if you test a sample of unknown age, it is, you know, it
33:18
does. We know it doesn't work when you
33:19
know the H, but when you don't know the age, well then they say
33:21
it works. So it just doesn't work and I'm
33:24
tired of them. Using our tax dollars, to call
33:26
that science. That is not science.
33:28
That's Pure Imagination. There's a whole bunch more in
33:30
the book Evolution cruncher. If you want more on that or in
33:32
the rate project book radioactive isotopes and the age
33:35
of the Earth. If you want more, or there's a
33:36
whole lot of good stuff in Walt Brown's book in the beginning,
33:40
he's a PhD in physics. Air Force Academy Professor for
33:42
years and Colorado. Got great stuff in here.
33:41
Air Force Academy Professor for years and Colorado.
33:44
Got great stuff in here.