My name is Kent Hauvin. I was a high school science teacher for 15 years. Okay, you're right. I couldn't do any video about creation as bullshit without including scientist, Dr. Kent Hauvin. Here's a clip I played in my introduction to the series. If you did a sample of known age, I mean you know how old it is like the tree ring. Carbon dating doesn't work. It's interesting that Hauvin admits that dendro chronology, tree ring dating, works. Dendro chronologists have managed to date trees back 10,000 years using this method, which doesn't quite show with Hauvin's belief that the earth is only 6,500 years old. Never mind, it's this claim I want to focus on. It is a sample of known age. I mean you know how old it is like the tree ring. Carbon dating doesn't work. But of course it works. It's been done. It was done for the first time as far back as 1949. Samples of known age were carbon dated in blind tests and the results confirmed the known age. If this didn't happen then carbon dating would be useless and it wouldn't be used. For an explanation of how carbon dating works see my video The Age of Our World Made Easy on the Pothole 54 Channel. Hauvin won't put his money where his mouth is and sent a sample of known age to a testing lab to prove that carbon dating doesn't work. Well maybe he did and he prefers to keep the result secret. Or maybe he knows it's already been done and prefers to spout yet another Hauvin lied to the gullible masses. Hauvin has learned that it's far easier to cloud the issue with nonsense like this. Now living Mollus Shell carbon dated at 2300 years old. Well here we are 14 years later carbon dating is still not working. Hauvin doesn't mention the title of the paper he sides here. It's called Radio Carbon Dating Fictitious Results with Mollus Shells. As the title implies what they were trying to show in their paper is that carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances. They state that right up front in the abstract. Evidences presented to show that modern Mollus shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages owing mainly to the incorporation of inactive carbon from humus. This is now known as the reservoir effect and it's well understood. Animals that feed on the bottom of rivers, lakes and oceans aren't getting their carbon from the bottom. As most plants do, the carbon has been filtered down and sometimes even dissolved from carbon based rocks. So the carbon 14 content is greatly reduced. Any sample taken for carbon dating will give a false reading. Back in 1963 Keith and Anderson were among the first to alert biologists to this problem. The whole purpose of their paper was to warn biologists that carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances. It was very easy for Hovein to turn that prescient warning into this and of course gullible audiences believe it. Carbon dating indicated life snails had died 27,000 years before. And if it's not snails that make their way around the creationist urban myth factory, it's a 1300 year old seal. A freshly killed seal carbon dated at 1300 years old. Still not working folks. It took a while to track this down because Hovein doesn't give us the title of the paper or the author. But the paper referred to seems to be this one, written by Wakefield Dought, then geology professor at the University of Kansas. And just like Keith and Anderson, Dought mentions the 1300 year old carbon dating result as a warning that carbon dates are inaccurate in marine organisms. And of course we know why. Once again, this is the reservoir effect. Other limitations of carbon dating have also been found. A very obvious one is the water around Antarctica, which began its life thousands of years earlier in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. As it journeys south, a lot of the dissolved carbon 14 is depleted, so any carbon that ends up in the food chain around Antarctica will give animals that ingest it a greater apparent age. And guess who jumped on this as proof that carbon dating doesn't work? Living penguins date 8,000 years old. So carbon dating isn't a one size fits all method of analysis. It works best on organisms like plants that draw their carbon directly from the atmosphere. It's less effective on animals that ingest the plants, and it works extremely badly on animals that are ingesting carbon from marine environments. But Hovein's obsession with carbon dating is a bit bizarre, because carbon dating isn't very useful in dating fossils or the age of the earth. As I explained in the age of our world made easy, carbon 14 has a half-life of around 5,000 years, so it's only used to date carbon-based material less than 60,000 years old. Hovein, who claims to be a scientist, gives us an inkling that he sort of understands this. This is a dinosaur born by the way, it's been replaced by minerals. Woo, hold on before you get to the butt. Did I just here you say it's been replaced by minerals? So in fact, there's no carbon in it. And this would seem to be rather a crucial requirement if you want to perform carbon dating. Mine are point apparently. They start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago. If I took this to a laboratory and said, would you please date this, they would say, oh well, we'd have to use something other than carbon dating because this is too old for carbon dating. No, Ken. They wouldn't. They'd say, boy Hovein, we can't carbon date this. There's no f***ing carbon in it. And didn't you say the same thing yourself just a minute ago? It's been replaced by minerals. Now you would have thought that an absence of carbon would dissuade even the dumbest creationist from taking a completely mineralized fossil to be carbon dated in a laboratory. And you'd be wrong. Hugh Miller and Columbus Ohio had four dinosaur bone samples carbon dated. They told him they were 20,000 years old. He didn't tell them they were dinosaur bones. If he would have said, this is a dinosaur bone and I want you to carbon date it, they would have said, oh, we can't date that because it's too old. No, they would have said, why Miller, we can't carbon date that you idiot. There's no f***ing carbon in it. So if there's no carbon in it, how come it dated to 20,000 years old? Well, we now have to tell the Miller's tale as told by Mike Lafetti, science correspondent for the Columbus to Spatch. In 1991, he tracked down the place where Miller had got his dinosaur sample, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Miller didn't tell them he was going to carbon date these pieces of mineralized fossil because if he had, they'd have said to him, there's no f***ing carbon in it. So he did something completely out of character for a creationist and didn't come clean about what he wanted to do with the sample. Unaware that his precious bone specimen was about to be destroyed in a pointless exercise for the creationist cause, James King, the director of the Carnegie Museum, warned Miller that the bones had been covered with shellac and other unknown preservatives. Shellac, of course, is an organic material chock full of carbon. To a real chemist preparing to carbon date a sample, this would have wrung alarm bells about the danger of contamination. But not Miller. He sent his samples to the University of Arizona's laboratory of isotope geochemistry for carbon dating. Then a second alarm bell was sounded, Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, told Miller that there was no collagen in the bones and therefore no carbon. But Long said, there is a lot of carbon in the shellac. Look, Miller, do you need this belt out? If you carbon date this sample, you won't get a date for the fossil because there's no f***ing carbon in it. You'll get a date for the preservative. And that's exactly what he got. Carbon dating also popped up in this video, which was nominated for a golden crocodile. Hello, YouTubers, big Jerry here ready for round two of answering our evolutionists and atheists questions. I have to be quite strict about the criteria and say it doesn't qualify. Big Jerry's video is a bit like a sitcom pilot for NBC, an answer guy who doesn't actually have any answers. So you may think I'm simply putting him in here for a bit of comic relief. But I'd say, yeah. Number nine, how do you explain carbon dating and radiometric dating, showing the earth not as 6,000 years old, but billions of years old? Now this is another one of those I actually had to stop what I was doing and do some research on. A lot of it already knew, but I just thought I'd read some of this stuff off for you because a lot of it's actually pretty interesting. And honestly, I don't trust radiometric and carbon dating at all. But bear with me here. Here's a little article from an article. Okay. When a date differs from that expected researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result, the common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Now I'm not doubting big Jerry's abilities as the answer guy, but it seems that the extent of his research is simply to type in the words radiometric dating into Christian answers dot net and then read whatever it says off the screen without necessarily understanding it. Am I right? Three million years by the argon argon method. The authors decided that was too old, according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils and the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 million years. And that's all the time I have for this edition of Answering and Evolutionist. Hope you all stick around with me. For part three, be back soon.