Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Carbon Dating: How Realiable Is It?

with 6 comments

Part 1 Hovind goes through the assumption 

I promised one evolutionist to discuss this,  

In Part 2 he goes through the examples of false dating results.

Make your own mind up.


Written by dawkinswatch

January 31, 2008 at 3:38 pm

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Make your own mind up.”

    On what? On misinformation?

    Says Hovind: On the Periodic Table carbon and nitrogen are right next to each other, nitrogen is number 14, carbon is number 12.

    What an idiot! He clearly does not know what he is talking about. (For those not well versed in chemistry or physics: 14 and 12 respectively or the atomic masses of the two elements, the numbers are 6 for carbon and 7 for nitrogen.)

    All of what he says is a heinous mixture of facts, half-truths and downright lies! This person is dishonest to his bones!

    For more information, please read: Radiometric Dating –
    A Christian Perspective


    Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look

    If you want to know how ridiculous this guy is, go here:


    Wolf Potter

    February 2, 2008 at 1:27 pm

  2. Just to prove my point that Ken Hovind (KH) does lie:

    KH: One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862.

    Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

    NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.


    Anyone spreading his nonsense without checking on him is either naive or dishonest themselves.

    Wolf Potter

    February 2, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  3. First you make your own version of “Truth” and hope no one notices. With time you start quoting sources to give the movement a veneer of legitamacy. Then you suggest there is a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Then there is “teach the controvery”. You get the media to show both sides in equal light, but accuse the other side of being immoral. The final stage is to completely eradicate people’s ability to tell the true from the false, by filling the research with conflicting methods, so people don’t make decisions based on evidence, but on what their previous opinion was. After that things break down as people are unable to communicate or compromise…

    Yeah, I sound pessimistic, but you hear about things like this it gets to you.

    Samuel Skinner

    February 5, 2008 at 4:31 am

  4. From Dawkinswatch:- “I promised one evolutionist to discuss this, …”

    That was probably me over on:-


    And here you have not discussed it at all. You have simply posted another couple of movies of Hovind. Over at the link above, I took just three examples from Hovind (one after another) and showed why his claims were simply wrong or silly. You have done nothing to address those claims. Yet I am supposed to be impressed enough to watch another video in order to “make my own mind up”.

    C’mon Dawkinswatch. In three successive examples, the guy cannot get it right, why do you think he does on the rest?

    Let me repeat those three examples again – they remain unaddressed:-


    With reference to the video clip – part 10, Hovind’s claims are silly. A couple examples show how bad he is:-

    Towards the end he says (paraphrasing):-

    1) “Some people are claiming that new stars are forming in Crab Nebula. Well no stars are forming.”

    2) “Scientists claim it takes billions of years for red stars to turn to white stars … that is simply not correct … we have overwhelming evidence that read stars can turn to white stars … All the ancient astronomers said that Sirius was a red star … today it is a white dwarf”.

    3) Jupiter is losing heat and if the universe was billions of years old then this just cannot be.

    Well on point 1) the Crab Nebula is the remnant of an exploded star. Therefore no one would make the claim that stars are forming there.

    On point 2), Hovind has his facts confused and distorted. The naked eye Sirius is not a white dwarf. For the claim that it was a red star plus a refutation of Hovind, see the following link:-


    (Only one ancient astronomer made the claim, as far as we know.)

    Regarding point 3), Hovind does not say why a planet losing heat cannot be billions of years old. There are a couple of ways in which a planet can lose heat over billions of years – slow gravitational collapse or radioactive decay of unstable elements which make up its composition. Another possibility is a slow ticking over of some fusion reactions with deuterium and/or tritium (heavy hydrogen) in its core.


    You have done nothing to chase this up to see if I am correct, have you.

    Regards, Roland


    February 6, 2008 at 10:24 am

  5. Hovind claims he once was a science teacher.

    Having read some more of his stuff, I’m not surprized they chucked him out. Absolutely hilarious what he says and not a trace of science in it.

    Wolf Potter

    February 24, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  6. […] Theistic evolution is a slippery slope to all forms of heresies, as We have oroved on this blog before, there is no independent and reliable measuring of the Age of the earth, simply because all the dating methods, especially Carbon Dating, are unreliable. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: