... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Series:

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

video

Trin80ty : Kent Hovind is Crazy #25: Carbon Dating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP6rkQjbsnU

Hans-Georg Lundahl

diverse points to video:

I

Mammoth baby's divergent age has been explained like contaminated samples:

Some of those samples were wrong to begin with, since contaminated with younger carbon ... well, thank you!

Now, first this gives a light on accuracy of scientists in practise.

But foremost, if the Shroud of Turin was contaminated with younger carbon (centuries of soot, oil from when a fire was quenched with oil because there was no water - which is physically possible if fire is small and amount of cold oil large enough and which seems to have been what happened) the young dates go. No fake.

II

Methods of original calibration of C14 discussed:

Carbon dating started to be used on things which already had a known historical date, such as artefacts from the ... Egyptian ! ... Empire.

Yeah, right. No way Egyptian chronology could be anything like fucked up for any reason whatsoever, we access it as readily as Medieval History and know the lifetime of such a Pharao as accurately as that of Alfred the Great of Wessex. Or ... not true.

Another calibration is dendrochronology ... there was a slim spot just recently bridged, and I looked at diagrams from the official lab, about the time of Christ for a certain tree (pine? oak?) and to my mind not satisfactorily bridged. Before that the older series of dendrochronology was calibrated by, guess what: carbon dating. Now, around Christ the carbon dates would normally not be off too much, but that was not the only spot slim in samples.

The question of original calibration in Egyptian chronology for a half life of 5600 years begs the question on what methods like U-Pb or Ar-K or Th-Pb were originally calibrated.

Ticking of Geiger measure in lab, pure U ticking so often per minute indicating such a half life as ... millions of years? You kid me not!

Or Egyptian samples? You kid me not.

It was calibrated on very old - actually pre-existence - dated paleontological objects, like lava under dinos or sth.

III

The point against Hovind's honesty actually made:

Anti-Hovind point: Hovind's claim was debunked, he was embarrassed, he made same claim again.

Wonderful point if his point was actually debunked, less so if he, after a few public moments of embarassment, could check and find the earlier debunker wrong

Let us now

leave the word to someone else before answering.

Debra S

You have an unhealthy obsession with trying to discredit Kent Hovind by the looks of all the videos you have! is that because you don't like to hear the truth?? so you try and character assasinate him for "some" of his mistakes, could that be because you are an athiest who believes in evo-illusion lies and myths, hmmm???

Trin80ty

This video deals with just one claim Hovind made. It shows:

1) Hovind made a claim not supported by his "reference."

2) That when informed of that, he refused to admit error.

3) And he never even bothered reading the reference before citing it.

I do find it pathetic that can't even spell atheist, which means can't spell theist. Want to talk about the grammar in this convicted felon/conspiracy nut "dissertation" accepted by a diploma mill?

The one that starts "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Correcting your points:

1) Hovind's reference was challenged;

2) He was not convinced of error when "informed" by that challenge;

3) Later he used same reference again.

His dissertation was not for a science researcher, but for a science teacher. And in history of ideas.

How many teaching evolution made dissertations in education stating that "Galileo was burned at the stake" or that Bruno was it "for heliocentrism"?

I did read rational wiki on topic of that dissertation - and wrote on it.

Spelling athiest instead of atheist may be hasty fingers rather than bad grammar.

Now correct your own sentence:

"I do find it pathetic that [you] can't even spell atheist, which means [you] can't spell theist."

Creation vs. Evolution : Why so shy about creationist pov on C14?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-so-shy-about-creationist-pov-on-c14.html

Some on Dendro in Comments.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/08/hovinds-dissertation-not-as-bad-as-its.html