There are quite a number of problems. For example, in the field of astrophysics, evidence of galaxies so far away that light has to travel millions of years to reach us, in geology, different dating techniques Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os etc all point to a different time scale from creationism. What's incredible is that when you use DNA to date things, this also corresponds to the dates independently derived in geology.It is difficult to incorporate creationism in current understanding of science
"It is difficult to incorporate creationism in current understanding of science" It is impossible, becaosue creationism (YEC) is not a scientific method.
5:57 - 6:03 They make an assumption about the rate of decay. They assume the atmosphere has been constant for millions of years, and this cannot possibly be true because a T-REX can only exist in higher oxygen levels. The whole dating process is completely useless.
"They make an assumption about the rate of decay." Not only that, in Astronomy it is possible to demonstrate that the laws of physics have been essential the same all the time. However if you do not think the decay rate have not been the same, demonstrate it or you assumptions is just a crazy "what if" scenario "They assume the atmosphere has been constant for millions of years, and this cannot possibly be true because a T-REX can only exist in higher oxygen levels." Oh, it needed a higher oxygen level, how much did they needed ? "The whole dating process is completely useless" It works very well, thank you
Thank you for this video. I still have a question though, are we really finding the date of formation of the rock ? Is it not possible that at start there was already daughter isotopes. How can we know how what the ratio was at that moment ? And where do these isotopes come from ? Shouldn't that source produce both the parent isotope and the daughter isotope ? I feel there is a problem with the initial condition, what is said is that, at formation, there was only radioactive isotopes and based on that we can get the time it took for them to reach the measured ratio. What am I missing ?
Because you measure the rate between isotopes you can detect if there have been contamination or very abandoned amount of daughter isotopes from start (isochron dating techniques). Very few radiometric techniques need to know the initial condition, radiometric carbon dating is such method, it require the knowledge of the initial state and we know this from, among other things, tree rings.
so how much radioactive material, uranium I guess, was in the rock when it formed? how long did it take for that rock to form? has any uranium or lead escaped the rock? wouldn't all these factors greatly effect the age? how can you be confident in the age with all these unknown variables?
That initial lead/uranium ratio doesn't distort measurement exceed certain negligible boundary as the rate of decay remains constant over time. Got my point?? Searching for isochronic method for your supposed case.
@@grasianofau8771 get over your ego... Nothing has been proved it only adds up when you use the math from their theories Where light is a constant... Which it doesn't look like it is now... They were wrong but won't admit it... How about you.?
@@richardlilley6274 Tell it for yourself since you even don't want to search for deeper core besides simple radiometric dating. And then you blame me for your incomplete understanding, great. Simple radiometric dating only the skin, go investigate deeper method like isochronic dating.
@@grasianofau8771 wow your as blind and deaf as science... Keep your theories because that's all your understanding is based on... What someone else told you... I look for myself... You should try it
How much uranium we had at the beginning of the sample, do we know? No! How much led was present in the sample at the beginning? can we know? no! we just have a constant decay speed, that is all, in you do not know the exact amount of elements at the starting point this speed is useless, it is like knowing the speed of an aircraft do determine the distance it has covered, you need another variable to determine it, it has to be time.
Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before the first humanoid was even suppose to have walk the earth? Just in case you did not know..... Every newly expelled lava ever tested contained varying amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes. The preexisting daughter isotopes did not all boil out of the lava before solidification into igneous rock. When testing modern rocks. Rocks who's formation was observed. The daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. If the daughter isotope levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions. If two trains on parallel tracks were observed traveling in the same direction. One traveling faster and is 3 miles farther down the track then the other one. One could use simple math to calculate backwards to find at what point the two trains would be next to each other, sitting side by side on the parallel tracks. You could even find how long the trip took from the point that they were next to each other to where they are observed now. But none of the math would give you the starting point of either of the two trains. Assuming that they started in the same place and at the same together cannot be confirmed. Yes one could look how far back the tracks go and calculate the maximum time they could have been traveling. But that would be the maximum possible time, not the time they actually started. In fact, in every case when the trains starting position was observed, they never started together. Such is the case for observed solidifying igneous rock. If the solidifying rocks observed today have varying starting ratios for the isotopes then one must maintain that the rocks in the past would act exactly the same. Resulting in the same problem that was encountered with the trains in the above example. Without knowing the starting ratios of the parent and daughter isotopes at solicitation the math is useless. Thereby making the dates arrived at with this math irrelevant. Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used is the decay rate and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtained any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd. Again the train analogy was about the time and the distance traveled. Running the trains backward at the speed observed can tell you at what point the trains would meet each other. Another words, sit side by side on the parallel tracks. But this does not tell you that this is where either of the trains started. Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable parent and daughter isotopes at solidification . If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith. P.S. All of evolutionary theory rests on the billions of years. If you cannot verify those billions of years then the entire construct is in fact an unproven assumption. Perhaps if you looked for your evidence in something other than the authorized scientific dogma, you might find the errors that that dogma chooses to ignore.
Because you measure the rate between isotopes you can detect if there have been contamination or very abandoned amount of daughter isotopes from start (isochron dating techniques), this will make the result worthless and you have to discard the sample and get a new one. Very few radiometric techniques need to know the initial condition, radiometric carbon dating is such method, it require the knowledge of the initial state and we know this from, among other things, tree rings.
@@qurkatimilaz3787 Interesting how you tell me it works but don't bother actually showing it working... Show the math... Just providing the answer without showing how you got it would never fly in any University. Why do you think you would be allowed to get away with it on CZcams?
@@GSpotter63 "Interesting how you tell me it works but don't bother actually showing me how it working... Show the math... " You mean the math behind isochronous dating techniques, tree rings or radiometric carbon dating methodology?
@@qurkatimilaz3787 Where did I mention C14 dating? I was talking about Uranium-Lead, Rubidum-Strontium, Potassium-Argon dating... etc. All of which use very similar equations (excluding their different half-life's and multiple intermediate steps of course) that all suffer the same fundamental flaw: the required assumption of zero daughter isotopes at solidification. And as stated before isochronic methods use the results taken from the same flawed methods described above and so are no better. Now let's see your math proving the equations correct... Simply stating again that I am wrong proves nothing....
Wal Thornhill, and other physicists have no confidence in radiometric dating and say it is inaccurate because the decay rate of isotopes varies over time and can be completely altered when exposed to electrical discharge.
I'm curious which predictions of evolution that you were taught has been refuted by experiments? Almost every field of biology relies on evolution to predict certain things like genes or mutations, so its the first time I'm hearing that its been refuted. By which publication? Which university? Scientists are comfortable with personal beliefs, but for things that can be tested like the age of rocks, experiments fr. many labs and many techniques have to give the same answer to be accepted
Radioactive decay is a constant now but was it always at a constant? do we even have a way to check to see if there is a fluxuation in Radioactive decay?
"do we even have a way to check to see if there is a fluxuation in Radioactive decay?" Yes, by looking at polarized light that have passed gas clouds from distance galaxies, this tell us that the radioactive decay have not change.
" This is the very question I have. How do they know when it breaks down to a half life 1.3 billion years ago? There calculations don’t fully add up. " Oh, the calculations don’t fully add up, how come ?
Lead was once Uranium so therefore there was once no lead. Though that is not always true as when the rock formed there might have been some lead alongside the uranium, but effectively this method gives an idea as to the age via what we assume what once was to the now of what is/remains.
I think that he means by saying "We count the Uranium and the lid" that they search for the ratio of Uranium and Plumbum, because when you are looking to this ratio, you can be sure that the starting ratio was 100% Uranium
The only method in which you can be relatively certain that there is no daughter isotope is K - Ar. All other methods including various U - Pb assume an initial unknown amount of daughter isotope. The isochron and other similar methods are used to both determine the initial ratios of parent to daughter and the age of a rock. The method requires multiple samples from different minerals in the same formation and two daughter isotopes are measured against the parent. These multiple samples will create one isochron with an assigned date range. To ensure that the data is correct, many isochrones will be created. Different element with different decay rated may be measured. So the Apollo and Luna missions to the moon completed perhaps 70 radiometric dating tests (isochrons) and used decays of Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd at various locations to conclude that the earliest moon rocks are 3.86 - 3.9 Ga old. If you would like to learn more about radiometric dating and how the isochron method works, I suggest "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple. It probably won't be carried at your local book store, but it is a really thorough explanation by probably the most knowledgeable person on the subject.
Norm Plewm I was fortunate enough to locate Dalrymple both at the local college library and on the USGS site. pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr86110 And this is also a nice intro to the topic, also by the USGS with what looks to be another link to Dalryple, but I could not find it at the site. Mabye if you hunt around a bit... pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html . Enjoy!
I never knew radiometric dating was disproved or that DNA goes back to mere thousands of years. May I find out which lab published these data? Or could you cite the papers in question? If someone indeed manage to overturn a scientific theory, he/she would be quite celebrated in the scientific community. Also which history journal published about population numbers? Many civilizations existed before, Jiahu in China 7000bc, Mesopotamia 7-800BC, Plocnik 5500bc each civ. studied in great detail...
You haven't even watched this video have you ,there is plenty of data to support,you know that but choose to ignore it.You still haven't supplied me with a peer reviewed debunk on the subject,I wonder why?
Part 1) If you found a set of foot prints in the concrete of your garage and you wanted to know the age of those foot prints. You could remove a piece of aggregate from that concrete and have it radiometric dated. Would that give you the date that the concrete was poured and so the date of the foot prints, or would it just give you the date of the piece of aggregate? Let me point out that that aggregate would have formed in another place and time and would have been brought there.
By taking several measurements in the same sample and plot the relationship between the isotopes, if they are on a line, then no contamination or diffusion have occurred. You take a material that very easily reject the daughter isotopes when it is molten and when the material is below the closure temperature the next coming formation of daughter isotopes are locked in the crystal structure, setting the clock to zero. So if a material is heated above the closure temperature (again) the daughter isotopes escapes. This mean that the rock would be dated to a younger age than it was solidified the first time.
You should also select the sample carefully, if it is fractured you can mostly be certain that is no good. In the case of zircons they are really hard so most of them are "nice", but not all.
How can you know how much daughter element was present at the start of the process? How can you be sure the rate of decay has remained constant over millions of years? How can you know there was no decontamination over time?
Some daughter isotopes can only be formed from a specific decay processes , that would comfirm at least that isotope is a decay product. . We have no reason to think the rate of decay was ever different. We've never observed it, and the only possible way we can think of that could affect the decay rate is a change in function of the weak nuclear force. Which if it did, would have huge and obvious effects everywhere in the universe. Ensuring the integrity of the samples is a great question, and is something isn't always easy to do, and samples do get contaminated occasionally. One method is to take many samples all around the location and compare their consistency.
@@nunyabisnass1141To think it was never different is surly an assumption. Also if you date newly formed metaphoric rock it gives ages of millions of years.www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017950536542839663781:ilwbjjs2u4e&q=creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjyuIuowNzpAhXEnFwKHWPIDW4QFjABegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw2ZPW6D97lqx8DQ8hQdBtiU
Faith Truth when you use the wrong dating method it will yeild the wrong results, that's not controversial. You don't use potassium argon on anything less than a couple millions years old. It would be like using a yard stick to measure bacteria. Also, none of the three assumptions listed are assumptions, they're empirical observations. The weak nuclear interaction/force has been observed to be consistent for as long as its been studied, and yes physicists have been looking for ways that it could have changed in the past, like young stars buring thousands of times brighter than predicted calculations, or radioactive samples producing more heat or other emissions than predicted with pur current undersranding. But lets say that yes, under some very rare and yet to be discovered mechanism, that radioactive decay was faster in the past, then we would see its effects everywhere even today, and it wouldn't just be limited to the older dating methods. Carbon dating would be consistently wrong for instance, and not be consistent with independent historical records, and dendrochronology, but they are as long as one is careful enough to ensure the integrity of the samples and the data used for cross confirmation. I'm sorry but there is no reason to think that radioactive decay was different in the past when everything we see screams at us that it remains unchanged. So suggesting that it could be different honestly looks more like a desperate and futile attempt to discredit something thats been demonstrated to be very reliable, just to preserve a very narrow worldview, and calling it an assumption is a blatent lie.
Please answer where apart from textbooks is a complete geological column? How much helium was found in the zircon and what do you consider to be the dissipation rate of helium over let's say 1000 years? Surely fossils form quickly like cement otherwise how do you explain the perfect formations. Why is there no bioturbation inbetween sedimentary layers? Why are dates thrown out that do not fit the geological column? What percentage of dates are thrown out as wrong? I hope you can answer thanks
In the case if radiometric carbon dating, it is known from, among other things, tree rings. In the case of other techniques it can be worked out by taking several measurements from the same sample.
I learned a lot about the process from this... however, there is still much that he didn't explain... like at 5:55 he says "quite simply we know the decay of uranium to lead... What is it? How do we know? .... is he assuming that when the rock formed there was no lead? He didn't say how much of each he believed there was when it formed, let alone how he knows this... Why can't I find this information anywhere on the internet? If anyone believes they have answers to any of these questions I really want to know because so far it seems to me that in order for radioactive dating to work some of these assumptions need to be correct, but I can't find anywhere online where a scientists fully explains how we know these things.
I think more than anything, Science demands evidence that can withstand rigorous testing and demonstrate predictive powers. For example, evolution could predict certain genetic oddities like the fusion of telomeres in the human genome, or particular types of fossils within a rock layer of certain dates. As for intelligent design, its prediction of irreducible complexity failed many times. Its incredibly hard for a scientist to accept a hypothesis that fails under testing - you can't blame them.
This is a confident story about dating minerals. But is it reliable? I know of a missing link in the education of geologists and paleontologists. They tell us that our planet Earth has the most to fear from an asteroid impact or volcano eruptions. But when we look at the many horizontal layers that we find everywhere on our planet, we clearly see the effect of a repeating cataclysm. These disasters are mentioned in ancient books like the Mahabharata from India and the Popol Vuh from the Mayans and others. They tell us about a cycle of seven disasters that separate the eras from the world. Certainly, regularly recurring global disasters cannot be caused by asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions. The only possible cause is another celestial body, a planet, orbiting our sun in an eccentric orbit. Then it is close to the sun for a short period and after the crossing at a very high speed it disappears into the universe for a long time. Planet 9 exists, but it seems invisible. These disasters cause a huge tidal wave of seawater that washes over land "above the highest mountains." At the end it covers the earth with a layer of mud, a mixture of sand, clay, lime, fossils of marine and terrestrial animals and small and larger meteorites. Forests that existed are flattened and because of the pressure from the layers on top the wood is changed into coal. These disasters also create a cycle of civilizations. To learn much more about the recurring flood cycle, the re-creation of civilizations and its chronology and ancient high technology, read the e-book: "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It can be read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
@gregrutz actually you can sit above a circle, moreso, nothing is impossible for G-D, and besides i've sat and have seen many people sit on balls, are they not spheres, or are they cubes? If you were to go up into space, Earth would actually appear as a circle. Think before you talk, my G-D bless your poor soul.
prove it. you keep saying it is. that doesn't make it true. PROVE IT. give an example. something physical, something i can witness. otherwise you are deluding yourself.
So, first of all, the scientist is assuming that no lead was present at the formation time? If that were true then there would be two other truths. One, lead was not a naturally forming element (because all lead is derived from degrading uranium), and two, that at the time of formation of the rock, the ratio of lead to uranium was fixed and unchanging. the first says that uranium will only convert into lead in any state other than a rock (solid form) I find this hard to believe given that in a solid state and buried,it could never be exposed to the photons needed to cause uranium to shed the ten protons per atom to convert from U (Uranium)to Pb (lead). The second point that given the decay rate being 4.35 billion years would give you a very large sample on order to test and measure the decay rate accurately. All of that would also assume that no lead were present at the time of the creation of the parent element Uranium. Thoughts?
+Eugene Coutee No, they are not assuming that. You are argueing against a CreaZionist strawman. The original amount of the respective daughter isotope is rather calculated during the analytical process of cogenetic samples in an isochron plot. "Age"and "original daughter isotope" are just two unknowns, but the cogenetic samples provide many more than just two data points in order to calculate the two unknowns, by linear regression. Research isochron dating on your own, rather than conjuring a secret conspiracy among scientists.
G-D IS A THOUGHT Wow. Are you so fearful that you would attack me even though all I was trying to do is understand. You throw all of this at me and still said nothing. I do have to say one thing. I hope one day to have the faith that you have. On the other hand, I still have love and hope for you and others like you. If you are truly trying to educate people on why their belief is flawed, perhaps next time you could show more compassion and try to impart knowledge rather than putting all of your effort into making your fellow man feel small and ignorant you would find more who were willing to hear you rather than blow you off because of you rude, condescending remarks. I will however, take a look at some of the mentioned data. Thank you for the little bit of info. P.S. God is a father, not a thought.
+Eugene Coutee How did I attack YOU? I just explained something to you. If the facts are rude and condescending, then so be it. Please keep also in mind, that all and ONLY all !!!THOSE!!! G-Ds that we know of, primary examples YHWH without J(the)C, Tri Une G-D WITH J(the)C and Allah, peace be upon him, were created with-IN an already existing physical world. they are thoughts, ideas, concepts, illusions, images ABOUT, namely the unknowable number of unknowable!!!S!!! at the origin of the physical world. IF you detest my Gnostic position which is due to the knowable, and my AGnostic position to the unknowable, as a Scientist, that I am, then you can block me all the time. Kindest regards from GERMANY.
I assume, Eugene, that you have gone to college, studied radio metric dating for several years and gotten an incredibly in depth education as to how the process works?
+Sember12 you do realize it's never as simple as they explain it in television and movies. Scientific processes are extraordinarily complicated in reality. Did you know that something as simple as cell replication involves roughly 700,000, 000,000 chemical reactions? Or that 540 quadrillion (15 zeros) chemical reactions happen in your body every second? I'm a biochemistry major so most of my knowledge relates to that area of science. But I'm sure the actual mechanics of radio metric dating are absurdly more complicated than make the make it seem on television
@gregrutzdontdont forgot too type in he as a tail like a ceder tree my friend so bible describe a dinosaur pretty will.so dont pick and choice words in the bible that are writing' type in the hole verse next time for everyone too read not just the ones you try too debunk
@roxannemifsud The Bible was writen by men inspired by God. Gods living word they just wrote it. If you told your secretary to type a book that you were speaking to her would you say those were her words or yours?
read job chapter 40-verse 15 18.its just one of the proof when it talks about one dinosaur.opps i mean dragons.dinosaur is a new word that was invented in middle 1800s
Go away, I never said I was ceationist or evolutionist, im a realist. We know the calculations, and they are based on an assumption. Its pointless debating people who don't know what they are talking about.
@@qurkatimilaz3787 yes because by default non Christians have 0 bias, and would never cherry pick data that supports their ideological beliefs.... That's how people work, All non Christians look at data objectively, Christians make everything up.
I'm going to end the debate as to be honest no one has bothered to quantifiable research before posting here. the rate if decay for each element is different, including it's isotopes. If you have six thousand atoms of an element and you wait until it's half life you will have approximately half as many simple as that. Ignoring this fact is like saying that water (H20) is not wet. I don't care if there is a higher power or not. if there is, congrats for being the most undervalued person in existence. The universe is bigger then we ever thought, if it is about and I stress if. The religions I see around me are self centered and short sighted, you have a brain, just think for yourself instead of looking in outdated books. maybe you'll see the wonder of his techniques if you stop focusing on 6th century knowledge.
there is no actual evidence for creation. it MAY have happened the way you say it did, but the evidence supports evolution. i am disinclined to believe your assertion that it is true.
You keep on with assertions but they are empty,where is the peer reviewed evidence to support your claims? You have just ignored the evidence for dating and provided none against.
The rock is 65 million years old because the paleontologist says those fossils were alive in that era. The Palaentologist says the fossils are that old because the geologist says the rock is 65 million years old. There is a lot of interdisciplinary blind faith in science
Stephen King B*ll*cks. 1. The palaeontologist = the geologist. 2. The evidence for relative dating of earth materials using ideas going back to Steno in the 17th C had established the order in which fossils occur (summarised in the geologic column) long before even Darwin. The circular argument you spuriously claim was totally impossible then, since radiometric dating did not exist! Arthur Holmes demonstrated the principle in the 1910s and, by the 1940s, it was improved and refined enough to give an age for the earth that has remained stable ever since. There are several radiometric "clocks" which allow cross referencing of results. The evolution of radiometric dating has only added calendar dates confirming what was already known about the order of earth events.
There is much evidence to suggest decay rates have not been constant throughout history, they may even vary due to slight variations in our distance to the sun. In addition there are many ways in which a rock dating can be drastically affected by weathering and unknown initial conditions.
@roxannemifsud You dont take what your God your Creator says lightly. I dont believe what any church or any man says I believe what God says. Gods word is perfect.
You are cherry picking the parts that you like which is what a lot of people do and what my christian teacher did when I was younger. There are ugly parts in the bible as well.
i live in oregon and a ceder tree is huge my friend..u can draw circle on piece of paper anyone can but can u create a planet..no..god loves you man repent too jesus ask him too come into your life.we are getting close too the end times.
Nothing in our solar system is over 4.53 billion yrs? how could would test everything in our solar system? Is the uranium and lead in the mineral that is in the rock perfectly spread in the rock? That would need to be true to get a true number of age right?
"Nothing in our solar system is over 4.53 billion yrs? how could would test everything in our solar system?" True, we can not, but if we find stuff that is 4.53 billion yrs we know it is at least 4.53 billion yrs old "Is the uranium and lead in the mineral that is in the rock perfectly spread in the rock? That would need to be true to get a true number of age right?" Yes, true, that is why you take make several measurements from the same sample.
Part 4) The bottom line is, that dating the particles (material) containing a fossil, dates the age of said particles covering the fossil, and not the date that the fossil itself was formed, and so the date of the death of the animal. If a worldwide flood did take place we would expect to see young fossils embedded in new deposits formed from eroded material taken from older rock: and that is exactly what we find.
maxdecphoenix you cant prove him wrong. scientists date everything by observing one alternative, and that's the alternative that gets them the answer that they want. they never consider what affect the environment could have played on whatever they are dating. this happens every time! why do people, or i should say scientists, never mention to people that Mt. St Helen's explosion created fossils in no more than 20 years? probably because they want people to think what they want to be true.
bees knees ...because you can date the fossils.. its a rather very simple explanation for an answer that seems consistent across the board.. in this case, there's nothing pointing to this not being true.. other than old relics and texts which shouldn't persuade scientific research.
KubiqFeet how do you know that the date of the fossil is actually correct? do scientists have something that assures that they are correct, just like they are able to use people to see if their new medicine actually works against a certain virus?
It's amazing what facts you can make up on your own with no basis whatsoever. Well done!
You are commenting the wrong video, this is not a YEC video.
There are quite a number of problems. For example, in the field of astrophysics, evidence of galaxies so far away that light has to travel millions of years to reach us, in geology, different dating techniques Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os etc all point to a different time scale from creationism. What's incredible is that when you use DNA to date things, this also corresponds to the dates independently derived in geology.It is difficult to incorporate creationism in current understanding of science
Concerning your claim on DNA research you should check out a series called The New History of Humanity.
"It is difficult to incorporate creationism in current understanding of science"
It is impossible, becaosue creationism (YEC) is not a scientific method.
Question everything my friends.
like science
John Isaac yes
5:57 - 6:03 They make an assumption about the rate of decay. They assume the atmosphere has been constant for millions of years, and this cannot possibly be true because a T-REX can only exist in higher oxygen levels. The whole dating process is completely useless.
"They make an assumption about the rate of decay."
Not only that, in Astronomy it is possible to demonstrate that the laws of physics have been essential the same all the time.
However if you do not think the decay rate have not been the same, demonstrate it or you assumptions is just a crazy "what if" scenario
"They assume the atmosphere has been constant for millions of years, and this cannot possibly be true because a T-REX can only exist in higher oxygen levels."
Oh, it needed a higher oxygen level, how much did they needed ?
"The whole dating process is completely useless"
It works very well, thank you
4.53 Billion years is incredible. Thank you for the video but, most of all thank you Rutherford and Einstein.
@coolvideo28 where'd u get the information that the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere on earth?
Thank you for this video. I still have a question though, are we really finding the date of formation of the rock ? Is it not possible that at start there was already daughter isotopes. How can we know how what the ratio was at that moment ? And where do these isotopes come from ? Shouldn't that source produce both the parent isotope and the daughter isotope ?
I feel there is a problem with the initial condition, what is said is that, at formation, there was only radioactive isotopes and based on that we can get the time it took for them to reach the measured ratio. What am I missing ?
Because you measure the rate between isotopes you can detect if there have been contamination or very abandoned amount of daughter isotopes from start (isochron dating techniques).
Very few radiometric techniques need to know the initial condition, radiometric carbon dating is such method, it require the knowledge of the initial state and we know this from, among other things, tree rings.
i am dating a rock and she's very lazy
so how much radioactive material, uranium I guess, was in the rock when it formed? how long did it take for that rock to form? has any uranium or lead escaped the rock? wouldn't all these factors greatly effect the age? how can you be confident in the age with all these unknown variables?
Exactly what I thought...
It's all Guess work based on assumptions.
Same as carbon dating..!
That initial lead/uranium ratio doesn't distort measurement exceed certain negligible boundary as the rate of decay remains constant over time. Got my point?? Searching for isochronic method for your supposed case.
@@grasianofau8771 get over your ego...
Nothing has been proved it only adds up when you use the math from their theories
Where light is a constant...
Which it doesn't look like it is now...
They were wrong but won't admit it...
How about you.?
@@richardlilley6274 Tell it for yourself since you even don't want to search for deeper core besides simple radiometric dating. And then you blame me for your incomplete understanding, great. Simple radiometric dating only the skin, go investigate deeper method like isochronic dating.
@@grasianofau8771 wow your as blind and deaf as science...
Keep your theories because that's all your understanding is based on... What someone else told you...
I look for myself... You should try it
How much uranium we had at the beginning of the sample, do we know? No! How much led was present in the sample at the beginning? can we know? no! we just have a constant decay speed, that is all, in you do not know the exact amount of elements at the starting point this speed is useless, it is like knowing the speed of an aircraft do determine the distance it has covered, you need another variable to determine it, it has to be time.
Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set.
D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)
t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt,
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2.
Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before the first humanoid was even suppose to have walk the earth?
Just in case you did not know..... Every newly expelled lava ever tested contained varying amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes. The preexisting daughter isotopes did not all boil out of the lava before solidification into igneous rock.
When testing modern rocks. Rocks who's formation was observed. The daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. If the daughter isotope levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions.
If two trains on parallel tracks were observed traveling in the same direction. One traveling faster and is 3 miles farther down the track then the other one. One could use simple math to calculate backwards to find at what point the two trains would be next to each other, sitting side by side on the parallel tracks. You could even find how long the trip took from the point that they were next to each other to where they are observed now. But none of the math would give you the starting point of either of the two trains. Assuming that they started in the same place and at the same together cannot be confirmed. Yes one could look how far back the tracks go and calculate the maximum time they could have been traveling. But that would be the maximum possible time, not the time they actually started.
In fact, in every case when the trains starting position was observed, they never started together. Such is the case for observed solidifying igneous rock. If the solidifying rocks observed today have varying starting ratios for the isotopes then one must maintain that the rocks in the past would act exactly the same. Resulting in the same problem that was encountered with the trains in the above example. Without knowing the starting ratios of the parent and daughter isotopes at solicitation the math is useless. Thereby making the dates arrived at with this math irrelevant.
Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used is the decay rate and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtained any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd.
Again the train analogy was about the time and the distance traveled. Running the trains backward at the speed observed can tell you at what point the trains would meet each other. Another words, sit side by side on the parallel tracks. But this does not tell you that this is where either of the trains started.
Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable parent and daughter isotopes at solidification . If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith.
P.S. All of evolutionary theory rests on the billions of years. If you cannot verify those billions of years then the entire construct is in fact an unproven assumption.
Perhaps if you looked for your evidence in something other than the authorized scientific dogma, you might find the errors that that dogma chooses to ignore.
+GSpotter63 The starting ratio is an unknown in the first place and one RESULT from the isochron plot. Look this up for yourself.
Because you measure the rate between isotopes you can detect if there have been contamination or very abandoned amount of daughter isotopes from start (isochron dating techniques), this will make the result worthless and you have to discard the sample and get a new one.
Very few radiometric techniques need to know the initial condition, radiometric carbon dating is such method, it require the knowledge of the initial state and we know this from, among other things, tree rings.
@@qurkatimilaz3787
Interesting how you tell me it works but don't bother actually showing it working... Show the math...
Just providing the answer without showing how you got it would never fly in any University. Why do you think you would be allowed to get away with it on CZcams?
@@GSpotter63
"Interesting how you tell me it works but don't bother actually showing me how it working... Show the math... "
You mean the math behind isochronous dating techniques, tree rings or radiometric carbon dating methodology?
@@qurkatimilaz3787
Where did I mention C14 dating?
I was talking about Uranium-Lead, Rubidum-Strontium, Potassium-Argon dating... etc. All of which use very similar equations (excluding their different half-life's and multiple intermediate steps of course) that all suffer the same fundamental flaw: the required assumption of zero daughter isotopes at solidification.
And as stated before isochronic methods use the results taken from the same flawed methods described above and so are no better.
Now let's see your math proving the equations correct... Simply stating again that I am wrong proves nothing....
Wal Thornhill, and other physicists have no confidence in radiometric dating and say it is inaccurate because the decay rate of isotopes varies over time and can be completely altered when exposed to electrical discharge.
Very interesting. Thank you.
I'm curious which predictions of evolution that you were taught has been refuted by experiments? Almost every field of biology relies on evolution to predict certain things like genes or mutations, so its the first time I'm hearing that its been refuted. By which publication? Which university?
Scientists are comfortable with personal beliefs, but for things that can be tested like the age of rocks, experiments fr. many labs and many techniques have to give the same answer to be accepted
Radioactive decay is a constant now but was it always at a constant?
do we even have a way to check to see if there is a fluxuation in Radioactive decay?
"do we even have a way to check to see if there is a fluxuation in Radioactive decay?"
Yes, by looking at polarized light that have passed gas clouds from distance galaxies, this tell us that the radioactive decay have not change.
This is a very good question. How do the know the uranium to lead ratio of the rocks original form?
This is the very question I have. How do they know when it breaks down to a half life 1.3 billion years ago? There calculations don’t fully add up.
" This is the very question I have. How do they know when it breaks down to a half life 1.3 billion years ago? There calculations don’t fully add up. "
Oh, the calculations don’t fully add up, how come ?
If a petrified rock is right beside the rock it petrified from. Is there nuance in them? I'm asking because I don't know.
not just creationists... but they're the most vocal. Great video
This is the most detailed of the many carbon 14 videos. This one explains the mass spectrometer.
Just for you knowledge, this video is not about radiometric carbon dating
Incredible really.
@warriorprince1010 no it was not refuted by any science, it is used in many many fields of science on a daily basis.
@roxannemifsud have a great day. If you ever wonder or have any questions please feel free to message me and ask.
great video
Relativity is related to nuclear decay?
Lead was once Uranium so therefore there was once no lead. Though that is not always true as when the rock formed there might have been some lead alongside the uranium, but effectively this method gives an idea as to the age via what we assume what once was to the now of what is/remains.
How do you know what the beginning ratio was?
I think that he means by saying "We count the Uranium and the lid" that they search for the ratio of Uranium and Plumbum, because when you are looking to this ratio, you can be sure that the starting ratio was 100% Uranium
Beautiful!
And so how do you know that when the rock formed there was only uranium in there that you found, no any lead?
The only method in which you can be relatively certain that there is no daughter isotope is K - Ar.
All other methods including various U - Pb assume an initial unknown amount of daughter isotope. The isochron and other similar methods are used to both determine the initial ratios of parent to daughter and the age of a rock.
The method requires multiple samples from different minerals in the same formation and two daughter isotopes are measured against the parent. These multiple samples will create one isochron with an assigned date range.
To ensure that the data is correct, many isochrones will be created. Different element with different decay rated may be measured.
So the Apollo and Luna missions to the moon completed perhaps 70 radiometric dating tests (isochrons) and used decays of Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd at various locations to conclude that the earliest moon rocks are 3.86 - 3.9 Ga old.
If you would like to learn more about radiometric dating and how the isochron method works, I suggest "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple. It probably won't be carried at your local book store, but it is a really thorough explanation by probably the most knowledgeable person on the subject.
Norm Plewm
I was fortunate enough to locate Dalrymple both at the local college library and on the USGS site. pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr86110
And this is also a nice intro to the topic, also by the USGS with what looks to be another link to Dalryple, but I could not find it at the site. Mabye if you hunt around a bit... pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html . Enjoy!
Thanks for the links
I never knew radiometric dating was disproved or that DNA goes back to mere thousands of years. May I find out which lab published these data? Or could you cite the papers in question? If someone indeed manage to overturn a scientific theory, he/she would be quite celebrated in the scientific community. Also which history journal published about population numbers? Many civilizations existed before, Jiahu in China 7000bc, Mesopotamia 7-800BC, Plocnik 5500bc each civ. studied in great detail...
5:57 - 6:03 I will give you sources if you tell me how they know the rate of decay.
the earth is just about 6 or 7 thousand years old
You haven't even watched this video have you ,there is plenty of data to support,you know that but choose to ignore it.You still haven't supplied me with a peer reviewed debunk on the subject,I wonder why?
Part 1) If you found a set of foot prints in the concrete of your garage and you wanted to know the age of those foot prints. You could remove a piece of aggregate from that concrete and have it radiometric dated. Would that give you the date that the concrete was poured and so the date of the foot prints, or would it just give you the date of the piece of aggregate? Let me point out that that aggregate would have formed in another place and time and would have been brought there.
Probably not, but that is not how radiometric dating works, the concrete temperature was not above the closure temperature when it was laid down.
In radiometric dating, how do we know what the isotope was (the initial state) when the rock was formed, in order to zero our clock?
By taking several measurements in the same sample and plot the relationship between the isotopes, if they are on a line, then no contamination or diffusion have occurred.
You take a material that very easily reject the daughter isotopes when it is molten and when the material is below the closure temperature the next coming formation of daughter isotopes are locked in the crystal structure, setting the clock to zero. So if a material is heated above the closure temperature (again) the daughter isotopes escapes.
This mean that the rock would be dated to a younger age than it was solidified the first time.
@@qurkatimilaz3787 Thank you for that full explanation. Now it makes more sense.
You should also select the sample carefully, if it is fractured you can mostly be certain that is no good. In the case of zircons they are really hard so most of them are "nice", but not all.
How can you know how much daughter element was present at the start of the process? How can you be sure the rate of decay has remained constant over millions of years? How can you know there was no decontamination over time?
Some daughter isotopes can only be formed from a specific decay processes , that would comfirm at least that isotope is a decay product. . We have no reason to think the rate of decay was ever different. We've never observed it, and the only possible way we can think of that could affect the decay rate is a change in function of the weak nuclear force. Which if it did, would have huge and obvious effects everywhere in the universe.
Ensuring the integrity of the samples is a great question, and is something isn't always easy to do, and samples do get contaminated occasionally. One method is to take many samples all around the location and compare their consistency.
@@nunyabisnass1141To think it was never different is surly an assumption. Also if you date newly formed metaphoric rock it gives ages of millions of years.www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017950536542839663781:ilwbjjs2u4e&q=creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjyuIuowNzpAhXEnFwKHWPIDW4QFjABegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw2ZPW6D97lqx8DQ8hQdBtiU
Faith Truth when you use the wrong dating method it will yeild the wrong results, that's not controversial. You don't use potassium argon on anything less than a couple millions years old. It would be like using a yard stick to measure bacteria.
Also, none of the three assumptions listed are assumptions, they're empirical observations. The weak nuclear interaction/force has been observed to be consistent for as long as its been studied, and yes physicists have been looking for ways that it could have changed in the past, like young stars buring thousands of times brighter than predicted calculations, or radioactive samples producing more heat or other emissions than predicted with pur current undersranding.
But lets say that yes, under some very rare and yet to be discovered mechanism, that radioactive decay was faster in the past, then we would see its effects everywhere even today, and it wouldn't just be limited to the older dating methods. Carbon dating would be consistently wrong for instance, and not be consistent with independent historical records, and dendrochronology, but they are as long as one is careful enough to ensure the integrity of the samples and the data used for cross confirmation.
I'm sorry but there is no reason to think that radioactive decay was different in the past when everything we see screams at us that it remains unchanged. So suggesting that it could be different honestly looks more like a desperate and futile attempt to discredit something thats been demonstrated to be very reliable, just to preserve a very narrow worldview, and calling it an assumption is a blatent lie.
@@nunyabisnass1141www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-pb-radioisotope-dating-method-problems/ link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02597188
Faith Truth ok, what is the point of that?
Please answer where apart from textbooks is a complete geological column? How much helium was found in the zircon and what do you consider to be the dissipation rate of helium over let's say 1000 years? Surely fossils form quickly like cement otherwise how do you explain the perfect formations. Why is there no bioturbation inbetween sedimentary layers? Why are dates thrown out that do not fit the geological column? What percentage of dates are thrown out as wrong? I hope you can answer thanks
I definitely see evidence for creation.
Where ??? Mankind have been searching for many thousands of years.
Here from 2021.
How do we know the initial conditions?
Nicholas Wong
It depends on what particular dating technique is being used
In the case if radiometric carbon dating, it is known from, among other things, tree rings.
In the case of other techniques it can be worked out by taking several measurements from the same sample.
Thank you and al the physicists for all the effort
@majorvoltage
tell that to a creationist....
I learned a lot about the process from this... however, there is still much that he didn't explain... like at 5:55 he says "quite simply we know the decay of uranium to lead... What is it? How do we know? .... is he assuming that when the rock formed there was no lead? He didn't say how much of each he believed there was when it formed, let alone how he knows this... Why can't I find this information anywhere on the internet? If anyone believes they have answers to any of these questions I really want to know because so far it seems to me that in order for radioactive dating to work some of these assumptions need to be correct, but I can't find anywhere online where a scientists fully explains how we know these things.
search uranium lead dating
If different uranium samples are different ages, how is new uranium created in the first place?
'what we assume'? arent you trying to find out the age based on what you assume then?
I think more than anything, Science demands evidence that can withstand rigorous testing and demonstrate predictive powers. For example, evolution could predict certain genetic oddities like the fusion of telomeres in the human genome, or particular types of fossils within a rock layer of certain dates. As for intelligent design, its prediction of irreducible complexity failed many times. Its incredibly hard for a scientist to accept a hypothesis that fails under testing - you can't blame them.
E=mc2, the radiation from the uranium turns into mass (lead).
thats ok when sombody asked me to grab a phlips head screwdriver i said" shouldn't I buy philip a drink first."
50,000 years isn't its half life. 5730 years is the half life.
This is a confident story about dating minerals. But is it reliable? I know of a missing link in the education of geologists and paleontologists. They tell us that our planet Earth has the most to fear from an asteroid impact or volcano eruptions. But when we look at the many horizontal layers that we find everywhere on our planet, we clearly see the effect of a repeating cataclysm. These disasters are mentioned in ancient books like the Mahabharata from India and the Popol Vuh from the Mayans and others. They tell us about a cycle of seven disasters that separate the eras from the world. Certainly, regularly recurring global disasters cannot be caused by asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions. The only possible cause is another celestial body, a planet, orbiting our sun in an eccentric orbit. Then it is close to the sun for a short period and after the crossing at a very high speed it disappears into the universe for a long time. Planet 9 exists, but it seems invisible. These disasters cause a huge tidal wave of seawater that washes over land "above the highest mountains." At the end it covers the earth with a layer of mud, a mixture of sand, clay, lime, fossils of marine and terrestrial animals and small and larger meteorites. Forests that existed are flattened and because of the pressure from the layers on top the wood is changed into coal. These disasters also create a cycle of civilizations. To learn much more about the recurring flood cycle, the re-creation of civilizations and its chronology and ancient high technology, read the e-book: "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It can be read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
Enorme!
Good one - i can't tell you how many times creationists try to dispute radiometric dating.
They not only try....they do.
@@VaxtorT You just resurrected a 13 year old comment. Wow.
chapter 40 job 15-18..type in the hole verse
@gregrutz actually you can sit above a circle, moreso, nothing is impossible for G-D, and besides i've sat and have seen many people sit on balls, are they not spheres, or are they cubes? If you were to go up into space, Earth would actually appear as a circle. Think before you talk, my G-D bless your poor soul.
circular...
What the hell are you talking about??? What has that to do with my comment? I think you posted your reply to the wrong user.
@coolvideo28 Wow you call me brainwashed!
prove it. you keep saying it is. that doesn't make it true. PROVE IT. give an example. something physical, something i can witness. otherwise you are deluding yourself.
@coolvideo28 We'll just have to agree to disagree
if you're watching this in 2020.... You're probably a middle school idla student lol
So, first of all, the scientist is assuming that no lead was present at the formation time? If that were true then there would be two other truths. One, lead was not a naturally forming element (because all lead is derived from degrading uranium), and two, that at the time of formation of the rock, the ratio of lead to uranium was fixed and unchanging. the first says that uranium will only convert into lead in any state other than a rock (solid form) I find this hard to believe given that in a solid state and buried,it could never be exposed to the photons needed to cause uranium to shed the ten protons per atom to convert from U (Uranium)to Pb (lead). The second point that given the decay rate being 4.35 billion years would give you a very large sample on order to test and measure the decay rate accurately. All of that would also assume that no lead were present at the time of the creation of the parent element Uranium. Thoughts?
+Eugene Coutee No, they are not assuming that. You are argueing against a CreaZionist strawman. The original amount of the respective daughter isotope is rather calculated during the analytical process of cogenetic samples in an isochron plot. "Age"and "original daughter isotope" are just two unknowns, but the cogenetic samples provide many more than just two data points in order to calculate the two unknowns, by linear regression. Research isochron dating on your own, rather than conjuring a secret conspiracy among scientists.
G-D IS A THOUGHT Wow. Are you so fearful that you would attack me even though all I was trying to do is understand. You throw all of this at me and still said nothing. I do have to say one thing. I hope one day to have the faith that you have. On the other hand, I still have love and hope for you and others like you. If you are truly trying to educate people on why their belief is flawed, perhaps next time you could show more compassion and try to impart knowledge rather than putting all of your effort into making your fellow man feel small and ignorant you would find more who were willing to hear you rather than blow you off because of you rude, condescending remarks. I will however, take a look at some of the mentioned data. Thank you for the little bit of info. P.S. God is a father, not a thought.
+Eugene Coutee How did I attack YOU? I just explained something to you. If the facts are rude and condescending, then so be it. Please keep also in mind, that all and ONLY all !!!THOSE!!! G-Ds that we know of, primary examples YHWH without J(the)C, Tri Une G-D WITH J(the)C and Allah, peace be upon him, were created with-IN an already existing physical world. they are thoughts, ideas, concepts, illusions, images ABOUT, namely the unknowable number of unknowable!!!S!!! at the origin of the physical world. IF you detest my Gnostic position which is due to the knowable, and my AGnostic position to the unknowable, as a Scientist, that I am, then you can block me all the time. Kindest regards from GERMANY.
I assume, Eugene, that you have gone to college, studied radio metric dating for several years and gotten an incredibly in depth education as to how the process works?
+Sember12 you do realize it's never as simple as they explain it in television and movies. Scientific processes are extraordinarily complicated in reality. Did you know that something as simple as cell replication involves roughly 700,000, 000,000 chemical reactions? Or that 540 quadrillion (15 zeros) chemical reactions happen in your body every second? I'm a biochemistry major so most of my knowledge relates to that area of science. But I'm sure the actual mechanics of radio metric dating are absurdly more complicated than make the make it seem on television
I heard a smart sounding accent and 'scientist' say something was true, so I believe it. He's a smarty pants. He's a smarty.
@gregrutzdontdont forgot too type in he as a tail like a ceder tree my friend so bible describe a dinosaur pretty will.so dont pick and choice words in the bible that are writing' type in the hole verse next time for everyone too read not just the ones you try too debunk
i like my dog
@roxannemifsud The Bible was writen by men inspired by God. Gods living word they just wrote it. If you told your secretary to type a book that you were speaking to her would you say those were her words or yours?
This guy is my favorite crackhead
@warriorprince1010 that is a blatant lie, radiometric dating is used in many fields of scinece. what the heck are you talking about?
read job chapter 40-verse 15 18.its just one of the proof when it talks about one dinosaur.opps i mean dragons.dinosaur is a new word that was invented in middle 1800s
Go away, I never said I was ceationist or evolutionist, im a realist. We know the calculations, and they are based on an assumption. Its pointless debating people who don't know what they are talking about.
Radioisotope Dating of Rocks: Challenging an Icon of Evolutionary Geology - please google to see the huge problem
There are none, beside made up straw mans from dishonest YEC'ers
@@qurkatimilaz3787 yes because by default non Christians have 0 bias, and would never cherry pick data that supports their ideological beliefs.... That's how people work, All non Christians look at data objectively, Christians make everything up.
czcams.com/video/iGDrq8rikJc/video.html for all the creationists who have questions
Hai me Rinaldis
@coolvideo28 Of course! The Earth was created in six days? Isn't that right? hahaha
I'm going to end the debate as to be honest no one has bothered to quantifiable research before posting here.
the rate if decay for each element is different, including it's isotopes.
If you have six thousand atoms of an element and you wait until it's half life you will have approximately half as many simple as that.
Ignoring this fact is like saying that water (H20) is not wet.
I don't care if there is a higher power or not.
if there is, congrats for being the most undervalued person in existence.
The universe is bigger then we ever thought, if it is about and I stress if.
The religions I see around me are self centered and short sighted, you have a brain, just think for yourself instead of looking in outdated books. maybe you'll see the wonder of his techniques if you stop focusing on 6th century knowledge.
You ended nothing...lmbo
No one has ever seen an atom. All theory
there is no actual evidence for creation. it MAY have happened the way you say it did, but the evidence supports evolution. i am disinclined to believe your assertion that it is true.
if we see it, its not made up... that would, you know, make it... true...
fernando read the comments jjajajajajajajajaja lol.
no it isn't, by pseudoscience maybe, it is stronlgy contradicted by all of proper science
Science is happy with creation? Wow
Solid science? To a creationist probably but to anyone else its just a story.
how many rocks have you dated?
Oh really? I'm pretty sure that lying is considered sinful, even when used to further your creationist agenda.
Sorry about that
Atheist scientists do the exact same thing...
You keep on with assertions but they are empty,where is the peer reviewed evidence to support your claims? You have just ignored the evidence for dating and provided none against.
The rock is 65 million years old because the paleontologist says those fossils were alive in that era. The Palaentologist says the fossils are that old because the geologist says the rock is 65 million years old. There is a lot of interdisciplinary blind faith in science
Stephen King B*ll*cks. 1. The palaeontologist = the geologist.
2. The evidence for relative dating of earth materials using ideas going back to Steno in the 17th C had established the order in which fossils occur (summarised in the geologic column) long before even Darwin. The circular argument you spuriously claim was totally impossible then, since radiometric dating did not exist!
Arthur Holmes demonstrated the principle in the 1910s and, by the 1940s, it was improved and refined enough to give an age for the earth that has remained stable ever since. There are several radiometric "clocks" which allow cross referencing of results.
The evolution of radiometric dating has only added calendar dates confirming what was already known about the order of earth events.
There is much evidence to suggest decay rates have not been constant throughout history, they may even vary due to slight variations in our distance to the sun. In addition there are many ways in which a rock dating can be drastically affected by weathering and unknown initial conditions.
@coolvideo28 Well I'm sorry to break it down for you but the Bible was written by ordinary men and not by God
Wrong
@roxannemifsud You dont take what your God your Creator says lightly. I dont believe what any church or any man says I believe what God says. Gods word is perfect.
Radiometric dating is as inaccurate as the scientists who ASSUME it’s accurately
"Radiometric uses wishful thinking and pseudo science. "
Please explain why you think this.
@coolvideo28 yes theyre lying but the bible doesnt lie or contradict or predict anything wrong does it? earth is 6010 years old, duh!
You are cherry picking the parts that you like which is what a lot of people do and what my christian teacher did when I was younger. There are ugly parts in the bible as well.
The facts are based on evidence, which is unfortunately not what you use for your "facts".
i live in oregon and a ceder tree is huge my friend..u can draw circle on piece of paper anyone can but can u create a planet..no..god loves you man repent too jesus ask him too come into your life.we are getting close too the end times.
Nothing in our solar system is over 4.53 billion yrs? how could would test everything in our solar system? Is the uranium and lead in the mineral that is in the rock perfectly spread in the rock? That would need to be true to get a true number of age right?
"Nothing in our solar system is over 4.53 billion yrs? how could would test everything in our solar system?"
True, we can not, but if we find stuff that is 4.53 billion yrs we know it is at least 4.53 billion yrs old
"Is the uranium and lead in the mineral that is in the rock perfectly spread in the rock? That would need to be true to get a true number of age right?"
Yes, true, that is why you take make several measurements from the same sample.
@@qurkatimilaz3787 goodness, 8 yrs later lol
@@seanbaker1818
Yes, the struggle against YEC is outside space and time
@jesussave1979 because the bible is valid and has loads of evidence to support it...
Part 4) The bottom line is, that dating the particles (material) containing a fossil, dates the age of said particles covering the fossil, and not the date that the fossil itself was formed, and so the date of the death of the animal. If a worldwide flood did take place we would expect to see young fossils embedded in new deposits formed from eroded material taken from older rock: and that is exactly what we find.
Wrong! The Earth is 6000 years old. Just kidding, it's sad that many people think that though.
He assumed there was no lead in the rock from the beginning. He also assumed no lead or uranium leeched away. Well, what do i know😂
God Exists "what do i know" Apparantly, not much.
maxdecphoenix
you cant prove him wrong. scientists date everything by observing one alternative, and that's the alternative that gets them the answer that they want. they never consider what affect the environment could have played on whatever they are dating. this happens every time!
why do people, or i should say scientists, never mention to people that Mt. St Helen's explosion created fossils in no more than 20 years? probably because they want people to think what they want to be true.
bees knees ...because you can date the fossils.. its a rather very simple explanation for an answer that seems consistent across the board.. in this case, there's nothing pointing to this not being true.. other than old relics and texts which shouldn't persuade scientific research.
KubiqFeet how do you know that the date of the fossil is actually correct? do scientists have something that assures that they are correct, just like they are able to use people to see if their new medicine actually works against a certain virus?
hahahahaha thats the part they always forget to mention lol lol !!! They dont, we can only assume.
Brahma kumaris
People race sheep these days? Or is that just an analogy?