What is Radiocarbon Dating and is it reliable? - Dr. Andrew Snelling (Conf Lecture)
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 02. 2019
- If you like this lecture from the 2017 IGH Conference, you can get it and over 70 more at: isgenesishistory.com/conference/
Dr. Snelling completed a BS in applied geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first-class honors in 1975. His PhD in geology was awarded in 1982 by The University of Sydney for his research thesis titled “A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.”
Dr. Snelling worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, variously as a field, mine, and research geologist. For over ten years, Dr. Snelling was a research consultant to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization for an international collaborative research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy which involved university and government research scientists from the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Sweden, Austria and Belgium. He is currently Director of Research for Answers in Genesis.
For more information on Dr. Snelling, please go to bit.ly/2zIzOFZ.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
🦕 Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
🍃 Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
🌌 Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
Literally proved that the earth is only thousands of years old, but crickets from mainstream, not like it's a surprise.
This really makes those who love their Sin Mad!
I'M MADDDD
@@paulgarrett4474 yes. And therefore a faulty calibration needs to be adjusted to propper science.
that's why we get a lot of atheists grumbling in here.
Thank you for making this content available! We need more!
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 anybody was around to take the measurement? I must also point out that the D0 in this equation is not a product of the equation but a requirement of the equation. Without it, it won’t work.
When testing modern rocks; rocks whose 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. Making the assumption that there are no daughter isotopes at formation for older samples is not supported by the modern evidence. 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.
Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable daughter isotopes being zero at solidification. If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith.
I must also point out the isochron methods may be able to show when a sample has been contaminated over time but does not address the underlying problem described above. It simply uses the same erroneous numbers derived with the same error in logic.
I have to copy and paste all of this and post it in the comment section of an evolutionist video. It is a must
@@gatolf2 same
this is their faith tool "D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition," keyword original composition. Wonder how that is determined ? faith/assumptions
@@TKO67
This also applies to their evolution myth.
“But what about all of the fossils are they not empirical evidence for evolution?” .... Talk about the belief in something with no proof……..
Believe it or not the very basis of the evolutionary theory is supported by nothing but assumptions and the use of the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Evolution teaches that all life evolved from a common source....(AKA abiogenesis). For that to be a fact with the massive amount of life forms observed, that first life must have diverged from one Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, to another Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
In order for all forms of life to have come from just one common ancestor it would require that this one source of life diverge, crossing all classification lines, even the big ones.
We have observed and recorded life adapting to changing environmental conditions producing slight variations on the Species level. Some even refusing to or incapable of interbreeding again. But never has anybody ever recorded a change at or above the Family or Genus level. To say that it is a fact and that this has actually happened is disingenuous...It is nothing but a speculation not an observable scientific fact. It is an assumption required to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor and nothing more. To farther compound the problem evolution theory itself says that these larger inter Family or inter Phylum changes would require millions of years and millions of generations to take place and so could never be observed to begin with. In fact even after years of forced mutation on viruses and fruit flies the only changes observed have been extremely slight, nothing that could be construed as Evolution beyond Species or Genus.
The branches of the "Tree Of Life" and the names that have been given presented by academia indicating the ancestors of one organism transforming into another are unseen speculations invented by man to help organize and classify individual life forms and nothing more. The cross phylum transitions presented within the "Tree Of Life" charts are speculations, not observed facts.
POINTING TO THE REMAINS OF AN ORGANISM BURIED UNDER LAYERS OF SEDIMENTARY STRATA AND PROCLAIMING THAT IT IS THE PROGENY OF ANOTHER DIFFERENT ORGANISM BERRIED FARTHER DOWN IN ANOTHER LAYER OF STRATA IS CALLED AN ASSUMPTION. NOT A FACT.
The descendancy proposed between different fossils is in itself nothing but an assumption.......Let’s look at an example.
Evolutionary proponents find the fossilized remains of an animal in a layer of strata, (let's call it animal "A") then they find the fossilized remains of another animal in another layer of strata (let's call this one animal "B"). It is clear to even a fifth grader that "A" and "B" are not of the same species, genus or even family. But to support evolutionary theory that all life came from a common source it is speculated that "A" is a descendant of" "B. Then the proponents of evolutionary theory use this speculated assumption of descendancy as the very basis of their entire theological construct. And will even go so far as to use this assumed descendancy as a proof for that very assumed descendancy.
You can't use your assumption as a proof for your assumption. This would be called a fallacy; the fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question. But for some reason those in scientific circles have no problem ignoring this obvious fallacy.
It is clear that there are vast evolutionary variations within groups (AKA groups like...Canines, Felines, Bovines, Malacostraca, Cephalopods... ) and there is ample evidences for this very limited part of the evolutionary theory. But the only thing connecting these vastly different groups as well as the fossils of "A" to "B" as in the example given above is their assumptions..... There is no observed descendancy between these groups, no DNA to test in the case of extinct examples, just a bias assumption required to support their narrative that all life diverged from a common ancestor. When asked to give evidence for the myriad of cross genus and cross family events that they say took place the only evidence they ever give are examples of the variations within their respective groups or their own unobserved speculated assumptions of cross family descendancy.
So ...Is evolution (all life evolving from a single common source) a settled scientific fact based on verifiable observable evidences or a belief in their unobserved assumptions of descendancy?
If cross taxon events have indeed taken place then please show us one that has been observed.
I have never met anybody with more believe in the unseen then an atheist/evolutionist.
To criticize a Christian for his belief in the unseen but completely ignoring the same committed by atheist/evolutionists is simply inexcusable.
@@ramptonarsecandle Just answer the question and showcase your knowledge.
Thank you for posting this video
Great presentation! Will confirm the information.
What did you find Brian?
Interesting info!
Dr Snelling, Concerniig the argument about 14N being converted to 14C, I once looked into the amount of energy required in the upper atmosphere necessary for creating 14C. I compared the amount of energy available from high energy particles from the sun, to the energy produces by alpha and beta decays of radioactive elements. What I found was that neither the alpha decay or the beta decay produced enough energy to convert a local 14N to a 14C. If I remember correctly, it wasn't even close. Being 73 years old, I no longer know where my work is. I thought I would suggest this as a defense against the spurious 14N->14C argument. If there is not enough energy, then no matter how much radioactive material is nearby, then no 14N can be changed to 14C ever.
If you find those notes or redo your calculations and they turn out to be correct, your will be world famous and probably on the spot, be offered a professor position at any university of your choice.
@@millantronni3242 It really is simple math. Being 74 now, I am a bit old to start a new career. Why don't you give it a shot? Throw me a bone by giving me an attribute.
@@brocope9200
Naa, if I would do other decisions in my life it would to become to be world leading scientist on solar panels (and of course of batteries as well)
Hopefully the recent bombshell discoveries of dinosaur soft tissues will blow the lid off the huge problems with radiocarbon dating (or at least dramatically alter the accepted ‘scientific’ time tables).
They have also found red blood cells in dinosaur bones
The problem is atheist dont want to accept evidence that contradicts their views
It wasn't a recent discovery, and it wasn't soft tissue as in recognisable flesh, its fossilised material that was preserved in a specific setting that preserved very fine structures such as fibres and cells.
@@bobdylan3550
" They have also found red blood cells in dinosaur bones "
Give a source for that, you can not use Mary's, becaosue she never claimed that she found red blood cells, only things that reminded of them
@@bobdylan3550
" The problem is atheist dont want to accept evidence that contradicts their views "
Which evidence is not accepted?
Can you imagine the pressure of trillions of tons of water on the surface of the earth flattening things out...with all that pressure comes heat and that definitely changes the structures of things.
There is zero evidence that the scientific consensus acknowledges in support of a global flood within the last 10,000 years. If it had occurred, it would be incredibly obvious in surficial geology yet only YEC argue for it, geologically speaking.
@AVoice InTheWilderness As I stated previously, if there was a global flood within the last 10,000 years, the amount of evidence would be overwhelming and geologists would be in consensus agreement that it occurred. This evidence simply doesn't exist. Sedimentary fossil-containing rocks do occur on high himilayan peaks as you mentioned. The provenance of these units is completely owed to tectonic upheaval as the Indian subcontinent collided with Asia. Geologists have proven that plate tectonics occur with simple rtk-GPS measurements. This is not disputed. Regarding the grand canyon, I'm curious: if you think it was caused by a global flood, why are there not grand canyons covering the terrestrial surface of the earth?
@AVoice InTheWilderness Actually, science is a formulaic method for approaching problems and using data to back up or disprove hypotheses. Every single tested dating technique that we have (Radiometric, K-Ar, Uranium-Lead, Dendrochronological, Varve to name some) has indicated, and withe very strong agreement, that the Earth is old. Could you please name one dating technique which indicates a young earth?
@@lisletenderfoot9216 hey could know some objections? Or, are any of them based on the dating method?
God bless
@@sathviksidd Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question..
Gotta love the Aussie accent…. Evil-utionary theory
My understanding is that they have tested tissue from dinosaur bones and have detected c14 that would roughly agree with the dates in other assumed Radiocarbon dead samples.
Perhaps the variation of solar wind can alter the C-14 production rate in the atmosphere?
It can and its been documented. Some years its far less than the observed average which might give an older date, other years its far more than average and might give a far younger date. This is whupy cross confirmation with other methods are used to calibrate findings.
He does say that the earth magnetic field was way stronger
@@junkerjorg6310
Yes, but he claims that the magnetic field was 200 times stronger, this should be measurable and it is not.
One reason we know the production (and the magnetic filed have vary up and down over time) of C14 is different is that some of the muons reach the surface and create various isotopes, like beryllium isotopes, in the soil and these can be measured and detect the variation of the C14 over time.
(this also shatter the YEC idea of equilibrium argument with the barrel with holes that is refilled constantly)
44:30 - calibrating carbon 14 dates to known dates in biblical history, and creating a recalibration curve that stretches back from the Exodus back to Noah… this is what I want! Didn’t know this research hasn’t been complete yet. Was really hoping for answers! Like I wanna know, if for example Gobekli Tepe is carbon dated to 9000-ish BC, then I want to know where it should truly be placed on the dating curve according to biblical timeline. Where can I find the most up to date research on that?
the heathen army, in England in the 1980's they found 300 Viking skeletons that were carbon dated at 600-700 AD, but they were wrong because they had discovered coins, they were buried with that were only minted from 865-871 and the Vikings diet was all fish that have less c-14 so they were more than 100 years off. So, we can believe everything scientist tell us or not. There's other things not just seafood that can cause c-14 to give inaccurate readings They believe the pyramids were built 200 years before the biblical flood but the sediment its built on is believed to be post flood. And they also believe that the Egyptian timeline is inflated so I'm not betting my soul on their calculations.
Roughly, anything under 40,000 is post flood. From 5-10,000 is within the first millennium post flood. Almost nothing gets reported in between these, but that would be in the first few decades or low centuries post flood, most likely
More info at Doesnt Carbon 14 Dating Disprove the Bible on answers in Genesis
Amen
Let's examine the evolutionist magic wand, time. Decay constant and half-life values e.g. Carbon 14 with a half-life of 5730 ± 30 years
. For the decay constant and half-life to be realistic, one must have an observed data for a period ≥ half-life. But in laboratory, observational period is
Yes we know, science has to be proved wrong or your myths won't work.
the half-life is measured by measuring the actual decay , which is accompanied by emission of electrons. by computing the number of electrons emitted by a sample of known mass over a given time period a very accurate measure of the decay rate can be made. very simple. it does not require waiting for a half life. there is no evidence that half lives of nuclides is changing or has changed over time.
@@eniszita7353 exactly, because they have not changed, suggesting they may have in an attempt to invalidate radiometric dating is on par with the "scientist" in another one of these videos who suggests the speed of light can also change when required to explain the reasons that we can see stars that are massively further away than the 6000 light years possible in the young earth narrative.
"Decay constant and half-life being in the core of evolutionary views made evolution far from reality."
Radio metric methods have nothing to do with biological evolution, where do you get your crap from?
@@ats-3693 I love hearing people who probably check their oil with their car running argue marxist science propaganda.
34:33 - 34:40 no sound
The Dead Sea Scrolls had the Great Isaiah Scroll, which revealed that the Jewish scholars had altered the prophecies in the Mazaretic text. The Septuagint was copied from earlier copies of the Mazaretic text, so the Septuagint is a better basis for translation. By examining the thousands of ancient papyri and parchment scrolls and codex manuscripts, the stability of the KJV Biblical text has been established with great confidence.
can a carbon 14 inside a diamond be trapped forever (i.e. will not ever be decay)?
At 4:21 and 5:08 and 6:08 and 7:10 is what makes carbon dating worthless. "Assumptions"😮
How can they say Aboriginal people have been in Australia for 80000 years?
They don't say that, Aboriginal people have lived in Australia for around 50,000 years, this is known by age dating of relics found in caves they lived in.
@@ats-3693 How did they date the relics found in those caves?
If we are so many millions of years old...how is there any carbon 14 left?
And THAT is the problem right there. Your question shows the ignorance at play here.
As for the Egyptian timeline, I suggest finding and watching "Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus" to hear a theory of how the archaeological evidence of semitic fossils actually suggests a different timeline.
Egypt came after the flood
@@TKO67 yes I know, what's your point please?
@@BobSmith-ew5oi I made no comment about the flood or about how old the earth is. Thanks anway.
@@a.k.7840
"I made no comment about the flood or about how old the earth is. Thanks anway."
True, but if yo urefer to "Patterns of Evidence EXODUS with film maker Tim Mahoney and David Rohl - Part 1 - The Journey"
You are talking about a literally interpretation of the bible because there are absolutely no archaeology or historical evidence that the exodus took place and this include a world wide flood.
@@millantronni3242 did you watch the whole two hour documentary? If you did and you still think there's zero evidence then you're in denial. Additionally, the Bible is a collection of writings of different literal genres. It has poetry, philosophy, history, eye witness accounts, etc. So when you say, "You are talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible..." you come off as not knowing much about the Bible. In the end, the evidence is there, but if you choose not to see it, you won't.
I propose the Nobel prize for physics goes to Dr Andrew Snelling for his wonderful research. Proving what others in his field could not prove thus increasing the knowledge available to all. I wonder why he has never been proposed before?
Calibrating tree rings to c14 to confirm c14. Only a scientist would see that as good science lol
Both of these comments are strange.
" Calibrating tree rings to c14 to confirm c14. Only a scientist would see that as good science lol "
But no one do that, it is strawman
If you watch it again, he is talking about matching a newly found sample against an existing curve to see where it match.
The curve already exists and have not been obtained by the process of "matching samples"
He let your own fantasy to fill out the gaps and it is presented as if the curve is created by matching.
Sad science has to lie.
Why would science lie??
@@josephscala6707 to uphold their fantasies about evolution. Any scientiat varying from that consensus is subject to rejection.
@@bettyanneellis8197 Why would scientists fantasize about evolution?
@@bettyanneellis8197 why would scientists do that? Science isn't like religion nobody in science cares if a discovery is made that proves past theories wrong, that is the actual way science works, if it was locked in stone then it would never progress, knowledge is accumulated the errors are corrected by continued research and testing of ideas. The only people that lie to protect their precious story are religious people, like this guy in the video, he is deliberately twisting the truth and misleading his audience to try make reality fit into a fictitious narrative.
@@ats-3693 the second part of your comment contradicts the first part of your comment
This is really bad, not up on even science in the last 40 years. Of course RC needs calibration. We have known that for decades. That's why the rates are cross check with tree rings and ice cores and we have exact numbers for at least the last 13,000 years. Please, please update your science
Lol...except the ice cores have long been thought to be annual rings, and they are periods of warm/cold. And nobody knows what Temps were 5k years ago, 1000 years ago, 300 years ago. And there are years when trees produce more than one ring.
THEY WONT LET SNIFFY USE AIR FORCE ONE ,WAKIE WAKIE TIME 😂 😂
Dating our past and the age of strata is built on assumptions only. We have no reliable dating method besides the C-14 method. Geologists are history forgers. Their theory and timeline of Earth's history is nothing more than a consensus that emerged over 150 years ago. This is based on asteroid impacts and volcano eruptions and a constant erosion and growth of the soil, which would have resulted in the clearly visible horizontal earth layers. At the same time, an older theory, the catastrophe theory, was radically rejected. The combination of this geological timeline and the rejection of the catastrophe theory creates a false picture of the real events on our planet. One asteroid impact every 66 million years really isn't the worst thing to happen to Earth. Because of this, we cannot understand anything about older civilizations. So this false timeline and denial has repercussions in other fields. The catastrophe theory is based on a recurring natural disaster, characterized by a huge tidal wave, in which many living things perish and even become extinct. The evidence for this is the finding of fossils of land and marine animals in the same stratum, but also in the stratum below and on top of it. The French naturalist Georges Cuvier established this as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Ancient books such as the Zend Avesta and the Visuddhimagga tell that our planet faces a cycle of seven natural disasters. A cycle never ends. The only possible cause for an infinite cycle of disasters is a celestial body coming close to the sun and its planets at long intervals. The American geologist Ignatius Donnelly came to this conclusion in 1883. According to NASA, it is 99% certain that there is a ninth planet in our solar system. Called invisible, the planet is surrounded by a gigantic cloud of dust and asteroids and is therefore not recognized as a planet by astronomers. That ninth planet has a well-known symbol and was seen and depicted from Earth shortly before the start of our era. Abundant and convincing evidence is shown in the e-book "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It is beautiful to read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
This is utter nonsense . This is not science . This is religion .
Its the same science a liberal professor will present. He's just pointing out all the inaccuracies. Do any of you know how to do anything other than read a book and play video games? You anti religious people follow the pagan religion without even knowing your doing it. Go look up the dark trinity and see what applies.
Another blatant lie Snelling tells is C14 dating assumes the C14/C12 ratio in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today. This is false. Science knows the C14/C12 ratio has varied in the past which is the whole reason C14 calibration is done in the first place. Watching a supposed Christian like Snelling lie so openly to his fellow Christians is sickening.
Andy Sist so he speaks for an hour and this is the only issue you have?? He’s looked at the literature. Why don’t you address the diamond dating discrepancy?? Someone is really off. 1.3b vs. 60k both can’t be right so correct his claim.
The C14/C12 ratio is based on pre 1940s to account (remove) for the contamination due to nuclear testing. However, as we have verified the earths magnetic field is decaying and it is erroneous to say the ratio has remained constant in the past, so radiocarbon dating anything is based on assumptions about the C14/C12 ratio.
Furthermore, in 1952, when Willard Libby proposed the radiocarbon dating technique, he called attention to the critical assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been constant. He tested that assumption by making various measurements and calculating how rapidly carbon-14 was forming and decaying. Surprisingly, he saw that carbon-14 was entering the atmosphere faster than it was decaying. That meant there was much less atmospheric carbon-14 in the past. If we did not know that, we would incorrectly conclude that the lack of carbon-14 in dead animals and plants was because much time had passed and the carbon-14 had decayed.
• Libby believed that his measurements were in error, because he thought the earth was so old that a balance between formation and decay must exist. (He did not know that carbon-14 is a decay product from inside the crust and is steadily leaking into the atmosphere.) He wrote:
• If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle. Willard F. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 8.
• In 1986, Libby’s measurements were repeated with even greater accuracy. These results show that the out-of-balance condition has always been much greater than Libby believed. Even today, radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. This means that the farther one looks back in time, the greater the out-of-balance condition would have been-until the time of the flood. Changes in the atmosphere’s carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio, from 3,500 years ago to the Industrial Revolution, have been very small, because the biosphere has so much carbon-12. [See Melvin A. Cook, “Nonequilibrium Radiocarbon Dating Substantiated,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), pp. 59-68.] This is what we would expect as a result of the flood.
• u “It now appears that the C14 decay rate ... is about 30 percent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere.” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 83.
Therefore, the question you should be asking yourself why hasn't the C14 ratio reached equilibrium if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
@@totalityofscripture1001 Snelling blatantly lies about the very basics of C14 dating and all you can do is whine? Quit being so willfully ignorant are read up on how actual C14 dating calibration is done, and why. As for the "diamond" claim, Snelling is lying by omission when he fails to tell you only a handful of diamonds located next to radioactive uranium sources show excess C14, exactly as you'd expect. 99.9% of all coal and coal products show NO additional C14 above the expected background level. According to Snelling's BS ALL "Flood" coal should show high levels of C14.
Andy Do you feel like losing a debate, I can help you with that :)
@@georgebond7777 "we have verified the earths magnetic field is decaying" The assertion is that it has been decaying exponentially and that is NONSENSE. The earths magnetic field has been shown to be fluctuating up and down for thousands of years including times when the polarity has reversed. We can tell the polarity has flipped by measuring the direction of the magnetism in the magma as it has slowly moved outward from the mid-oceanic ridges. The evidence for fluctuations and reversals of the magnetic field is quite solid. V. Bucha, a Czech geophysicist, has used archaeological artifacts made of baked clay to determine the strength of the earth's magnetic field when they were manufactured. He found that the earth's magnetic field was 1.5 times as strong as today around 1 AD, 1.6 times as strong around 400 BC, 0.8 times as strong around 2000 BC, and only 0.5 times as strong around 4000 BC. So if anything the carbon dating would make things look younger, not older 4k years ago.