Why Radioactive Dating CANNOT Be Trusted
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 07. 2023
- Discover why radioactive dating is not trustworthy. In this presentation by Dr. Andrew Snelling, you’ll learn about a number of problems with radioactive dating methods which make them unreliable and misleading.
See more presentations from Dr. Andrew Snelling: www.Answers.tv/geology-with-d...
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our CZcams channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give
I went on a few radioactive dates years ago, but the LORD had mercy on me and sent my husband. Seriously, though, I love this channel. Thank you for presenting these wonderful experts.
Great pun, and a happy ending.
You must surely be content.
Kudos, and blessings to you and your family.
Lolol
😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You were smart, I wasn't. I married a couple of those radioactive dates! 😵💫😱😰
@@cavedmanjim249 Here's one
Adam and Eve were sitting by the fire one night, Eve was feeling particularly romantic. She fluttered her baby blues (or brown, or green...) and asked "Adam, do you love me?"
Adam shrugged his shoulders and asked, "Who else"? 🤣🤣🤣
Scientists are like meteorologists. They can predict and be wrong and still keep their jobs.
Since some scientists can be very wrong and still keep their jobs, it would be worth finding out how bad a meteorologist has to be before they are fired for being wrong.
Funny how preachers can be wrong all the time and never lose their jobs! Paula White, Kenneth Copeland etc.
@@stevepierce6467agreed it's pretty hilarious. It's hilarious how wrong and obnoxious they can be just dismissing things by saying you weren't there to see it. Idk, ig like horses and carriages weren't real before cars because I didn't see it and all the works of literature that exist could have been tampered with to keep the existence of some crazy technology that (god) gave us but took back away because we humans sin🥲.
@@stevepierce6467 Yes, that is the exact same problem. So, since you can recognize it... will you start helping to solve the problem on both sides or just go after only the one?
@@CD-vb9fi I am not sure what you are asking.
It's great to add this saint verse because it fit perfectly in ehat he just said:
Job38: 4Where were you when I established the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who fixed its dimensions? Certainly you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 What supports its foundations?
Or who laid its cornerstone
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Thank you for this quotation from Job. I love God's wisdom and truth ❤
@@suzieaguilar397 it's my love in OUR LORD YAHSHUA HAMASHIAC to feed God's children... Be blessed my loved sister and I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOU SISTER IN GOD'S WISDOM AND TRUTH ARE POTENTIALLY AMAZING I REJOICE IN HIS WORDS THAT ARE FOUNT OF LIVING WATERS
@@jeffgarces3187 ❤️ 😊 ❤️
Nice. But who are "all the sons of God"?
@@mitchellminer9597 read the Holy scriptures and you will find out....
Back in the early 1990's I read several academic papers on paleontological discoveries that basically said, right in the study, (paraphrasing) We had the rocks radio-carbon dated and the result was an age of between X and Y hundred thousand years ago, but when comparing these fossils with fossils in strata above and below, we realized that that dating must be incorrect, so we sent samples out to a different lab, and got different results which ere more inline with what we expected, so they must be the correct figures.
I saw papers where samples had been sent to up to 10 labs for analysis before the researchers got 'acceptable' results.
That is NOT science.
you never saw any such thing.
@ne I Call Upon an Ancient Clan Arias Rite! Trial by Combat! (Clan Arias expanded and became the Great Clan Ross, which than got reduced to Clan Ross which is all the Gentry of the Great Clan Ross)
No you didn't. In fact there are several accounts of different digs coming up either older or younger than expected and the scientist having to completely challenge what they thought they knew. Scientist love to be wrong, and love proving each other wrong more than anything.
@@andrewsheek No. Government funded scientists are paid to have predetermined outcomes. This is obvious
@@andrewsheek Not when their funding's on the line they don't. It was proven decades ago that carbs are the worst kind of food, yet most "scientists" and "doctors" recommend sticking to the Food Pyramid. That is not the only example.
"Scientists" are people and do people things, like lying when it's convenient.
As a student of geology I always had my questions about isotopic dating. So I ended up calling myself an unconventional geologist! Nice presentation 👏
How old is the earth?
@@CaptainFantastic222 must we ask, let alone answer, this question!
My dad was a geologist, and he also had questions... and a few answers, too. For example, K-Ar dating, used to date skeletal remains, among other things, IS contaminated by nearby volcanic eruptions. Like, oh, the dates for "Lucy." Kiimanjaro is close, so the age is at BEST a maximum probable age. Volcanoes emit argon.
How did you get into geology?
@@CaptainFantastic222 4.5 billion years
Dating methods used by scientists to determine the age of objects can be broadly categorized into two main types: relative dating methods and absolute dating methods. Relative dating methods provide the age of an object relative to another, while absolute dating methods provide a numerical age estimation. Here's a comprehensive list of some common dating methods:
Relative Dating Methods:
1. Stratigraphy: Examining the layering of sedimentary rocks or archaeological remains to determine their relative age based on their position in the sequence.
2. Law of Superposition: A principle stating that in undisturbed rock layers, the oldest rocks are at the bottom, and the youngest are at the top.
3. Seriation: Arranging objects or events in chronological order based on changes in style or design over time.
4. Cross-cutting relationships: Analyzing features like faults or intrusions that cut across rock layers to determine their relative ages.
5. Fluorine dating: Comparing the accumulation of fluorine in bones or fossils to determine relative age, assuming that older materials contain more fluorine.
6. Biostratigraphy: Correlating and dating rock layers based on the fossils found within them, using the known age ranges of specific fossil species.
7. Palynology: Studying and dating ancient environments based on the analysis of pollen and spores preserved in sediments.
8. Tephrochronology: Dating volcanic ash layers (tephra) by matching their unique chemical compositions to known volcanic events.
Absolute Dating Methods:
1. Radiometric dating: Using the decay of radioactive isotopes in minerals to determine the absolute age of rocks and fossils. Common radiometric dating methods include:
- Carbon-14 dating (for organic materials up to about 50,000 years old).
- Potassium-argon dating (for volcanic rocks and minerals).
- Uranium-lead dating (for rocks and minerals containing uranium and lead isotopes).
- Rubidium-strontium dating.
- Samarium-neodymium dating.
- Argon-argon dating.
2. Dendrochronology: Analyzing tree-ring patterns to establish the age of wooden objects or to reconstruct past environmental conditions.
3. Varve chronology: Counting annual layers of sediment in glacial lake deposits to determine the age of the sediments and associated events.
4. Thermoluminescence dating: Measuring the accumulated radiation dose in certain minerals to estimate the time since they were last heated or exposed to sunlight.
5. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating: Determining the time since sediment grains were last exposed to sunlight using light-sensitive traps in minerals.
6. Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating: Dating materials that have been exposed to natural radiation, such as tooth enamel and some carbonate deposits.
7. Fission track dating: Determining the age of volcanic glass and other materials by counting the tracks created by spontaneous fission of uranium.
8. Amino acid dating: Dating organic materials like bones by measuring the racemization of amino acids.
It's important to note that the choice of dating method depends on the type of material being dated and the age range of interest. Different methods have varying degrees of accuracy and applicability, and often multiple dating techniques are used in combination to cross-validate results.
well that is very informative but they are all very contraversial..... especially with millions and billions of years ago
exaple the assumed assertion is rather ridiculous.....
I am deeply moved, for example, when I observe through my Meade eight-inch reflecting telescope in my backyard the fuzzy little patch of light that is the Andromeda galaxy. It is not just because it is lovely, but bc I also understand that the photons of light landing on my retina left Andromeda 2.9mya, when our ancestors were tiny-brained hominids roaming the plains of Africa....Donald Prothero, fossils
@@raysalmon6566 @raysalmon6566, it doesn't even matter if the dates are off by some millions of years because it still proves that the Earth is over 6000 years old, rendering their argument pointless. Disproving radiometric dating does not disprove the entirety of evolution, mutation, and even biology. Sure, it may raise some questions, but it doesn't invalidate the entire concept.
However, radiometric dating is just one of many dating methods used in science. Even if there were some uncertainties or issues with radiometric dating (which have been extensively addressed and refined by scientists), it would not undermine the vast body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory and the principles of biology.
Evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including genetics, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and observations of natural selection in action. These diverse pieces of evidence converge to paint a coherent and well-substantiated picture of the process of evolution. Thus, challenging one dating method does not diminish the robustness of evolutionary theory or the scientific foundation of biology.
@@bossxaustin Why bother. The bible and AiG say and that's good enough for them. Atheist scientists be lying! Nobody who gives the time of a day to a "were you there" huckster is going to be persuaded by evidence.
@@bossxaustin Yes, they are 'only' off by millions of years, but it is more accurate to say that they were estimated the rock to be more than 200000 times older than it's actual age if you want to apply it to older rocks. you can study the half lives of atoms if you want to understand why, or I will gladly explain it to you if you don't have the time to do the research(it is a reasonably long explanation).
@@bossxaustin Also, did you miss the part where they managed to date the diamonds to be older than the earth almost 2 billion years older than the earth?
I hope someone is keeping precise and accurate track of the decay rates through time now (say from the 1950's onward). Because it would be fascinating to see if the decay rates change even the smallest amount over time. And if they're not lying about it staying precisely the same.
I had someone online claiming to be an expert tell me that #1: They are keeping track of this. And #2: That the decay rates are exactly the same as back in the 1950's. But I have NEVER seen an actual chart or measurement of this. I've seen zero data. So I am very very curious -- but it seems like the scientific establishment just assumes or doesn't care to reveal any real data to the public. Which makes me suspect in the first place. It's very hard to even trust our academic institutions anymore since they've essentially been hijacked by ideologues.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 Thank you, I didn't know the ARJ even existed. I looked up a few articles on there just now, and while the claims and logic seem pretty solid, I still do not see any discernible data anywhere. Dr. Snelling says that it looks as though the decay rates might be decreasing. But again, there is no data to look at. I know this probably requires deep searching on my part, which can't really be done on CZcams. But I thank you for pointing me to ARJ. I still want to see concrete, reliable data 🙂
@@222ableVeloyou must not have read the actual article. He explains in great detail his experiments. That is what ARJ us all about. For people who want the more "sciencey" responses. Take a detailed look into it and scroll through their search tools. You'll find it.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 Could you link me the article you are describing then? I havn't looked through all of them of course, but I've looked through a few of them, and do not see any data. I'm not saying this to demean anyone. I just quite simply havn't found it.
@@222ableVelo Don’t go to ARJ for concrete, reliable data. Go to a peer reviewed journal or study
@@ji8044I just sent the link. If you don't get it, let me know. Sometimes links will go through on CZcams and sometimes they will not.
It is my experience that in most fields of learning, we don't know as much as experts in those fields would have us believe.
The more applicable comment here is "we don't know as much as experts."
The fossil fuel industry regularly uses radiometric dating successfully as part of Basin Modelling to find good quality resources before they start drilling. Snelling is lying to you.
He himself has used put his name to papers using radiometric dating in his PhD on uranium extraction, of use to the mining industry in Australia. Maybe flapping his lips here pays better. Who knows?
But yes, he's misrepresenting the science, for money.
@@jonathanrussell1140That does not prove accuracy of actual dating, it proves oil is found under certain false parameters.
@@lahaina4791yeah, right. Did you bother to check it out or did you just flap your hands at your keypad like Snelling is flapping his lips here? The company that didn't use basin modelling went bust.
If toxic people are already an issue, I can just imagine how bad radioactive dating could get 😅
I think I went on one of those dates.
I'll give a couple more for my brethren: 😇
1. Gravity doesn't actually exist as the earth has a north pole, a south pole, and magnetic fields... just like a magnet. Also an aircraft that goes missing in the Bermuda triangle is caused by magnetic storms.
2. Abiogenesis theory lacks initial causation and biogenesis is an absolute fact as babies are born daily in hospitals around the world.
3. Time dilation theory is impossible because time is intangible and relevant throughout the universe. Also the magnetic fields of the earth interfered with the experiment and I already stated that gravity doesn't actually exist.
4. The quantum realm doesn't actually exist as there's only one observable realm and this reality is all relevant, meaning all quantum theories are unreliable to begin with as these theories are ultimately biased opinions that are not based in facts.
5. Random, happenstance, spontaneous means "I don't know the initial cause for the mechanics of these cyclic processes I'm observing in nature, so it's random/happenstance/spontaneous."
6. There is only one known habitable planet with life in the entire universe. (Can you guess what it is?) Hint: 🌎
7. Dinosaur fossils are a hoax, made of various materials like clay, plaster, and even chicken bones like the dinosaur fossils found in China. Museums never allow the public to experiment or even observe the actual fake dino fossils "in the basement" of the museum to validify for themselves.... they say to preserve and not damage it, but that's obviously a lie. Dinosaurs only exist in the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World movies.
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 what the actual heck
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 unless I'm mistaken, is gravity generated by the rotation of the earth? If the earth stopped spinning, wouldn't we lose gravity?
@@joshuasepeda3289 No. 😇
Brilliant presentation! Difficult concepts were well illustrated. Thank you!
Here the answer to the 3 "assumptions"
1. 'All daughter atoms derived from parent atoms'
2. 'No other process has affected the parent daughter relationship'
These can both be answered similarly so I'll address them at the same time.
Scientist are well aware of the different types of contaminations & the correct procedures to alleviate them
point 1 specifically addressed pre-existing daughter atoms so lets address that one. It is possible for daughter atoms to be found in new rock formations depending on the type of mineral. This can come in form of Inherited Daughter Atoms or Incomplete Resetting. There's multiple ways to account for when this happens such as cross-checking with different types of radiometric datings, stratigraphic dating, or paleontological dating.
As to point 2 since it's not very specific, here's a list of methodologies that be be cross-referenced to different forms of radiometric datings. Dendrochronology, Varve Chronology, Optically Stimulated Luminescence, Electron Spin Resonance,Uranium Series Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Thermoluminescence Dating.
3. Constant decay rates.
Yes, decay rates are constant & we have no reason to believe otherwise. We have tried almost everything to increase decay rates & failed to notably increase its rate. It would stand to reason that if we can't force decay rates to increase why would we expect a natural event to increase it globally? Not only that but when atoms decay they release a small amount of energy (hence nuclear energy). When you spread this energy over a couple billion years, it creates negligible affects. But if you were to compress that energy decay into a 6000 years (or 1 year if you subscribe to AiG claiming it happened during the flood) That's 2.8*10^25 J of energy per year for the last 6000 years, or 1.68*10^30 J of energy for a single year of Noah's flood. This is the equivalents of dropping over 1,000,000 H bombs per square mile. So again there's no natural process to increase decay rates & if you did in the time scale asserted by creationist, there would be too much heat for life to survive.
Points 1 and 2 summary:
"We compare it to OTHER things we've extrapolated and assume we're correct about."
Point 3: We just assume it's always been this way.
@@DeadlyPlatypus Way to completely miss-summarize my points. First off, you can't just dismiss all methods used to determine dating without reason. 2nd, If other methods are all just assumptions then why are we able to use them consistently to compare different ages of different rocks? If they didn't work, then cross-comparing them wouldn't work at all.
I summarized my 3rd point at the end of my original comment so I don't know how you messed up summing that up. Arguing decay rates were faster in the past is about as logical as arguing gravity was stronger in the past. There's no evidence suggesting that that was the case & we have no reason to conclude it was so. Also like I pointed out in the original comment, you cannot cram the 4.5 billion years of decay some atoms posses into 6000 years without turning the planet into a giant molten ball.
I find it ironic you dismissively call any science you don't like assumptions, but when you try to fill in that science, you take a book of allegory & assume it can be used to explain the natural world we observe. You can't explain decay rates ages so you assume they can change inconstantly, you want everything to derive from Noah ark but can't explain the huge amount of bio diversity without evolution so you assume kinds, you can't explain plate tectonics, rock layers, etc. so you assume the flood did it. I can go on, but these are actual hypothesis that your group has that has no actual basis of proof backing it up these claims.
Learn how to be objective & intellectually honest.
@@tone9358 lol. Nothing you said was really a response to what I said. It was a response to what you imagined I said.
Learn how to read and respond in good-faith.
@@DeadlyPlatypus you miss characterized my points so I clarified & explained why your summaries of my points aren’t valid. You have yet to actually address anything other than claim it doesn’t work or it’s an assumption, without saying why or how.
I'm taking an Egyptian archeology class this semester and oh boy is it fun to know this. An interesting thing about Egyptian archeology is that a lot of the stuff looks very similar or doesent change much so its even harder to pinpoint where things happened.
It's also been discovered that measuring isotopes to find out when someone was buried is completely because different foods making up their bones store different levels of isotopes.
Very interesting stuff! But they still use it as a reliable dating method 😐
You are correct as sea turtles have been dated as millions of years old.
Psalm 1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither-
whatever they do prospers.
4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.
Thousands of years ago God created us all with love for us😂
What do you think, how big of an error does the different food intake create?
Do you think that, people who study it don’t take that into consideration?
Would a technology based on radiometric dating, with which, it was possible to find oil reliably, for example, raise your confidence for it?
@@Ugeen-Huge-Jeans " it was possible to find oil reliably, for example, raise your confidence for it?"
Seeing that they are using the tests and ages as a constant a have found gas and oil before at that quantification, it would stand to reason that is why it works. Kind of cryptic but do you know what I mean?
🔥 content bro!
Great video AIG! Thanks for posting. I read in ARJ how they found the decay rates decreasing in Uranium. They have no steady decay rates. Therefore, radiometric dating is flawed. Everything in it relies 100% on multiple assumptions being absolutely true. Fortunately they are finding that simply isn't the case. 🙂✝️🙏
@@LordMathious"radiometric dating is flawed" at least you are honest enough to admit it
@@LordMathious"when many techniques give you the same number all around the globe"
Or it could simply mean that all of you are wrong. You are all obviously using the same methods. So either you are all wrong or you are all right.
I don't think you are going to find many here who believe you are all right. 😉✝️🙏
@@LordMathious face it. You came to the wrong channel if you think you are going to find many converts here.
@@LordMathious same old thing from you guys. You are obviously not as knowledgeable in geology as you are biology. Again, the actual GEOLOGISTS at AIG are far more informed than you are and I'll take their word. p.s. stop being so arrogant and prideful. It really makes you look like a horrible person.
@@LordMathious #1 I don't believe you when you say you aren't trying to deconvert people #2 we will stand in your way until the day we die #3 not everyone is going to believe the same things you do. That's just a fact of life and the "progress" you speak of is not actual progress, if you are thinking of the same things I'm thinking of. Society is not progressing. It is falling apart and the reason being we have turned away from God.
Love the video! I wish the thumbnail wasn't clickbait. I often wish to share these with my friends but "Evolutionists hate when you tell them this" is not a helpful first impression for someone I wish to have a candid/honest conversation with.
“Evolutionists”. Lol. It would just be easier to say “people who went to college and actually studied science. “. By the way, the reason your friends don’t watch this is the same reason most people won’t watch a pro flat earth video, because they’re ridiculous and there’s no point.
@@mrawesome2742 There are plenty of people (myself included) who went to college and "actually studied science" who would agree with the conclusions in this video. Evolution is a theory which has caused a strict bias in many studies. A true academic will be honest about their findings and not flavor their research. Dismissing other theories that are equally backed up by the raw data would be too impulsive. I can easily prove that there is not a flat earth. I cannot equally prove that there isn't a creator God. To compare the two would be apples and oranges. I would challenge you to not let your presuppositions color the raw data.
That's because AiG are liars.
"Evolutionists" is a made up word used by creationists to strawman virtually every single scientist on earth.
Note the entirety of AiG's output is a negative attack on science. Everything is spouting stuff about the MES. They never, e er produce anything to support creationism. If they were genuine scientists, they would not MENTION evolution; they would only present evidence for their own hypothesis.
@@mrawesome2742 you mean people who are brainwashed by a fraud institution called "college"?
@@mrawesome2742 so what's your argument to debunk this? Do you have no arguments? If you have no arguments then it's useless for you to be here, in fact it just goes to show that the so called "open minded" people aren't actually open minded, if you actually study science then you probably understand that to debunk a thesis/theory you actually need to present your argument backed by evidence, the fact that you can't even do that just goes to show that you know nothing about science.
I'm so glad I saw this video because I can really help clarify a few points. The speaker as well as many of you here will be very interested in learning that there are several situations in which the amount of the daughter isotope is known!! For example, any lead (a daughter isotope of uranium) found in a zircon crystal must have been produced by the radioactive decay of uranium. This is because it is a well known fact that zircon, when crystallized, completely excludes lead. Thus, here's one situation where the exact amount of the daughter isotope (which is lead) is known with certainty (the crystal begins with 0% lead).
There are also methods that can be applied to determine a rock's age whereby knowing the initial amount of the daughter isotope is unnecessary!! Look up the "isochron" method.
Some rocks consists of two parent isotopes and two corresponding daughter isotopes. Thus, the rock can be dated by obtaining the ratio of either of the two parent-daughter systems. If both systems give the same age, which is frequently the case in this situation, scientists can be confident in the result.
Lastly, the accuracy of radiometric dating is also confirmed by dating meteorites, the age of the Earth, and through the use of different dating methods on the same sample (where possible) and comparing the results.
Perhaps now a follow-up video can be produced which includes this information!! A simple acknowledgement of my comment would be nice, but not entirely necessary. In the meantime, if you the moderator could keep my comment toward the top, it could help lots of people.
Thumbs up, but you will find that reason, facts and rational thinking are unwelcome visitors in the area of religion.
@@trentonjennings9105 -- No way!! You watch! After they read my comment, they'll be so happy to have been corrected on this misunderstanding that they're gonna make a follow-up video that consists of the clarifications noted in my original comment. They'll probably acknowledge me and post my actual comment on the follow-up vid!! They're gonna say "thanks Fizzy for straightening this up for us!" But I don't want any money! I'm just glad I could help.
Listen. Not correcting the record would be downright deceptive!! Don't you agree? And these are people of god which means that they know that being deceptive is a sin!! Give it another day!
@@trentonjennings9105 -- They ignored my comment. :(
@fizzy4149 Thank you for your comment. It appears that you do know what you are talking about. From time to time, I have read books and papers on these topics. Presently, I am reading the book, "Nature's Clocks" by Doug Macdougall. He explains the historical development of the phenomena of radioactivity as it applies to dating ancient items. He includes material on Marie Curie, Wilhelm Roentgen, Henri Becquerel, Dimitri Mendeleev (for the periodic table), Ernst Rutherford, Willard Libby (C-14 dating), Harold Urey, Harrison Brown, Clair Patterson (and his 1953 measurement of the age of meteorite fragments from Meteor Crater, Arizona at 4.55 billion years), and others. Macdougall does a good job of explaining the slow development of the increasing confidence in the method by the researchers as they figured out how to eliminate errors in their methods and data. I found it very interesting that C. Patterson realized that he was not getting good data for his uranium-lead readings because of lead contamination. In the course of eliminating the contamination, he discovered that the majority of the contamination was coming from the lead added to gasoline for gasoline engines. His finding resulted in the unleaded gasoline that we use today. These researchers seem to care a lot more about accurate and truthful dating information than the Young-earth creationists (YEC) give them credit for. It is clear that they cared tremendously more about making reliable measurements than discrediting the Bible, as the YEC claim is the goal of secular scientists.
Thank you for your work. This has helped explain to me something I've always wondered about.
If you were really wondering about it, why would you go to someone that has a vested interest in denying science for your information. It gives the appearance that you only wanted to confirm a bias.
@@dross4207 then debunk his theory and prove how these assumptions are accurate if you want to get on people's back about their biases.
Or Expose his own unproved assumptions and say why these assumptions are worse than the opposing assumptions.
@@ME-kl9bj The information is out there for anyone to get. Hundreds if not thousands of papers, articles, and experimental results on this topic exist. If you wanted it, you would already have it. I don’t play the game of getting information that you have already denied in your head because you don’t want the information.
Again, my point about him going to the wrong person still stands. Why would you go to someone that has a vested interest in denying science to get your science from? It’s akin to wanting to find out where gold comes from, so you consult a person that faithfully believes that gold comes from leprechauns leaving it at the end of a rainbow.
@@dross4207 For the same reason YOU were asked to provide your rebuttal. its a compare and contrast situation. The Religion of Science permeates EVERY sphere of life. So knowing the prevailing bias of Pro-science is easy to find. hearing the counter-argument made by other scientists (these arent simply Pastors making these claims). Nice job dodging the question. We can assume you dont know, dont really care, and we can carry on hearing the counter-argument to the accepted narrative.
Well done!!
Their are so many difficulties in dating. You need to know a lot about the environment where the sample is being taken. It's best to always use multiple dating methods and comparisons. Luckily you can get a lot of information from studying the area.
Walter Veith questioned Radioactive Carbon Dating by asking are you dating a rock from the time it became a rock or when it was molten before becoming a rock and how long was it molten before becoming that rock.
Most rocks don't have carbon, but in any case carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years because of the short half life.
Carbon dating is generally not used on rocks, since rocks contain little or no carbon.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Sorry you missed missed the whole point. It's all guesswork macerating as science. Another proof is the mammoth found and dated, the head was several thousand years younger than the rear section. And it was a complete mammoth, not a tooth made into a complete body and called the missing link.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj which is why they use several other forms of radiometric dating for more accurate results
@@stevepierce6467 Unfortunately radiometric dating can give whatever results, because you never know the original amount of radioactivity. That's why only a short-life radioactive element like carbon-14 is rather reliable. But it only covers ca. 10 000 years, according to some sources even 50 000 years back. We have no reliable means to measure millions of years. The earth being billions of years old is just a hypothesis and anyone can make whatever hypotheses he/she wants.
Thank you Dr. Snelling, That's amazing!!
I’ve only done biology classes in junior and high school, never been in a college. So I didn’t understand every detail, but I do understand without using scientific stuff by what the Holy Bible says. But I do listen as best I can when watching all you videos. God bless.
Sadly you don't understand anything from what Snelling is saying. He's being two-faced because there are peer-reviewed scientific papers with his name on, using Uranium/Lead radiometric dating. He did his PhD on uranium extraction of use to the uranium mining industry in Australia.
He knows exactly what he's doing here - misrepresenting the reliable science.
@@jonathanrussell1140
What science are you talking about? All I’m reading from your comment is hatred towards a man, a sinner like you and me. Don’t come at me without the truth.
The statement on the age of a rock from Mount St Helens is misleading because the rock was formed from existing rock and would therefore inherit the same approximate age as the rock it was formed from. The rock isn't an organic life form that generates a whole new corpus from an initial "seed" of rock material the way a new life form does.
I DID find some articles from 2018 and 2022 that question the accepted decay rates, so you’re not alone Doc!! Even the Smithsonian 😂👍🏻
If you could provide a few links, I'd be most appreciative. I'm doing research for a book, and anything I can find will be of help.
@@engmed4400 CZcams doesn’t let you send links, but it’s pretty easy to lookup. search for the problem with carbon 14 dating 😎
@@ji8044that's exactly what is being called to question.
This is entirely off topic but people here who listen to this are like minded usually so I have come asking for advice my younger brothers have a lot of potential to do well anything but they don’t because they are lazy and I can’t try and motivate them because they don’t respect me my other brothers are more aggressive and angry when it comes to being disrespected and my brothers fear that and listen to them but when they disrespect me I just take it or disprove a point and they respect me less and as a result don’t listen I just want them to DO something because of the potential that they have to DO something big and it’s not like I don’t try to set examples they are just lazy I guess they don’t see any need to try to do there best , … so is there anything I can do to stir them up ??
@@jamesseven6655This has the power to change all of your lives:
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
Romans 16:16 KJV
1. Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17, John 8:32)
2. Believe the Gospel (Hebrews 11:6, John 20:31)
3. Repent of past sins (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30)
4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10, Matthew 10:32)
5. Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)
6. Be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10)
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Romans 8:31 KJV
In your own RATE paper, it said if radioactive decay was fast enough to match a YEC age, the heat generated would have melted the earths crust. Yep self debunk.
No, it only shows that carbon dating is not a reliable measure of time.
@@waakowhe is just looking for any reason at all to debunk this theory because he's so devoted to his own beliefs. He can't question it.
@@howtomoderate Yep, never mind that there has never been nor ever could be a test done to confirm whether carbon dating is accurate at all. You would have to run thousands of separate tests over the course of millions of years in all manner of substances. If you deny that this is necessary then you have denied science.
@@howtomoderate someone needs to reinforce their faith, by assuming others have faith.
Also funny how if you have Christian faith, its ok, but if you have faith in anything else, you are stupid.
@@nuke_man_aiI wouldn’t say stupid. Wrong or misguided, but not stupid.
This would be great explained using a more relatable subject, like “Radical Dating”. Give each person characteristics of atoms and see if by logic people come up with matches based on the core assumptions of old or young earth
Australian accents abound at AiG....always good to hear , thank you .
How's that for a benign observation ?
"Australian accents abound at AiG"
Australians have only 25 letters in their alphabet. No need for "R"
It’s one of our worst exports. Flood geology is a lie and is easily refuted. ‘Seven Times: Egypt to Istanbul’
Yeah, we deported the convicts and now they've got so bad, even Australia are departing them to the USA 😂😂😂😂
Thanks! Love your channel.... saved a Cuban like me! Keep up the great work.
You gave these shills 15 bucks?????
Thank you and God bless your good work.
Please explain how?
“You are wrong”
“Prove it”
“Here is the proof”
🦗 🦗 🦗
@@ji8044why do you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing?
@@katawhampus9879 You seem like an authority: Does AI mean Answers Inane?
@@ji8044 Interesting that your channel has no content. Even an AI would encounter truth running counter to the world's Creation narrative.
Spittin facts brother!
This carbon dating has been proven to be wrong
K-Ar of lava domes is not C14
***by whom?***
No like 3 google searches exposes kens lies carbon dating was observed to be constant he is just lying
Also from your comments i can tell you didn't even do some research on what radio carbon darmting even is
@@nuke_man_ai your reply made no sense whatsoever
The biggest problem with carbon 14 is it only works if the carbon 14 from the item your dating matches that of today. There is no way, I repeat, no way they are anywhere close to anywhere near right.
Its scam, they dating the rocks, never the bones. Always refused to use carbon dating, cuz result always 20-30000 years. If this was always innacurate, then carbon dating should be show 75,000 as max year.. not 20,000.
Even modern animals can fossiled within few hundreds years. The flood explain the geo layer more reasonable. Consider flood are most close according geologist, but the refused as noah flood. Just normal flood for so called, millions of years
Carbon dating is only for things less than 50,000 years. But in that timeframe the dating is well understood.
Radioactive dating using much more than c14.
Your incorrect opinion is noted and dismissed by those that know more than you do
Do you mean not all c14 is the same?
Take two banana peels the same age and put 1 outside in the sun protected from wild life and put 1 inside the fridge. The one outside 5 days is slmost gone, whithered away to nothing but the one in the fridge is still there. Then ask an expert to tell you which one is older.
@@ji8044 Actual experiments are unscientific. So sensical.
@@ji8044explain then.
@@ji8044If you're going to make such a goofy statement, back it up.
@@ji8044hopefully someone who accuses another of “nonsense” can reveal “sense”?
@@ji8044 You don' have any idea what you just said.
This is very timely for me. I am teaching the topic Cosmic Arena at present, and have been searching for something like this. Thank you, God bless.
Just say "god did it" 😅
It's so simple 😅
Noooooo please don't teach this, you'll be misguiding people
This problem exists in all indirect measurements. We assume light speed is constant, but that is an assumption based on direct measurements on earth and if you want to be generous the voyager probe. We assume physical properties are constant because so far it works for things like cell phones, computers, cars and such.
To say "we know" is fundamentally not a scientific statement.
All of science is based on assumptions
if a model works, makes accurate predictions, and is never contradicted by observation, then it is knowledge.
@@CaptainFantastic222 we all assume reality is real.
About the crand canyon. There were people there when it formed. The natives of that area have stories passed down of the the canyon being form by the sudden draining of huge lakes at the top of it.
They were shouted down for decades until science of it couldn't be denied any longer. And the experts still refuse to give them credit because "happened way too long ago".
13:40 Tapeats sandstone is Cambrian. The top layer Kaibab is Permian. 540-250 million years ago, Paleozoicum, even before Dinosaurs
The "Red Record" of the native Americans was also dismissed as unreliable because it corroborated the Hebrew account. Can't have that.🙄
@@globalcoupledancesThat's precisely the sort of interpretation spoken of in the video.
@@globalcoupledancesThree dates are provided for the samples sent in to the dating lab. It is up to us to provide them with where the samples were obtained. From the top, middle, or bottom. This dating was tested by some geologists and they intentionally mixed the samples up for the lab to date. The bottom got the earliest date, the middle with an old date and the top with the middle date. The book, "Thousands Not Millions" is not for the novice to geology reader. I didn't study geology after highschool and I had to read it three times through just to get a basic understanding of the material in it. Only the people who are experts in this field are capable of asking questions that we who aren't geologists don't even know to ask about the answers given to us as fact. The writers of this book provide these questions along with their answers but like I said, a good background in geology is essential to understanding the material the first time through.
@@globalcoupledancesthat's the evolutionary model. Not what creationists believe at all.
I think radioactive dating is useful as a tool within certain parameters but its not as precise as its often portrayed and usually has a very wide rage of possible times. And, personally I suspect that in time we'll discover how incorrect it was.
and it will be replaced by a more accurate dating system, right?
And then you won't believe that one......
@@roscius6204 I hope a more accurate one is found, because the current system is very imprecise and uncertain. Better data is always good
@@roscius6204 That is a massive logical step... We have yet to find a dating method that is proven accurate, what makes you think there is one?
@@chrismcaulay7805 Radiometric Dating...
Uranium-lead radiometric dating involves using uranium-235 or uranium-238 to date a substance's absolute age. This scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years. An error margin of 2-5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks
This may not be accurate enough for you, for some reason but it serves purpose well enough.
That's more accurate than if you're 50 and I guess you're 52... Close enough for jazz.
The elephant in the room though is the error required to get the Creationist timeline.😳
and what would make me think there may well be a more accurate method?
Because the advance of scientific knowledge which will continue, unless of course the world is taken over by a fundamentalist ideology, that believes knowledge is dangerous.....
then we're stuffed.
@@chrismcaulay7805 Something else you might take into account. Carbon 14 dating is only accurate up around 60 million years. The fact that science is aware, acknowledges this and accounts for it, is proof the there is no 'conspiracy' going on.
Science is only interested in best practice, regardless of who's feelings get hurt.
It's interesting to consider how many of the fundamentals I presumed were proven (or within scientific consensus), without digging into any further. Given the complexity of many of the discoveries, there's often a distilling of the details for broader audiences, but it's a shame when something is discussed as being 'certain' or 'known', when it actually falls within consensus, has a high likelihood of being accurate or has an acceptable confidence interval. Any true scientist would never suggest something is 100% accurate and representative of reality.
Thank you so much
Evolution is of the religion of Humanism. Out of all the stardust in the universe, some of the stardust is special for no other reason than that it declares itself to be special. It elevates chemical and electrical reactions occurring in its grey matter above the reactions occurring in the grey matter of every other evolved stardust that doesn't look like it, going so far as to give those reactions objective meaning. It declares itself the pinnacle of evolution; the master of its destiny; with such hubris that it believes it can even save entire planets. It seeks to keep itself from the frivolity of faith, and free itself from the notion of a superior being to whom it is accountable. "Be free," it says, even as it enslaves its fellow stardust with its own arbitrary laws and fear of punishment! "Live your best life free from a God who can grant you immortality you don't deserve," it proclaims, as it promises nothing but death. The stardust consequently finds itself forlorn, for everything it does, everything it believes, everything it hopes for...is utterly futile and meaningless.
Sign me up. 😏
My brain was too tired to follow the lecture. So your comment was today's keep for me.
Sign me up too. For nothing. 🤨
@@therick363 That's funny: stardust making a determination on "truth." 🤣
@myfakeguuglaccount8307 some chemical fizzles are more intelligent than other chemical fizzles. That's how that well adapted ape-like chemical soup knows the truth from a lie.
That was brilliant my friend. I mean, pure genius I hadda read it again.
And it’s the truth. They tell us to “live free by putting on your mask and taking that experimental shot”
That’s some freedom right there!!! Thank mr government god, I worship u big government god
The acceptance of Evolution as fact just like gravity does not make it a religion. Indeed the vast majority of Christianity on Earth accepts Evolution as fact.
Only in the least educated and developing countries do they believe the Adam and Eve story as literal historic reality. Most Muslims unfortunately believe the same story too and deny evolution as fact. Hmmmm...
AMEN. Excellent explanation!!
Ernest Rutherford invented radiometric dating in 1905 as a way to determine the age of the Earth. In 1904, Rutherford first discussed the possibility of using radioactivity to measure geologic time. In 1906, he began calculating the rate of radioactive decay of uranium.
Wonderful stuff
There's a big difference between formed rock, and gases lava. In lava many processes are occurring before it erupts. So when it solidifies, these trapped processes can have a gigantic effect on daughter to parent ratios. If the daughter product is more enriched relative to the parent, it makes the rock appear older. If parent is enriched relative to the daughter, it makes the rock look younger. This is why radiometric dating is not accurate. Also, as he says about contamination. Can anyone really prove there is absolutely no contamination that occurs over 'billions' of years? Or even 'thousands' of years?
There are plenty of other indicators of an old earth. 1st off we do know that certain types of radioactive halflife dating does work. We also have ice cores, the stars and the speed of light show the universe is very old.
I am a Christian and we as Christians must accept that by all accounts our earth (and universe) show signs of extreme age. One of only two possibilities are true, ironically with the same result.
1. God created the universe billions of years ago. There is nothing in the Bible that gives us an exact date of creation. There is no verse, passage, or chapter that says our earth is only 10,000 years old. That idea relies on reading into the scriptures and frankly a lot of guessing. The idea of an old earth in no way conflicts with the Bible.
2. God created the earth/universe with the "appearance" of age. Ironically this would be in function the exact same as option one. A universe created to look and feel like it was 15 billion years old might as well be 15 billion years old. To believe otherwise indicates God created the universe without the appearance of age. We know however that stars whose light is further than 10,000 light years is visible right now so we can discard a "blank slate" universe. God must have created the universe to at least look and feel old, which in function means it is old.
Little past due, but zircon is the answer you’re looking for. That’s typically what geologists use to date anything past 50,000 years. It is extremely resilient to what most call, ‘contamination’, both physically and chemically. It’s not perfect, but nothing in this world is. We use what we have.
Radioactive dating is weaker than the theory of evolution.
So the "scientists" did not consider this?
TLDR: But, 5 minutes in, and I can tell you already that geologists don't have to make any of those assumptions that the presenter has claimed. Geologists aren't stupid, and they know about all these objections, but they also know how to solve all the problems that they raise. Radiometric dating is very reliable, and is corroborated by other dating methods as well.
Assumption 1: "you have to assume there were no daughter elements present when the rock formed." This is false. As igneous rock forms in cooling magma, different elements react differently. So there are ways to determine whether or not daughter elements have been included alongside the parent element. In some cases, the type of crystal formation can only trap daughter isotopes after they have formed, so no initial contamination can occur. In other cases, there is a string of decays that occurs before the stable daughter isotope is formed, and so there can be 1 or more unstable daughter isotopes in between the parent and the stable daughter isotope. If the ratio of these 3+ elements doesn't line up with the prediction based on known decay rates, then scientists can know that there was contamination at the time the rock formed. Sometimes that means the sample can't be dated, and sometimes there are calculations that can determine the amount of contamination and a date can still be determined. In short, nobody ever assumes that there was no daughter isotope present. There are multiple ways to determine whether there was or was not, and whether or not that makes the sample unusable.
Assumption 2: "no extra parent or daughter isotope has been added since the rock was formed." This is really quite a ridiculous point to make, because rocks aren't literally an hourglass with a lid that anyone can just tamper with. In some cases, gases can permeate porous or cracks rocks, which could alter the chemistry of the rock, but there are so many other cases where this is just not possible. When you find a crystal that contains uranium, you don't have to make any wild assumptions to know that the uranium got there before it crystallized. solid metals don't just difuse themselves through solid rock.
Assumption 3: "decay rates are constant" um, ya, they are. We've been measuring them on earth for somewhere around 100 years and they don't change. Scientists have tried to change them with heat, pressure, cold, vacuum, electrical current, blasting them with radiation, etc. They don't change. And guess what, the same basic technology that we use to measure radioactive decay in tiny samples on earth can also be adapted to measure radioactive decay on distant stars, which allows us to look millions of years into the past, where we measure exactly the same decay rates as on earth.
💯
When you call them out on their flawed method they say they don't use it. It's another method that they used.
I have to disagree with you on decay rate. I see no reason why decay rates would be different in the past, and the evidence you presented to prove otherwise can be explained by the other assumptions being wrong where it's been contaminated/formed with daughter atoms. because one daughter atom could have lots of it giving a date of billions of years, another could have been contaminated to give millions of years where it otherwise would have only gave thousands of years, and another could have formed without any daughter atoms giving an age of only hundreds of years. Also I don't see how rapid water could change the decay rate
The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.
Satan is also called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. To say, for example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in it.
This is not to say that he rules the world completely; God is still sovereign. But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world within the boundaries God has set for him. When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, we must remember that God has given him domain over unbelievers only. Believers are no longer under the rule of Satan (Colossians 1:13). Unbelievers, on the other hand, are caught "in the snare of the devil" (2 Timothy 2:26), lie in the "power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19), and are in bondage to Satan (Ephesians 2:2). (GQ)
So many are wrapped around his finger and blinded by his shroud. Thanks to AIG for exposing some of his antics. But ultimately, it is up to the person if they want to come out of the darkness and into the light.
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Matthew 7:7 KJV
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hebrews 11:6 KJV
Useful information, thank you
reminds me of highschool physics when they simply give you some of the formulas without showing the calculations made to arrive at the formulas. I remember when we studied gravitational forces and we used a specific formula for the gravitational force on earth, but used a very different formula to calculate gravity in space. I called it out as wrong, and asked if this is truly the most up to date scientific method since it was clearly incomplete, since both formulas for gravity should be the same no matter where the calculation is applied, then it would be a true formula. my teacher agreed and also said this was the current scientific method to find the force of gravity. What I learned from that experience is that science still had a long way to go. It's amazing that so many people will just tag along and assume science is correct, such as with this radioactive rock dating methods. Like not 1 scientist had the humility to admit they were wrong or didn't know, they'd rather assume they are right than have to ask difficult questions that test their hypothesis'.
My guy science is all about testing and questoning, if it wasn't it would just be another religion and we would still be burning "witches"
And to clarify your gravity problem
I assume your profesor was only reffering to earth gravity as you get didferent formulas on different planets everyone knows that they aren't "keepinh it from the masses"
Also gravity dosnt stop when you get into orbit its the very reason orbits exist gravity just weaker the further out you are even on a plane you experience less gravity the change is way too small to notice but its there so again scientists aren't keeping everything and make sure any new research is proven before released into the public not to get peoples hopes up
@@nuke_man_aiprecisely, thereby disqualifying science as a viable worldview perspective due to the very nature of it's designed progression through falsification and reiteration. Paradigms change, scientific consensus changes along with it through time. And yet people today treat science as a source of all-truth when all it really is, is an attempt at human observation of a world far more complex than our understanding. The scientific method ≠ truth.
lots of us admit such errors, routinely even; you are seeing how things are communicated to you, not the mindsets of the individual scientists that interface with actual raw data
because there's weeds in the garden and it's communicated a garden of only weeds, doesn't mean that lettuce doesn't exist
search a subject to the point of knowing how samples were taken, handled, prepped, how data was made, what algorithms calibrate each instrument etc, and a wonderful picture unfolds- as well as how things are put together to support "stories" and given under the name "science"
@MrMarbles0Xecution Perhaps I can help you to understand why the formulas were different. The "real" formula is the one used out in space. For that formula, the force of gravity between the earth and some other body, is given by the product of the universal constant of gravity, which is 6.67e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, the mass of the earth, which is 5.97e24 kg, and the mass of the other body, then divide that by the square of the distance between the centers of earth and the other body.
If you want to know the gravitational force between the earth and a body on the surface of the earth, then the same formula applies. However, because the distance between the centers of the bodies is always equal to the radius of the earth, the formula can be simplified by multiplying the constant of gravity by the mass of the earth and dividing by the square of the radius of the earth. That new constant is 9.81 m s^-2. Now multiply 9.81 m s^-2 by the mass in kg of the other body (not the earth) and you get the force between the two or the weight of the body in newtons.
no, what you learned from that experience is that different levels of detail are appropriate for people at different levels of expertise.
This list will be going over the problems with anything he says. Just for reference, im not a scientist, just a guy with a lot of time to research stuff so please correct me if im wrong about anything
First off, those 3 assumptions.
I did the third assumption first because I started writing this when he mentioned it at 0:32.
3. 0:32 Assuming these radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate isnt an assumption. Now im sure there are more ways to find out why, but one ive found is called supernova light decay, where astronomists are able to find out the decay of certain atoms over billions of years has stayed relatively constant with little variability.
1. 3:17 Yes we do assume the parent daughter ratio, sometimes, kind of. But theres good reason, for example in zircon crystals, uranium atoms are the right shape to fill in spots for zirconium atoms but lead is not and is excluded while forming, so until that crystal has cooled and became a closed system, its safe to assume there's no lead in there, but we still check to make sure. Of course thats not the same for all minerals but it shows that there is a foundation for these assumptions. Also there is the isochron method which doesnt require the parent daughter ratio at all.
2. 4:10 Okay so this pertains to the contamination problem.
First off, I just want to mention he made contamination sound way bigger than it actually is, its only rare places can contamination actually cause a big problem, rainfall isnt going to do much of anything. And now im not sure how, but with proper preperation and good samples, we can account for most contamination, and even if we really screw up, we can still compare it to similar samples and if it doesn't line up with them then we just say something went wrong and measure again or simply call it a bad sample.
4. 10:23 Okay, first off a bigggggg problem. K40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years, and since you need at least a little argon to measure, the
K40 - Ar method is only useful for anything over 2 million years old,
anything lower and you get terribly inaccurate results. What theyre doing is like measuring a bacteria with a yard stick. So this is really just bad testing.
5. 12:40 This was actually explained a year later. There just so happened to be an argon rich fluid that was trapped inside of the diamonds while they were forming, which really screwed up the measurement. This was just an experiment that went wrong, proves nothing other than accidents happen.
6. 13:32 The flood didnt happen, it would've caused mass exctinctions and would've decimated most life thats on land, there would be obvious evidence of the flood if it actually happened
Im skipping over the canyon thing, Im tired and dont feel like researching that.
7. 17:28 Granite is a rock, rocks are an aggregate of minerals, those minerals can have separate ages.
8. 19:24 Then you're reading the wrong textbooks because they don't claim that so that invalidates what he says up until 23:21
9. 25:7 Ima be real, trying to understand this one confused the hell out me. But there are methods for it, and one of those are that if you think the half life is 10^32 seconds, then take 10^32 atoms (or protons, I don't remember), and if atleast one of those decay within a year, that's your half life, its called the theory of probability. There is another one using equations, but I didnt really understand it and I couldn't possibly explain it here. If your curious just look up how we find half lifes, there is a way and it's scientifically sound.
10. 26:39 because humans monitor these computers and computers make less errors, not trusting machines isnt a reson to not believe radiometric dating.
11. 27:00 "The 'natural abundance' of potassium-40 is extremely low, about 0.012%. (In a sample containing 100,000 atoms of potassium, 12 will be potassium-40.)" - Flinn Scientific Canada
12. 27:10 "Potassium-40 undergoes three types of radioactive decay. In about 89.28% of events, it decays to calcium-40 (40Ca) with emission of a beta particle (β−, an electron) with a maximum energy of 1.31 MeV and an antineutrino. In about 10.72% of events, it decays to argon-40 (40Ar) by electron capture (EC), with the emission of a neutrino and then a 1.460 MeV gamma ray.[Note 1] The radioactive decay of this particular isotope explains the large abundance of argon (nearly 1%) in the Earth's atmosphere, as well as prevalence of 40Ar over other isotopes. Very rarely (0.001% of events), it decays to 40Ar by emitting a positron (β+) and a neutrino.[1]" - Potassium-40 wiki page.
13. 29:38 Did you actually read that list? because those dont prove much of anything.
14. 30:26 Comets are just rocks in space, and we've got a fuck ton of them, of course we haven't run out
15. 31:38 You don't use carbon dating on fossils, only on organic matter. You're purposely using a specific method to get a certain answer to fit your view of the world. Bad science doesn't prove anything.
16. 32:17 Fossils only form under certain conditions, that's why its so rare to find complete fossils. Most people who died were left on the ground, maybe buried under a thin layer dirt and their remains were eaten and decomposed, not everyone gets fossilized.
People, come on. This guy is a preacher who knows nothing about science, he's just taking advantage of the fact that y'all don't either. You cant reject science just because you don't understand it. You gotta remember these are people who have commited their entire life to finding answers, if they could tally it all up to god, they would, we would all love to be able to say that god is the answer because it solves all of our questions. But we can't, the bible has no evidence, it's historical fiction filled with fairy tales. So instead of believing in a book with no evidence written by people you dont know, why not believe in something proven? Something you can actually verify? Besides, even if today we found out all of radiometric dating is completely and utterly wrong, there are still other forms of dating that invalidate the idea of a young earth.
What a wonderful, well-spoken breakdown of truth and human assumptions. Great work! Keep it up. ❤
There are only two choices in life. We listen to God or we listen to the devil. Mankind is under the influence of the devil.
There is this book, Buried alive, written in 70s, about a forensic orthodontist (those people who identify you by dental records) who borrowed his mentor's xray prototype machine (the actual guy who identified Hitler's remains from teeth) and studied Neanderthal skulls with it. What he found was fascinating, that their enlarged brows and skulls matched a pattern of growth we see in humans, that as you age your brow and jaw grows bigger and ears lower due to pressure of chewing. Brow he said grows bigger because the cheekbones re direct that force around eyes to brow, as he claimed his teachers said, like flying buttresses in architecture. But it matched those known models of growth placing them on his charts, being at 300 years old humans. This also lines up with neanderthal graves being above previous homo sapien graves in middle east.
29:26 what's with the highlighted items?
Carbon-14 cannot be used for samples older than 60,000 years old
They aren’t limited to Carbon-14 though.
If you want a young Earth, it's not enough to suggest that radionuclide half lives were orders of magnitude shorter in the geologically recent past than they are today. You also have to believe in tremendously accelerated sediment deposition, lickety-split erosion, ice ages that come and go within decades, continental drift you can actually see, geomagnetic pole reversals every other century, etc. etc.
Honestly, by this point if I were a young Earth creationist I'd just say that the Earth (and our universe) was supernaturally created pretty much "as is" in the recent past and be done with it. Our planet just LOOKS old because this supernatural force is testing our faith in it.
While I agree that a 6000-year-old earth requires either a great deal of supernatural intervention to make things seem older, or severe errors with interpreting data, I think he did a good job casting at least some doubt on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.
@@christophertaylor9100 Not really. Search the internet and every source will tell you that carbon 14 dating is unreliable in material older than about 50,000 years (as dated by other means). Employing a method he knows is unreliable is pure dishonesty on Dr. Snelling's part.
In reality, of course, carbon 14 dating is quite reliable, because it's been calibrated using tree rings to about 12,000 years ago (and other methods to about 26,000 years ago). Note that this goes well past the YEC age of the Earth of about 6,000 years.
Incidentally, he pulled the same trick earlier in the talk when he spoke of dating Mt. St. Helens lava flows (1986) using the potassium/argon method. Check the net and you'll find that method is unreliable for material aged less than thousands of years. I found an online critique of this episode by Dr. Kevin R. Henke, who says the lab that did the dating could only guarantee accurate dating of lavas older than 2 million years because of instrument limitations.
Note that if one is careful one CAN use radioactive decay to date known volcanic eruptions. Google "argon argon dating of pompeii" for one example.
I don't believe in a young Earth but geological layering can be explained in other ways, even electrically. Other planets didn't form their geological features in the same way Earth did. There are giant holes in assumptions that don't fit the evidence (the Great Uniformity, lack of evidence for or against subduction, lack of an ocean crust older than 200my). Plate tectonics is wrong about movement because it contradicts the magnetic evidence. I don't know what the right theory is, I'm just saying the ones we have are built on flimsy foundations. I watch these videos because they tend to be good at picking apart the house of cards of modern science (but not on their own pet theories).
What no one is looking at is that solar flares are known to accelerate the aging of atoms. Radiocarbon dating relies on measuring the decay of carbon-14 isotopes in organic materials. Solar flares can cause fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere by interacting with nitrogen atoms, which affects the accuracy of radiocarbon dating to some extent. So those dinosaur bones have also been aged by solar flares.
So even if the measurement is accurate and no contamination happened, the artificial aging of atoms because of solar flares were not taken into consideration. How many solar flares happened throughout the history of the planet? Uncountable already.
Radiocarbon dating is based on the decay of carbon neutrons.
While we're still alive we absorb carbon atoms that have extra neutrons (called isotopes) throughout our lives. When we die, we stop taking in this type of carbon and the extra neutrons are slowly lost, making the carbon closer and closer to normal.
To find how old something is, the idea is to see how many of the extra carbon neutrons are left.
The problem is there are too many assumptions. We assume that each living thing had the same amount of extra neutrons when they died, and we assume that the extra neutrons leave at the same rate regardless of conditions.
Also, after a certain point of time, there wouldn't be enough of the extra neutrons to tell how old a sample is.
The other problem is that it's not accurate or precise. Every time a test is run on a sample it comes up as a different age, and the older the sample the greater the difference in age that each test shows.
They have to run multiple tests of a sample and make an average, which becomes the official age of that sample. Anything found near the sample is also assumed to be that age.
So useful to know. Well donr answers in genesis. I used to side with Bill Nye on the Ham-Nye debate. How blind I was.
@@razark9don’t say someone doesn’t understand science because they don’t agree with you. Ends up looking foolish and shallow.
@@bikesrcool_1958You can say these things when you're objectively correct. These things aren't matters of opinions. It has been tested, time and time again, and the world is 4.5 billion years old. Evolution happens. There is no question about that.
@@stickyrubb I don’t have a position on old earth and young earth.
But I’m going to challenge you.
What evidence do you have of macro evolution?
All you have is adaptation. That isn’t proof, other then that birds continue being birds but can have different shaped beaks.
@@stickyrubb also, what method of dating is used for the oldest rocks they find?
@@stickyrubbThere are enormous problems with macroevolution (of species).
No, I'm not going to list them because it will just turn into a pissing match.
I would think that the flood also created dramatic contamination as well.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj I don't know about millions - but yes there have been flood events at various levels of severity. NOBODY is denying that. However, not all flood events are created equal (no pun intended). There are floods that flood out a plain alongside of a river vs floods like Katrina or the aftermath of a tsunami. But there is substantial evidence that there was a catastrophic worldwide flood as well.
The world-wide flood did happened. That's why the Earth is the way it is
@@ji8044 Those were different Egyptians. The fact that Middle Kingdom is distinctly different from the earlier era has long been one of the primary arguments for Noah's Flood. Almost all the pyramids were built before. The writing style changed. The theology of Egypt changed, etc.
There's strong evidence that the human population bottlenecked between 3000 and 2000BC. The secular explanation is usually a pandemic. Regardless, it's logical that a new group of people reclaimed Egypt, and incorporated the older concepts into their society to establish themselves as having been descended from the original kingdoms. Very similar things happened in the Americas as collectivism failed numerous times in the Americas whenever a group tried to centralized power.
There's plenty of similar examples with culture, writing, religion, and political structures like Romans borrowing from Greece which borrowed from Phinecia. Japan and Korea borrowed from China. Islam incorporating the Kaaba. People still do this today often rewriting history to adopt famous figures as founders of a movement that started after they were dead, or claiming "insert name here" would have been a "insert movement member."
if you think there is any evidence for a world flood, it is you brain that is contaminated
1. It is possible to know with extreme certainty how much of a parent atom must have existed in a sample. If you know the conditions which require a certain rock or crystal or fossil to form, you can easily calculate which elements are present and in which proportions.
2. The best radiometric dating methods are those whose daughter elements are not found in nature in any more than the slightest trace quantities. That way you can be sure your daughter elements ONLY came from the parent elements in the sample.
3. Decay rates are constant throughout time because they are dependent entirely on the fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, the strong & weak nuclear forces, and gravity), among multiple other constants. In order for the decay rates to change you have to change one or more of these values, which we KNOW would literally either tear the entire universe apart atom by atom, or crush the entire universe into a black hole, or any number of other complete disassembling of reality. Creationists love using this Fine Tuning of the universe to argue for a creator. You can't have a fine tuned universe at the same time as a universe with wavering atomic decay rates.
Finally, "you weren't there" isn't an argument. You weren't there to see Adam and Eve, so you can't know they existed. By your logic we should let basically all murderers roam free because the judge and jurors weren't there when the crime was committed.
I remember studying radioactivity in high school and something called "chain reaction" where radioactive decay was kind of a snowballing effect. If you wanted it to blow up, you wanted this chain reaction to run wild and uninhibited. If you wanted a more controlled reaction to generate power, you would introduce a moderating substance to slow the reaction down. Here's my question: are these radioactive isotopes used for dating self-moderating? When they decay into more stable elements, do these stable elements act as a moderator in the sample and slow the decay rate down. If so, this seems like it would cause the rate of decay to slow down as the decay progresses and the percentage of the stable moderating substance being produced becomes more abundant and making decay rates in the present time slower than in the past and hence the sample appear older than it is.
That's somewhat why if I had 100 grams of a radioactive material. In one half life 50 grams would decay. But after another half life (same amount of time passed) only 25 more grams would decay. The exact idea with critical mass and chain reactions is more of an issue for refined and concentrated radioactive isotopes, and how a fission bomb for example functions. It's also probability, it's possible for 100 grams of U-238 to all decay within 1 second. But, it is also possible for you to walk into a wall and phase through it. It is "possible" but so statistically improbably that it will never happen. Take a good sized sample, and samples from several places, and you will get similar results. As you said though, the rate of decay DOES decrease, but that's because it is a logarithmic rate and not a linear one.
@edpicard1756 You are confusing nuclear fission with radioactive decay. In a fission reaction, a free high-energy neutron hits the nucleus of an atom and causes the nucleus to split apart into two similar-size nuclei and some free high-energy neutrons. Those neutrons then hit other nuclei and a chain reaction occurs. Uranium-235 is the only uranium isotope that can undergo this splitting, which is known as fission. Other uranium isotopes are radioactive but not fissionable.
Radioactive decay comes about because the nucleus of many isotopes is unstable. Usually the instability is due to the fact that the ratio of the number of protons to neutrons in the nucleus is not ideal for stability. (Neutrons must be present in the nucleus to prevent the protons with their like charges from all repelling each other and flying apart.) No one can predict just when an unstable nucleus will decay, but statistically for a large number of unstable nuclei, it is possible to predict how many will decay after a certain amount of time has elapsed. The number of nuclei to decay per unit time is directly proportional to the number of undecayed nuclei present in the sample. The mathematical equation for this scenario is perhaps the simplest first-order differential equation one can write. The solution tells us that the number of undecayed nuclei at some time, t, is equal to the number of undecayed nuclei at time, t = 0, times e raised to the power of the constant of proportionality (related to the half-life) times the time, t, where e is the base of the natural system of logarithms (e = 2.71828). Most radioactive decay involves the emission of an alpha particle, a beta particle, and/or a gamma particle. If the decay takes place by the emission of an alpha particle, then the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of that particular atom have each decreased by 2, making that atom one of the element of 2 fewer protons in the nucleus than the parent (undecayed atom). If it decays by the emission of a beta particle, then that means a neutron has emitted an electron leaving behind a proton. This time the one atom has become the element with one more proton than the parent atom had.
Could some one please get an old earth scholar to refute this with evidence? I'd love to hear a rebuttal.
You don't need an old earth scholar, just listen to his arguments, that's enough to dismiss it all.
These numb skulls will never accept decenting opinions, these ungratefull things stand on the shoulders of our best scientists and still criticize the scientific method, this content os pure poison
@@bobwilkinson2008except it isn't unless you're a layman who doesn't understand things better
All you need to do is turn the opening statement back on Snelling. Nobody alive today was around to see the formation of the earth. Nobody alive today was around to witness the writing of the bible and the fantastical supernatural stories we are expected to believe. All we can observe are the workings of the natural world.
Put it another way, if we are to believe what is being presented here, that the radioactive decay rates have somehow slowed dramatically from what they were 6000 years ago, then the Earth would have been too radioactively inhospitable to allow Adam and Eve to survive. That's really all you need to know. Couple that with the fact that these UTTER CLOWNS believe that we went from Pangaea to the current geography in the time it took for the Global Flood (for which there is NO evidence) and the whole atmosphere would have been unbreathable, the waters would have been undrinkable and the earth a barren wasteland from all the volcanic activity and earthquakes. It's risible. If you want to watch a systematic and comprehensive takedown of this pseudo scientific drivel, watch Aron Ra's series of 8 videos on how each of 8 scientific disciplines comfortably disprove Noah's Flood.
Faith building
How weak must your faith be to not understand that the Torah and the Bible is not a history book or scientific textbook, but a book of religious teachings.
30:08 comets are very polarized and highly energized , not just ice
The same problem with assumptions can be found when dating the earth by the Genesis account:
1. Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) neans 24 hrs and not epoch as used Genesis 2:4, Psalm 90:4, Zechariah 14:7, Hosea 6:2
2. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 has no gap
3. Genesis 2 is an expansion of Genesis 1:26 and not sequential (Day 8).
4. Adam was in the garden for a few days to a few months.
5. All descendants of Adam's lineage are listed.
Dang. Profound. Screw the Big Bang Theory. Praise the Lord and Genesis 6 scripture!
Well since The Big Bang Theory is fact as well consider yourself corrected by your betters
@@keithziegler8881and the operative word is "theory". Try to do some critical thinking. What we have is occult scientism, not science. Continue on with your materialist atheistic ways. God is great! ✝️
@@DietrichSchmitz
So you don't understand what a theory is… Thank you for telling everybody how uneducated you are.
What we have is science, it is superior to your mythology and has proven that your religion is mythology which is why you're so but hurt.
I know you like thinking you were special and created your invisible mythological sky. Image, but that's not the case that that that you are an evolved eight just like the rest of us.
The scientific evidence for that is overwhelming and is settled
lol
@@DietrichSchmitzwow a cultist that doesn't know what "theory" means? crazy!
Great video. Keep it up AIG!
@@ji8044 Can I ask you a question?
I wonder if a massive amount of pressure applied over thousands of years alters radioactive decay rates?
It does not.
Beautiful
I want a personal apology from all of my science teachers.
Why? because you accept baseless assertions?
@@Ugeen-Huge-Jeans why are these assertions baseless? Mt St Helens 1986 lava flow and subsequent erroneous dating hard pill to swallow.
@@Ugeen-Huge-Jeans face it. You just don’t want to be held accountable to the Higher Power - Jesus.
@@DJ-il8iv it’s inappropriate to use radiometric dating for such a recent event & any geologist will tell you that. It’s like using a gram scale to weigh a semi-truck, it’s just not gonna give you an accurate reading. However if we cross-compare radiometric dating to an older event we also know the day of, for instance Mount Vesuvius eruption, we do get accurate date. Curious how AiG never brings this up?
They don't owe you an apology… The Christian liars are the ones that owe you an apology.
Remember, creationism is a myth
This is a very valid discussion. My problem also is if each layer in sediment represents a period of time how do they explain fossils going through the different layers. I also have my own theory about the Pangea continent idea spouted as fact , in the bible it says that pre flood that people live almost 1000 years. My theory involves the change of molecular density, we all know gold and lead are more dense than sandstone or aluminium. I believe the whole world was more dense pre flood then as the earth expanded the continents drifted apart exposing people to more radioactive sun rays through the weakening of our magnetic field.
***you can make theories and believe in anything but, it do not change what IT IS, God created EVERYTHING, that includes SCIENCE as a creation of God to tell us how He did it.***
Plate shifting and earthquakes, that's how.
@@ji8044No offense to your religion, but there are some folks who just can't take someone who sees 99% chimp in the mirror seriously.
@MastaE2288 Your biology is about 20 years out of date. Spend some time with epigenetic and gene regulation. No evolutionary biologists make that 99 per cent claim any more.
@@diannagregg191 So they finally admitted that they lied to the public for their racist agenda. Do you have a source I could go to?
The decay constant is the probability of radioactive decay within a given amount of time. These are probabilities and given that one mole of atoms is roughly 6 x 10 raise to the 23 the probabilies are over time going to be accurate say uranium 238 with a 6.4 billion year half life means that there is a 50% chance or decay within 6.4 billion years.
so roughly speaking that one mole of Uranium atoms will become a half mole over the next 6.4 billion years you can reduce that to a rate per second and it will be fairly constant.this is like flipping 6 x 10 to the 23 coins and every one that comes up heads is a decay. and it takes you 6.4 billion years to flip all those coins.
now, while we don't know whether some unforeseen issue may change this rate, we has of yet not seen any long term changes in the 100+ yrs of this research.
While on any given second more or less decays may occur, due to fact of random probability, we don't look at second to second, but over millions and billions of years.
Say we flip 2 coins by probability 1 will be head and one tails, but occasionally we may get 2 heads in a row or 2 tails in a row. But as you go up in count hundreds thousands million billions the number of same heads coming up over and over averages out.
Now get back to Genesis 1 God says before he even starts that there is already an earth of unknown billions or trillions of years old. Earth already exists. And it was desolate and void so Genesis 1 doesn't start with ex nihilio creation of the universe.
Desolate and void are the same thing. The bible says the earth became without form and void ( tohu va bohu). It wasn't created that way.
@@thurmansmithjr3149 I have a book called The Torah : A Mechanical Translation
This is Gen 1:2 - I Didn't include the Hebrew as I don't have the fonts so in place I will put "..." nor the accent marks
and the land (... we'ha'a'rets) she did exist (...hai'tah) confusion (... to'hu) and unfilled (... wa'vo'hu) and darkness (...we'hho'shekh) upon (... al) faces (...pe'ney) deep water (... te'hom) and wind (...we'ru'ahh) Ellohiym (... e'lo'him) much fluttering (me'ra'hhe'phet) upon (...al) faces (...pe'ney) the water (...ha'ma'yim)
RMT : and the land had existed in confusion and was unfilled, and darkness was upon the face of the deep water and the wind of Elohiym was fluttering upon the face of the waters.
I would say it is quite clear that The earth had existed for some undefined period of time before God decided to put life on it (days weeks years centuries eons millions or billions of years.. the amount of time is not mentioned as it is not relevant to the story.)
and as time is measured in cycles (events) ...... Periods of "darkness" followed by periods of "Day (light), I think it is reasonable to conclude that the Book of Genesis starts with the beginning of the current cycle "In Summit" (Gen 1:1) - the top of the current time cycle, with likewise unknown numbers of previous cycles.
(my interpretations) So what we have some previous cataclysm destroyed the previous cycle on earth, (God destroyed the population of the previous cycle and made the land "confused and unfilled" and darkness (the top of the cycle / beginning of the cycle/ period of 'ignorance"/unknown/cold [heat is IR radiation so the frozen earth can be viewed as having no light or no heat]) was upon the face of the deep water (water/snow/ice/glaciers - the last major ice ace)
No human being operates without a bias, a predisposition to believe one idea over another. In religious terms we would call that bias “faith.”
The naturalist believes that there is no supernatural force in existence and that man has reached the stage in eternity where he is able to direct the evolutionary development of the universe. The creationist believes that a Creator God exists and that the creatures of that God must seek to understand the Creator’s will. (ICR)
My dad told me something years ago about a table that is made from old tree
He said look at the table how old is it
I said about a month because you just made it
He says are you sure ?
Yea iam sure
He said well look at the rings on the wood
Thats how old it was as a tree
But not as a table
It became a table because I change its shape
But not it's age
He says if he toke the table an broke it put it in a cave
Some digs the table up
An now the cave is said to be age of the table so how does that work
So I think that some times things aren't not what we think
I know this does make sence but
It does make me look different at
Old things found
table, wood and cave. there is no correlation between them. if I put two calendars from different years in a cave it says nothing about the age of the cave. only thing that you can assume is that the cave is older than the youngest calendar. however if i put a printed calendar for 2099 it does not mean that the cave has not yet formed if i find them in 2023. simplistic thinking give simplistic result. this man has no grounding in science or he is lying to you.
When you talk about the age of the universe, they have no rings to count.
There's nothing so absolute that they can look at and point at and say "there is the age of universe."
They can only guess based off of how they believe the universe came into existence. Then they have to make what they think happened match up with what they have found.
Interesting. Made me think of Genesis
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Like the tree before it became a table. I wonder if there was a big timegap before verse 3 when he creates the light and the first day and thus the concept of time and then actually starts shaping the earth.
An example can be given in the Gospel of John were it says:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.
This stands as a complete sentence in its own right. But there are 12 verses inbetween which I did not include. And we know that the Word did not become flesh in the beginning.
Hope I'm not being too confusing.
The age of a tree cannot be confirmed by the rings. Each ring denotes a growth period, which is the result of a wet season. If there are multiple wet periods in a year, there will be a ring for each period. Three wet periods in two years would show three rings, not three years.
Thanks a lot for sharing truth
It's quite hilarious how scientists never think twice about the possibility of daughter isotopes originating from any source other than radioactive decay of the material around them, particularly if the prevailing model of planet formation involves lots of rocks, dust, and gas accumulating into a (very hot) larger mass through violent collisions. How do people believe planets formed in such a chaotic manner but simultaneously put so much faith in a method of dating material that seems to assume the sample was initially 100% pure?
They do think about it, and they take it into consideration when figuring out ages.
you can just say you dropped out of middle school and save us the trouble of reading all that.
Just watched this presentation, my question to Dr. Andrew is :-
Since the radioactive materials mentioned have millions/billions of years at its half life AND carbon14 has about 5700 years, how do we know about their half lives if we have only started measuring the half lives about 80 years ago?
Perhaps the relationship is not a “half-life” one but a “straight line”? Or a “zig zag line”?
answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-dating/
I love how this guy says his mic drop statement, bursting out "So that's a problem". Makes me laugh.
Another amazing video from Answers in Genesis! Now I can help prove that carbon dating is infact false.
We know the exact year the Roman city of Pompeii was destroyed and carbon dating was accurate within a few years.
@@davidgardner863 and other things its way off. because its inconsistent and some things have more or less carbon, based off a number of different variables
@@craigstevens9351seems to be unreliable only when used by creationists, like the professional liar in this video.
@@paulgarrett4474 if you don't like creationists. how could you handle your own Wisdom? Because you would have to erase all creationists' words then, Like creative, make, form, creating if so, all those who go against creation have to be apart of this world that was created... We're living in a created world not evolution world by itself it's ridiculous and lack of knowledge to think that way.... As a result you will have nothing even you because all was created nothing come out of nothing... It have to have a beginning by someone never by itself...
Psalm 1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither-
whatever they do prospers.
4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.
Can we get links to those articles about the volcanoes?
3:40. That's why radiation dating comes with an estimated +/- range of age not a specific date. In case the estimates are off either way.
Different dating methods are more accurate at different times. Dr. Snelling lied when he said all 4 are roughly the same at 20:17. Not sure why he said that because that's just not true. He left out the ± because it would have proven his point wrong.
@@AWSMcube That's why they don't rely on just one. They compare results several different ways and with on the ground verifiable information before drawing any conclusions.
If the universe is billions of years old, we would have reached equilibrium long long ago.
Nope.
Some one once said: "Those who control the past control the future, and those who control the future control the present." Think about it.
"Think about it."
Then what?
ok, I thought about it, the earth is still billions of years old, radioactive dating still works, evolution is still real, and god still doesn't exist
Psalm 1 Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither-
whatever they do prospers.
4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.
I love this video, however I have one small issue with the statement “the rate that comets decay they will be gone in less than ten thousand years, meaning the solar system is less than ten thousand years old…” the issue is that the comets would have just been bigger than they are now. Though for them to be going around for five billion years they would have had to have been enormous, but we just don’t know how big they were when they were formed
Probably not planet-sized as would be necessary.
@@christophertaylor9100 yes, I agree. My point is that there’s a little detail that I would have loved to hear about that they just left out, and I wouldn’t be surprised if people used this against the people at answers in genesis.
Oh and also the comments may have been just a little bit larger than they are today when they were formed and they just formed like a 1k years ago or something like that you know?
The problem here is the SM theory of comets is wrong. They aren't "dirty snowballs" and they weren't created at the same time as the solar system. And incidentally, the model of the solar system is wrong too. They don't have a model that fits the evidence or can make accurate predictions. 100% of what I was taught in school was debunked by probe observations. The textbooks remain the same. Different planets are different ages. Pluto and Venus are young. We don't know how they formed.
This makes a lot more sense than those ridiculous billions of years some scientists claim. Nice video. Thank you.
Small number for small brain
I'm happy to hear how the people that spent their entire lives studying while you watched an aig video did no research of your own and said something ridiculous like this
@@nuke_man_aiwhat scientific process the guy used to prove his point in the video was wrong and why.
@@stickyrubbI gave your mom a big number of the D
@@DK-zy5fm first radioactive decay is different from chemical reactions
Its not affected by outside changes
As you see he directly lied to his audience
He says Its affected by oxygen
Just shows how little he actualy did research on it and decided he dosnt need to know because ke does know that his audience dosnt look further then his lies and nonsensical ramblings
He makes silly comparisons with an hour glass and a kid
But I never heard of no chemical proccesse messing with radio active decay other then volcanoes but most fossils aren't near volcanoes
Since all of you are so hyppocritical and cant have your opinion challanged im asking you
Where is actual evidence for creation
Experiments have confirmed evolution
And a study shiws that rna and I quote
SPONTANIOUSLY FORMS ON BASALT LAVA GLASS
Ken just sound scientifc because he used words too big for vmcreationists to understand
He never mention other reasons we know the age of the earth
We know fossils take millions of years to form because we know the chemical proccesses behind their formation
He never mentions that or how we know
Geologic features take millions of years to form because we know how erosion worhmks and made conclusion
He says again and again scientists are lying but how does anyone benifit from lying about the age of the earth
Ken hiwever does benifit from lying
He gets money from it
He says scientists don accept they are wrong but he is lying scientists are also oroven wrong every day and accept it
Its why every new idea is approached with skepticism
Funny how if you question religion they all go ballistic
Creationists use all sorts of strawman but if I use a strawman on religion you all would go ballistic and accuse me of attacking you
You benifit from science every day like your devices fridge and other stuff you use in CHURCH too
But if this is how you disrespect the people who contributed to your comfirt and wellbeing you dont deserve any of it
Sorry about punctuation
English isnt my native language
First, we can only carbon date organic materials (things made of carbon), we cannot date stone. We know the decay rate of certain atoms is constant, knowing the rate of decay allows for us to find said atom and test how long it has been decaying. It's all a guess but a guess based on known quantities. That said, I believe our universe was created and it was done so with certain rules after the first matter was created. God gave us our ability to theorize and invent as well as try to attain the knowledge he locked in our universe. It's impossible right now for us to know for sure... eventually we'll know for sure and I don't see an issue with my faith and science. To me it's all additive.
I to thought it was only organic material! Why is he talking about rock?
@@adelucas5472 it's just an effort to segregate believers from scientists when in reality science and faith are not enemies. In fact, science was initially meant to be our window into God's world so that we may better understand God's plan for us but for some reason some people think they cannot coexist...yet they can and do in many of our greatest scientists. If you want to prove the earth was created in seven days (or even seven thousand years) and you don't believe in our current scientific methods then I suggest you invent the science needed to find the truth (mean you in the general).
Please look up radioactive decay there are many inorganic minerals that do this kind of decay! And these minerals are found in rocks(stone).
I’ve just always said the issue is that it assumes it was all the first atom type when it was made. 🤷🏻♂️
I appreciate that you did not pull the "God made it look old" card. Interestingly enough this information was known back at least 40 years ago since it was taught at YWAM (youth with a mission), and modern science still has not dealt with it.
I was in YWAM 30 years ago but, sadly, my DTS and staff experience didn't include any information like this. I know that YWAM is so highly decentralized that there's a wide variety of subjects taught, even in a DTS, depending on the school director and base location, etc, but maybe you took a class at University of the Nations that included this info.
Where in YWAM was this taught 40 years ago?
@cliffhutchison861 There was an American YWAM teacher by the name of Michael R. Saia with his wife Carol that had taught for them for quite some time back then. He had written several books on a variety of subjects as well, that's how I was able to recall his name. Anyhow it was more like 35 years ago.
"We actually have a birth certificate for the earth. It's called the word of God."
@@therick363 of course it is.
God loves you and wants you to experience peace and eternal life-abundant and eternal.
The Bible says:
"We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Romans 5:1
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16
"I [Jesus] came that they may have life and have it abundantly."
John 10:10
@@therick363 Yet Science which are well accepted theories backed by many scientists was created by men with limited awareness and is continually being updated with new theories and discoveries, the Bible on the other hand remains constant and was inspired by God Himself and if you do your own research on the Christian Bible it is completely different then any other religion that gives us hope and a free choice.
@@therick363 "updated" to continue to fit the atheist narrative for the universe
***are you joking? God is a SPIRIT.***
@@samuelrodriguez9199 ***can you tell me what is the difference between ETERNAL and INFINITE and define both?as they are not the same thing.***
Still waiting to see those “miraculous” papers that change everything we know.
28:22 There you go, bruh.
@@ji8044 I'll wager ALL organised evangelism in the USA is totally 'on the level'. American christians have chased the one eyed dollar and failed. They also believe the false Schofield bible.
@@reeb9016no papers are mentioned there
@@reeb9016so there aren't any then.
@mrosskne The way a time stamp works is you tap on the highlighted time and it takes you to that point in the video. I can't believe I have to explain this. Do that, and you will see the see the paper he's referring to.
Belief based on faith, faith based on belief. I was raised believing, then I rejected "faith" when I understood scientific reasoning. I support your right to believe anything you wish, but don't expect or require me to follow your faith.
there is no right to believe what you want. if you can't defend your beliefs, you will abandon them.
Thanks!
I’ve always maintained decay rates have never been constant. They change based on environment, heat, cold, contamination, and time. There is also a chance in the beginning decay rates were much faster and have been getting slower over time, but in the limited time we have measured they appear stable but truthfully are getting slower
Citation for changing decay rates please.
They don't - this is just something you made up in your head with no evidence, research or basis.
Radioactive decay does not behave like a chemical reaction. It is a physical process that is completely independent of external influences such as temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. All data indicate that it is a constant process and therefore mathematically simple.
@@h.gonyaulax2190 Careful, there have been some experiments to show that decay rates can be influenced by superheating. But generally the rates are constant.
@@StudentDad-mc3pualso volcanic eruptions but thats all so carbon dating can still be trusted
When C14 dating is so off, why do we still accept it when dates line up with the Biblical timeline? Why do we agree that the shroud of turin is dated to Jesus's time now? Why aren't we completely dismissing C14 dating?
Actually, theres been various studies and examinations have been conducted on the Shroud to determine its origins and authenticity that's not related to C14 dating.
It's not that it was accurate in the first place anyway, since the material they measured was from pieces that was used to repair the Shroud, not the actual Shroud itself.
You also have to remember that C14 dating doesn't need much correction unless its a known case of a radically different Earth from what we observe currently, especially a catastrophic period most especially, this would be most applicable to the Flood and near period after the Flood (probably the first five hundred to one thousand years after the Flood) as well as the pre-Flood period where the Earth was completely different from what it is now. Something that is only two thousand years old or less needs very little correction because for the most part the Earth was very similar to how it is now, but if we go back to say the year two thousand BC or before, the effects of the pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood period throw C14 measurements radically out of alignment because the Earth was nothing like it is now, and the environment was completely different contributing to different C14 levels, which if you calculate without taking such cases into account it throws off the measurements and for the most part with what such an environment is like, you'll almost certainly end up with millions of years, it should be incredibly difficult to find a C14 object that reports to be from four thousand years ago and you'll almost certainly find that anything above a certain range will have radically more years between us and it once you get to those ranges without correction.
Course this is assuming six thousand year old Earth right now, the Flood would've only happened in two thousand BC, however this metric still applies to the Pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood periods even if my time frame assumption were off, this just merely says that whatever distance the Flood started from now, you'll find extremely difficult or perhaps even impossible to find that time frame in the C14 dating without an applied correction to it. Every case of that time frame would randomly jump from a few thousand to between a few tens of thousands to even perhaps a few millions of years, so where lower end value where C14 tracked objects stop reporting time is very likely close to the time of the Flood instead, when they start jumping to radically more time, you know you've probably found evidence of an object that is in fact from a period close to or before the Flood. This of course makes some presumptions with C14 so this principal is not foolproof but it very well could demonstrate a fact.
Because hardcore Christians will use every theory supporting their hypotheses while they will reject the same theory in another matter where the results are contradictory. They just don‘t (want to) understand science
Mostly due to archeological evidence backing up dates stated in the Bible. If you are truly interested there are some fascinating scholars in the field of egyptology and archeology that have found evidence of events happening in specific places mentioned in the Bible. There is so much we just can't know but there are times where a timecapsule so to speak is found to back up biblical claims.
Actually, the shroud of Turin has gone through three separate fires overtime and that alone would throw off any reliable carbon 14 date given.
That being said, carbon 14 dating can give some good results, however the closer you get to the flood the worse it is going to give, this is because of the world wide volcanism that was occurring adding tons of carbon to the atmosphere. So i am fine with it as a dating method but don’t ever think it’s 100%. One study actually sent a sample to all the different laboratories and they discovered that it was only 18% accurate.
Let's simplify even further. In mathematics you cannot take multiple variables and not use a true constant to come up with an answer that is accurate to anything constant. You must have a true constant to factor in any variable.
nice word salad, too bad you don't actually know what any of the words you used mean.
That was truly fascinating. Thank you.
I have 2 issue however, and not about the science, but rather the interpretation on scripture. 1, the bible does not give an age of creation, it just says "in the beginning". 2nd the use of the Cross is not biblical as original language used is a singular stake, or pole. Plus the symbol of the cross predates Christianity.
It great to see science being questioned as its the only way we can learn about Creation.
You can date genealogy biblically. While you're correct, the cross is a pagan symbol falsely attributed as christian. Jesus conquered the cross, it isn't his symbol. Just like if he was killed by a sword a sword wouldn't be his symbol. That was utilized largely by the catholic church which is almost entirely pagan and never was Christian from its inception in Rome under Constantine who began murdering any Christians who wouldn't submit to him just like Rome always did.
@@Jack-yc9mv thanks for your reply. Yes you can date genealogy in the bible, one of the marvellous things about it, and can help us verify its God's word. But, man was created on the 6th day, there were 5 creative days before humans, so we have no idea how much time has passed since the universe was created to when humans were created. Only science can give us estimates
Yet every method science tries to date anything is being shown inconsistent and invalid, as science is largely based off assumptions in the attempt to prove there is no God, developed largely by luciferians mind you.
@@ManicMaynard
god isn't real.