Recently Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate regarding the validity of evolution and creationism. This debate mixed with the recent discovery of the earliest known human footprints outside Africa is leading a big question to arise: How does carbon dating work? Well, Trace did some digging and is here to tell you all about carbon dating and other ways we can know the age of an object or fossil.
Earliest Human Footprints Outside Africa Found in Britain
"Footprints left by ancient humans 800,000 years ago have been found in Britain, the earliest evidence of such markings outside Africa, scientists said Friday."
Hominin Footprints From Early Pleistocene Deposits At Happisburgh, UK
"Investigations at Happisburgh, UK, have revealed the oldest known hominin footprint surface outside Africa at between ca. 1 million and 0.78 million years ago."
How Carbon-14 Works
"You probably have seen or read news stories about fascinating ancient artifacts. At an archaeological dig, a piece of wooden tool is unearthed and the archaeologist finds it to be 5,000 years old."
How Do Scientists Determine The Age Of Dinosaur Bones?
"The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating."
"Radiocarbon dating had its origin in a study of the possible effects that cosmic rays might have on the earth and the earth's atmosphere."
Core Sample Sends Carbon Clock Farther Back In Time
"Sediment from Japanese lake provides more accurate timeline for dating objects as far back as 50,000 years."
Deep Sea Corals May Be Oldest Living Marine Organism
"Deep-sea corals from about 400 meters off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands are much older than once believed and some may be the oldest living marine organisms known to man."
Climate Close-up: Coral Reefs
"The warm, shallow ocean waters of the tropics have talkative "forests" of their own"
Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record
"Richard Alley might have envied paleoceanographer Jerry McManus' warm, ship-board lab."
Why There Won't Be Jurassic Park
TestTube Wild Card
Evolution Before Your Eyes
DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.
Watch More DNews on TestTube http://testtube.com/dnews
Subscribe now! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=dnewschannel
DNews on Twitter http://twitter.com/dnews
Anthony Carboni on Twitter http://twitter.com/acarboni
Laci Green on Twitter http://twitter.com/gogreen18
Trace Dominguez on Twitter http://twitter.com/trace501
DNews on Facebook https://facebook.com/DiscoveryNews
DNews on Google+ http://gplus.to/dnews
Discovery News http://discoverynews.com
In 1956 I took several pieces of pottery into the museum at Flagstaff AZ "the painted pieces are around 300 years old and the sculpted are around 500 years old". I was a sampler working for a mining company. We had been flown onto Cummings Mesa looking for uranium.
Dr. Cummings had carried off all the artifacts to enrich the collections in the AZ museums.
I believe the pottery chips were analogous to the people who inhabited Cummings Mesa 10 to 12 thousand years ago during the floods.
It not decays *every* 5630 years, it decays constantly, day by day, at a specific and measurable rate. These measurements lead us to calculate that the total amount of carbon 14 in the sample halves every 5630 years.
+The Last Targaryen
You're very welcome. I had a sneaky feeling that the problem lay not with you but with the videos. So I ran with that idea and I was right. It's not your fault for not understanding. It's the fault of the videos for glossing over key parts of the process. All you needed was more attention paid to each step. I'm glad it's successfully been cleared up for you.
The natural state of a carbon atom is for it to have 6 protons and 6 neutrons. 6+6=12. So it's atomic mass is 12 and we call it carbon-12 or C-12 for short. There are also carbon-13 or C-13 atoms which have 6 protons and 7 neutrons. And then there's carbon-14 or C-14 which has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Now, there is a certain ratio of C-12 to C-14 that exists. If it makes it easier, we can think of it as a percentage rather than a ratio. We can also use some (fake) round numbers to make it easier. And we'll also just pretend that C-13 doesn't exist because it's not relevant to this. So let's say that for all the carbon atoms that exist, 90% is C-12 and 10% is C-14. So if we take 10 carbon atoms, 9 of them will be C-12 and 1 of them will be C-14. That same percentage will be true in every living organism. Let me explain. There's a complex ecosystem with a food chain. All living things either eat other living things or get eaten by other living things or both. So let's say that the carbon atoms in you are 90% C-12 and 10% C-14. You eat a fish. The carbon atoms in the fish were also 90% C-12 to 10% C-14. So because the amount of carbon atoms that you took in by eating the fish were 90 to 10, the total amount of carbon atoms in you remains 90 to 10. You took a bunch of extra C-14 atoms into your body which would throw the balance off but for every C-14 atom you took in, you took 9 C-12 atoms in so it balances it back out. And the fish had 90 to 10 in it's body because the things that it ate had 90 to 10 and so on and so on. So all life ends up with the same percentage of C-12 atoms as each other and the same percentage of C-14 atoms as each other. When an animal dies, something starts to happen. Because of the two extra neutrons in C-14 atoms, they are very unstable. Through a process known as beta decay, 1 of it's neutrons turns into a proton. So it then has 7 neutrons and 7 protons. An atom with 7 protons and 7 neutrons is nitrogen. So C-14 atoms decay into nitrogen atoms. The time that it takes for this decay to take place occurs at a constant rate. C-14 has a half life of 5730 years. This means that it takes 5730 years for half of the C-14 atoms to decay into nitrogen. So if an animal died 5730 years ago, 5% of it's carbon atoms would be C-14 and the other 5% would have decayed into nitrogen. The same thing then happens again. It starts a new cycle. So if an animal has been dead for 5730 years, it has half the C-14 atoms that it started with and if an animal has been dead for 11,460 (twice as long), then it has a quarter of the C-14 atoms that it started with. So knowing all this, if the amount of C-14 atoms in a dead animal and the amount of C-12 atoms in a dead animal are both counted and then those two numbers are compared, it's possible to do some calculations to work out how long it would take to go backwards and end up back at 90% C-12 to 10% C-14 and whatever that number is, that is how long ago that the animal died.
How could footprints be on earth for 50,000 years old? Rain, or some other natural phenomenon would surely mess them up and leave no trace, especially if we are talking for 1,000s of years. What do you guys think?
The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can vary over time, but there are some methods like the study of ice cores or lake varves that allow us to follow its variation and thus to calibrate the clock.
There's more to it than that statement. Why don't you lazy fools do more research, and stop pretending that that is the full extent of the argument. If there were 50 counter arguments along with all their supporting evidence, you fools just take one or 2 of the arguments, and use your bureaucratic approach to reject the other 48 lines of evidence and just knock down those two. It seems there needs to a scientific analysis of your thought processes to get to the root of the problem. Its not the evidence of the other side, its your trinitarian mindset. (pun intended) And I don't believe the Earth is 6 days old. Proverbs 8 chapter. Nor do I believe the earth is 30,000 years old. Proverbs 8, an inconceivable amount of time.
might also think about spontaneous generation as that is necessary for the big bang. Steve H. said that if u put big bang in reverse , the universe gets more and more dense (smaller) until you end up with zero volume, which means no universe, which means an outside force is necessary to "pump up the volume" so to speak.
So, there should be absolutely no C-14 in any dinosaur bones, right? There are sources from all over the world saying that they are finding C-14 in the majority of their dino bones. What is up with that?
Radiocarbon Dating: A Closer Look At Its Main Flaws
Posted on February 7, 2013 by Andrea Cohn
In last Tuesday’s lecture, radiocarbon dating was covered briefly. It is an essential technology that is heavily involved in archaeology and should be explored in greater depth. Radiocarbon dating uses the naturally occurring isotope Carbon-14 to approximate the age of organic materials. These “materials” can be almost anything. Often, archaeologists use graves and plant remains to date sites. Since its conception by Willard Libby in 1949, it has been invaluable to the discipline. In fact, many important archaeological artifacts have been dated using this method including some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin. Though radiocarbon dating is startlingly accurate for the most part, it has a few sizable flaws.
The technology uses a series of mathematical calculations—the most recognizable of which is known as half-life—to estimate the age the organism stopped ingesting the isotope. Unfortunately, the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been steady throughout history. In fact, it has fluctuated a great deal over the years. This variation is caused by both natural processes and human activity. Cosmic rays and changes in Earth’s climate can cause irregularities in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Humans began making an impact during the Industrial Revolution. The isotope decreased by a small fraction due to the combustion of fossil fuels, among other factors. However, the quantity of Carbon-14 was nearly doubled in the ’50s and ’60s because of the atomic bomb testings in those decades.
The answer to the problem of fluctuating amounts of this important isotope is calibration. While an uncalibrated reading may be off by a factor of 10%-20%, calibration severely reduces that value. Standard calibration curves are now used for more accurate readings. These curves indicate the changes in Carbon-14 throughout the years and modifies the end result of the tests to reflect that. Though the calibrated date is more precise, many scholars still use the uncalibrated date in order to keep chronologies consistent in academic communities.
Though it’s biggest, the calibration problem is not the only flaw of radiocarbon dating. As the lecture detailed, it is only accurate from about 62,000 years ago to 1,200 A.D. There is a sizable amount of time before and after that period that cannot be investigated using this method. Also, archaeologists cannot use their hands to touch the samples or smoke near them. They risk seriously altering the result of the test. The “Old Wood Problem” is the last flaw of radiocarbon dating that will be elaborated upon here. If an archaeologist wanted to date a dead tree to see when humans used it to build tools, their readings would be significantly thrown off. This is because radiocarbon dating gives the date when the tree ceased its intake of Carbon-14—not when it was being used for weapons and other instruments! Since trees can have a lifespan of hundreds of years, its date of death might not even be relatively close to the date the archaeologists are looking for. Thorough research and cautiousness can eliminate accidental contamination and avoidable mistakes.
This magnificent technology is the most important innovation in archaeological history. Archaeologists have the most accurate readings they are likely to ever receive! Despite its overuse and misrepresentation in the media, it is nonetheless extremely valuable. This process has seriously assisted archaeologists in their research, excavations, and scholarly studies. Though it is not without its flaws, including several not mentioned here, it is truly an incredible creation that will be used for many years to come.
This entry was posted in Student Blog Post 1 by Andrea Cohn. Bookmark the permalink.
The claims of accuracy is hilarious... that's a joke. The reason dr. Ken Ham makes the claim "you weren't there is based off the fact that you need more that observational science to determine the age. You also need historical science. There are so many ways the data can be flawed. Such as outside conditions or outside contamination which can completely alter the data. That's why you can find a mammoth who's leg can date way off from the rest of its body or how a recently deceased animal can somehow date back millions of years. It's totally flawed and there's no way around that.
Is that a typo or did you really mean to call Ken Ham Dr?
Do you have a source for two different parts of a mammoth being dated differently?
Yes, recently dead marine mammals will garner old dates due to contamination. Specifically, the reservoir effect. This is well understood and marine animals and sediment formed from them aren't dated using radiocarbon dating because of it. So what's the problem? It's like complaining that a tape measure can't measure the circumference of the earth. I know it can't, I don't want it to and had no intention of trying so unless the fact that it can't measure the earth somehow bizarrely means that I can't use it to measure my doorframe, why complain about it?
Well here is famous example about the accuracy of ''carbon'' dating... Iceman Ötzi, they carbon dated him and got ''accurate'' age, then they carbon dated the hay inside Ötzi's boots and thats when things got weird... The hay inside Ötzis boots were much younger than the body of Ötzi himself, meaning that someone must have found the corpse of Ötzi and been like ''Oh god no, you have old fashioned boots... Here have a new pair''.
https://youtu.be/lg5aDoYUyBk Okay let's all take a look it this lol and see how crazy evolutionist are . Its only 10 minutes . Don't get mad at me but this is really what they use. So please keep your insults to yourself and be mad at them because didn't tell you these facts . I won't be replying to any comments or argue with you because im destroying your false religion . Thank you . Bye.
just look at geological artifacts found that are in the Bible and look up written artifacts and written accounts from Aristotle Plato and many other well-known Greek and Roman Scholars and you will find that every account in the Bible is correct not to mention the scientific theories that show how dinosaurs were killed simultaneously by a flood and that's the rock sediment layers are compacted in layers because of the rapid succession that they were buried during the flood also don't forget the fact that there is no link creature between species that supposed to cause evolution and there is no evidence inside of any specimen that we have found I shows any evidence of species changing over time every single supposed to specie such as Lucy has been repeatedly debunked by both creationist and skeptic evolutionist Darwin himself said that there is a major problem with his theory: hundreds upon thousands of millions of fossil samples that are supposed to be the species in between human and ape or in between different kinds of dinosaurs for example are 100% missing and we have not found a single one. however with the Bible as I previously mentioned we have found almost every city that is in the Bible to be a real life City. We have found historical written accounts of earthquakes and the sky darkening at the time of Jesus death written by the most famous ancient Scholars and their name slips my mind not to mention the actual written record in Roman history that has been found and translated in uncovered that shows proof of the events that happened that night and yes we have found Noah's ark - I copied from another commitment
See I don't think that carbon dating alone is worthless, but he even just stated the fact that at a certain depth scientists have to rely on a lot of assumptions.
The thing is that at that depth there are also anomalies that the common person is not fully familiar with and we don't discuss them enough because the common public (public as opposed to scientists) perspective is that they are unimportant.
I'm not saying the Earth is only 6000 years old, but what I am saying is that at a certain point, we make a TON of assumptions backed up only by other assumptions and the hope that things have always operated the same way.
A lot can happen in even 10,000 years. I'm not sold on the idea that things have been THAT consistent for 4.5 billion years. For all we know, it could be half that, especially since it seems like a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 5000 wouldn't even be measurable after that length of time. I mean it's even possible that if an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, that it could have effected the levels of different isotopes in some way, especially if it blocked sunlight for a significant period of time. And yet nobody questions this stuff more.
Carbon Dating is Sudo Science and about as right as the movie 'Tire'! lol... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4qHneHB1E Which is the kind of Movie this iDiot would write, star in as the Brainless Rubber Tire and think was 'Science' too! :DDD Math is Science..... but Carbon Dating is so variable it's pathetic. Tell me how you an item can be alive and be Carbon 14 Dated to Millions of yrs ago? Let me know how they can find elastic stretchy veins/arteries in Dinosaur Bones so old they're afraid to process them. But when they do apply acid to dissolve some bone material it dissolves the bone and leaves DNA material? How about Science seems to have been able to Sequence Dinosaur DNA but not Mankind's completely? What a Crock. Like I said Math is Science..... but only Bill Nye the Science Turd Brain thinks Carbon Dating is Science!!! ....oh and this leftover from the Dinosaur Age! ;-P
Carbon dating is unreliable and only goes back thousands of years. It is affected by many things. And its not "basic knowledge" its a guess or theory. No one lived 5000 years to measure that. Its a psuedo science and as fake as u claim religion is. And about the layers? Theres thousands of trees found fossilized in sedimentation. The problem that shows for ur theory u claim as fact??? The layers wouldnt have had time to form around a live tree like that. Try again
What's tests were done over and over again to the point of repeatability that this is accurate? If someone wanted to try this for the first time, what's information on the matter is proven and solid? There are two ways to prove how old a rock is. Take a rock that was just made from a volcano and test it every year. For rocks older or that were found in the dirt randomly? Go back in time! Ha
+Hayden Case easy to find..simply start with young earth in you tube..and trex carbon .and even DNA .. soft tissue. It's all easy to find. I had been a gap theory person thinking a recreation. . But folk lure isn't far from fact..tho the aliens are the fallen angels. And they did breed with man. They HAVE Noahs ark. Even Chinese speak of the 8 with animals in the boat . The false gods they chose they still show historical facts that match Bible. The natives in a very remote area say they still have recently killed like a small brontosaurus .. ok. I ruined that spelling. But. It's so hard to get to..but...it's there ..and so r they
+Hayden Case there is carbon in dinosaur bones.. and they would be gone more in years in thousands not even the tens of thousands ..either believe All of Bible and proof of flood..and historical proof in even Chinese of the 8 in the boat. And the animals. It's history ..and since we now say they r fables not real killing of dragons.. so. Believe what u want.. but science has proven creation and the flood . And much more .all history is in Bible and book of Enoch. Or. U can believe aliens started life here.but and when they appear and do wonders u can worship them .. future isn't too hard..neither is history. Or u can follow the evolution of man's decent into acceptance of what is a lie
earliest known human footprint means its from someone walking in mud that contains salts and silicates that turns the mud into stone. this process can be very fast since these chemistry hardens under certain conditions much more quickly than others.
"evolution is a joke"
-Your intelligence is a joke.
" Completely unproven."
-That's funny, all of the world's biologists disagree with you. But your dumb ass is smarter than all of them, right? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You retards are too funny!
Did I just hear the word estimate and when you sat at you kind of lower your voice tone because you were afraid to make emphasis that it's just an estimate all I know is that when Mount Helens exploded in the 80s did the carbon dating on the rocks that had just been erupted by the volcano in less than 30 years the carbon dating said it was 5 million years and then like 2 million years and like five different dates all in millions of years when the rocks have just been erupted for 30 years lol carbon dating is totally wrong
"Did I just hear the word estimate"
-Yes, estimate. There is a margin of error, just as there is with any other measurement technique.
"when Mount Helens exploded in the 80s did the carbon dating on the rocks that had just been erupted by the volcano in less than 30 years the carbon dating said it was 5 million years and then like 2 million years and like five different dates all in millions of years when the rocks have just been erupted for 30 years lol carbon dating is totally wrong"
-You are just spewing scientific ignorance. Carbon dating does not date inorganic compounds, and is not used to date things millions of years old. And even if they could, the lava wouldn't have been just created, it existed inside the Earth for a long time before that. Damn you are fucking dumb...
@DNews!!! I’ve been researching a lot on selective breeding and the silver fox farm of Siberia that created domestic foxes. Also read some articles talking about how cats are only semi-domesticated and that we didn’t necessarily start formally selectively breeding them-mostly for color-till the late 1800s; and they weren’t kept as companions till about 10,000 years ago. So why doesn’t someone finish the job and fully domesticate cats? Breed the biting, anti-social part out and select for more social, friendly housecats. On the silver fox farm in Siberia they were able to do this in about 6 generations.
Secondly, interestingly enough, the domesticated foxes live 10+ years, longer than their wild counterparts. Why don’t we redo some dog evolution and start again with some wolves and see if we can get healthier breeds of dogs, compared to some of the modern day breeds some of which aren’t too healthy including the boxer and English bulldog. Just some thoughts for some sweet videos. If you guys don’t make one, I’ll probably make one. :)
Carbon dating is a scam, it’s supposed to look like it works so the evolutionists have a “reasonable” defense in their claims. They know as well as Creationists that it doesn’t prove anything useful to their arguments. No word has authority over God’s word, and The Bible stated many things about the earth long before scientist found it. They should be looking to God and His Word for answers and not Radiometric dating.
"How do you know that Einstein?! "
-Because I can read.
"May be can you explain how a idiot as me can alone huge chemical Plants do"
-Do you speak English?
"Wow...You are amazing"
"Not in that direction ...in other...May be couse parts oft atheist Brains are not working thats why are you so smart.( encefalographie dyagram shows that)"
-Is your dumb ass capable of forming coherent sentences???
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg realy? Wow!.How do you know that Einstein?! May be can you explain how a idiot as me can alone huge chemical Plants do.Wow...You are amazing! Not in that direction ...in other...May be couse parts oft atheist Brains are not working thats why are you so smart.( encefalographie dyagram shows that)
I don't understand how there are the same amount of carbon 14 atoms in every organic thing when we are all different sizes, elephants are bigger than baby ants
Can you please explain this because I'm losing my mind trying to find this information anywhere else. The sun and atomsphere don't really explain much for me.
Were we around 20-80 years ago to see loads of igneous rocks form. YEP, we were. So, can we date them? Has anyone tried?
Do you think it's possible to date a rock of a known age (say 20 - 80yrs old) ? Surprisiingly, the answer is no.
If you're not sure, look it up. There's many scientific papers published on comparing all the various dating methods used to day. Excluding carbon dating methods, the dates vary from 2 million years to nearly 100 million years old. These are the facts. Would you believe the rock millions of years old, if you know for a fact that it came from an eruption only decades ago?
Have you seen the Nodosaur discovered recently? like many other fossils, it has soft carbon tissues, yet has been dated to 110 million years old,. this is impossible due to natural decay rate of carbon. i.e. even with immaculate preservation, the carbon should've decayed completely. Therefore, the date specified is wrong and the fossil cannot be older than several thousand years.
At some point people have to acknowledge actual science flying in the face their world view and what they're told.
jip as seen before useing flawed data to fool people.if someone does not understand the proses or the science behind it they will believe anything.there are huge problems and assumptions made on the dating of any material on or from the earth these assumptions won't stand if used in a court case senario
These things are known by most Europeans, we don't need a dummies guide to evolution. Trying this remedial class on Religiotards is irrelevant, they just deny the science, even claiming, when they have to accept a fact, that Jesus walked with Dinosaurs. You really have to get past that level of stupid, or better still breed these idiots out of the gene pool.
Just as Diamonds are a girl's best friend they're the best friend to creationist.
Diamonds per science are millions to billions of years old. Carbon 14 half life less than 6000 years means zero carbon 14 will remain within 100,000 years. Yet... Million plus year old diamonds have carbon 14...
If you're talking about dinosaurs, no moist tissue has ever been found. Tissue found in dinosaur bones has only ever become moist when being rehydrated in an effort to remove the surrounding mineral components of the bone. And no DNA has ever been found in any of this tissue either so I'm not sure of the relevance of stating that DNA degrades no matter what.
So the only way to date a fossil "accurately" beyond 60,000 years is to compare it to other (non-carbon) isotypes in the layer in which the fossil is found. Ok. Got it. So what if there was a historical event that could have jumbled up these layers and redeposited the remains into different layers than where they originally would have been found? Let's say something like a catastrophic regional or global flood? And what if the atmospheric conditions that drive the half-life of carbon-14 and other isotopes were not constants but actually differed greatly as recently as a few thousand years ago? The half-life may have, in fact, been much much shorter or may have had much more variability in the past than it does at present. We can't know because we have no way of measuring those conditions that we are assuming were constants. What we do know, however, is that the Bible describes a much different planet at the time of Job, Noah and other early biblical figures. We know, for example, that rain was unknown to Noah's contemporaries. They thought Noah had lost his mind because they had never seen rain, and much less torrential rain or flooding. It's likely that the impetus for the great flood was God changing the atmospheric conditions of the earth to trigger the rain and up-welling of subterranean water. This could have been done supernaturally (similar to his act of creation) or through natural means -- such as a giant meteor impacting the earth. The point is that there are too many variables to know whether the modern day assumptions about cosmic radiation and the half-life of these isotopes were true even 10,000 years ago. So how could we possibly project back 10 million years or beyond with any certainty at all? Carbon dating only takes us back 60,000 years, and that's IF our modern constants have actually remained constant for that period -- which is a big "if" and is unprovable.
The fact is that proponents of evolutionary theory needed the universe to be millions or billions of years old because the process of evolving from random gasses to single-cell organisms to eventually the highly ordered, interdependent universe full of complex organisms we see today can only have happened (theoretically) over a vast, almost immeasurable time period. So they drew this conclusion FIRST and then went looking for a way to justify their presupposition. That is NOT SCIENCE. That is religious dogma in search of a cover story.
Corroboration and obsession with peer review are unhelpful when all have a common perception or current understanding.
For instance, all medical 'peer reviewers' and 'corroborators' believed that the Black Death was spread by a 'miasma'. Anyone of a contrary view was considered to be in error.
This presumes than the rate of cosmic ray exposure has always been the same as it is now. There is no method to determine whether this is so.
Therefore carbon dating is based on a supposition - is this not true?
We can use the rocks in which the sample was found if the age exceeds 60,000 years? I've been researching this topic for years, and I can cite account after account where the rocks surrounding the sample were assigned dates wildly different from those of the sample. For example, a sample of fossilized wood in Banbury, England was dated to be between 20.7-28.8 thousand years old. The rock surrounding it was dated to be 183 MILLION years old. (Snelling, 2000).
Another thing is that you can't know how one organism changed into another. it could have advanced then went back a step. Also it needs both a male and female to produce. Mutations aren't exactly reliable. You can have slight changes but they don't exactly happen as often as you think. Plus it needs to be consistent and it's not.
The problem with this is that after 50k to 60k years one has to relay on the geological dating. Which opens up for lots of questions. Who came up with the numbers and how accurate they are? Just because a hypothesis being established as a fact, cannot be used as a fact to back up another hypothesis! Maybe you should do a video about geological dating, how it came up to be? and what are the facts that back it up and its accuracy?
One simple comment. The moon moves farther away from the earth every year. It's been measured to an EXACT mathematical equation EXACTLY how far it moves every year. Now... having said that, if you reverse that equation it litigates the Bible. So in summary of my "small comment" every time you hear someone say millions of years or 10s of thousands of years, your about to be lied too! The earth is less than 10,000 years old period. Now... argue with that! God is real!
Key word: Estimate. Carbon dating extrapolates data with no way of knowing for sure. Plus, any event (i.e. whatever killed the dinosaurs) Creationists are simply the empiricists in this field. There are many holes in carbon dating and different schools within it.
Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in existence of God or gods......Dear Atheist if you dont believe that God dose not existence. Let me ask you this, HOW CAN A SEED BE PLANTED BY IT SELF...if you want to proof the world that god dose not
existence....explain this.. can you grow a seed with out water, sun light, dirt or (if you really want to show proof) without atmosphere...Than you can say God not real.
Poor Science! . The myth of Evolution (Macro) fails when the Scientific Method of falsify-ability is applied, you can not repeat it, therefore it is not science, neither is Creation, but at least they know it, and are not so ignorant as to pretend otherwise.However Creation does not brake scientific laws like Causality, Thermodynamics and Boyles Gas Law which your fairy-tale brakes from the very beginning of your religion (The Big Bang).We do not need evolution to do real science, we can send people into space, invent computers, airplanes,cars, medical cures and lots more using the Scientific Method without any need for Evolution (Macro).You guys tell yourselves that the fairy-tale of evolution is true and leave the real Science to the grown ups.
Actually the bible and carbon dating are right. God's word in the bible proves the earth as being millions of years old. The dinosaurs bones are God's witnesses to that fact of the earth as being Million of years old.
Alot of Christians are taught by man's teachings and doctrines that the earth is only 6 thousand years old. this is false. God teaches in His word that the earth as being Million of years old.
But as it is people would rather go by what man's teachings and doctrines will tell them, Instead of listening to God's teachings.
I love this edgy look! I was so excited that her hair, even as short as it is now, was still able to be put into the fun and trendy dutch pigtail braids! Instead of braiding to the ends, I ended them in close together pigtails at the nape of her neck. After I finished braiding, I tugged on the outsides of the braid gently to loosen them and make them a little messy and fun! Since she doesn’t have enough hair to tie around the elastics, I made sure to use elastics that matched her hair so they blend in as much as possible. You could also cover them with clips or bows! A view from the back of her Dutch pigtail braids! A great braid for short hair is a micro accent braid! My biggest tip for braiding short hair would be to add in small slices of hair rather than big ones. I did a small (micro) braid along a slightly curved deep part for anther cute and edgy look! You could also do another one next to it if you wanted a little more to the look, but I really liked how simple this one was. You can see how the part curves a little better from this view of the back. I ended the braid close to the head with an elastic that matched her hair. For our fourth style, we did a 3/4 french braid! Super simple but also super cute! You could do any type braid! It would also look cute using a Dutch braid or a fishtail braid! I loved the side view of this braid! I will for sure be doing this one next time she goes to gymnastics or swimming, whichever comes first! Our last braid is two four dutch lace braids into two loops in the back. Start off by parting the hair down the middle. On each side of the part, do a dutch lace braid, adding hair in from only the section closest to the part as you braid. Tie the braids together in the back with a small elastic and before you pull the hair all the way through to make a ponytail, leave it in a cute little loop! If the hair is a little bit longer, you could do a tiny bun. Repeat this directly under the braid you just did so you have two rows and two loops.
We will have to be coming up with lots more short hair braids in the future, so be sure to give us a follow over at our newly redesigned blog Abella’s Braids to see more as we do them!
Thanks for reading! See you again this time next month!
love these ideas! My daughter recently cut about 8 inches off her hair and is loving her shorter hair, but I’ve mostly been at a loss of what to do with it! Thanks!
Abella has been begging me for at least a year, probably closer to two years, to cut her hair. I posted a photo on Instagram with a question in the caption. “Abella has been begging me to cut her hair short, do you think I should let her do it?” Almost everyone said “YES!” So thanks to all of the good advice from my followers, we did it…and we haven’t regretted it for a second! I think she looks so cute and it really fits her personality! It’s for sure a lot harder to come up with braids but it’s pushed me to step out of my comfort zone! We wanted to show you that even if you have short hair, there are lots of cute braids you can still do!
This first braid (above) is three ladder braids. Start out with a part deep to one side. On the side with less hair, start out by doing a waterfall braid along the part. Under that one, do another waterfall braid, but incorporate the waterfall pieces from the one above it as you braid. Under that one, do a french braid. Incorporate the waterfall pieces from the second braid as you go. We braided each one to the ends and used elastics that matched her hair to tie them off.