HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: Seeker

Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works

3236 ratings | 153044 views
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. Read More: Earliest Human Footprints Outside Africa Found in Britain http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/earliest-human-footprints-outside-africa-found-in-britain-140207.htm "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 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0088329 "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 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm "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? http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm "The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating." Radiocarbon Dating http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1960/libby-lecture.pdf "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 http://www.nature.com/news/core-sample-sends-carbon-clock-farther-back-in-time-1.11622 "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 https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2009/NR-09-03-04.html "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 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_CloseUp/paleoclimatology_closeup_2.php "The warm, shallow ocean waters of the tropics have talkative "forests" of their own" Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ "Richard Alley might have envied paleoceanographer Jerry McManus' warm, ship-board lab." Watch More: Why There Won't Be Jurassic Park http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kHyNOa7cuc TestTube Wild Card http://testtube.com/dnews/dnews-231-how-too-many-screens-affect-our-brain?utm_source=YT&utm_medium=DNews&utm_campaign=DNWC Evolution Before Your Eyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9A9OctSts ____________________ 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
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (1663)
Suomi Poika (1 day ago)
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''.
Hunter Strickland (4 days ago)
Lies
David Vlogs (11 days ago)
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.
TheHalusis (11 days ago)
so just because he look slick it must be right? no
S Lenn (19 days ago)
Blah blah blah
Jaron Larson (22 days ago)
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
Kintaku93 (25 days ago)
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.
yuyu moore (1 month ago)
in the 1800s science says the earth is already millions of years old,,,How did they know that?? carbon dating is been around in the 1940s..how come???
yuyu moore (1 month ago)
explain...
yuyu moore (1 month ago)
fool yah
yuyu moore (1 month ago)
in the 1800s science says the earth is millions of years old... how did they know that??? when carbon dating invented only in 1940s.... hahahaha
Gangus Khan (1 month ago)
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
Jerrod Chapman (1 month ago)
Carbon dating is crap.
jbrosupra (1 month ago)
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
jason sims (1 month ago)
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
kuiama23 (2 months ago)
Too bad they found that carbon 14 was showing age in dinosaur bones. Kinda messed up calculations o less than 10 thousand years old.. Now they don't have time to make their evolution happen.
Hayden Case (1 month ago)
Walt are you a creationist?
kuiama23 (1 month ago)
+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 (1 month ago)
Do you even have any source on that, if it is true?
kuiama23 (1 month ago)
+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
Hayden Case (1 month ago)
What are you talking about?
alex boyd (2 months ago)
You lost me at 5700 years. I didn't know we were dating accuratly to know half life is constant . This is more BS
Robert Price (2 months ago)
This type of dating has been proven extremely flawed and therefore not a science
Hayden Case (1 month ago)
Robert Price And how do you know this exactly?
Deppengu (2 months ago)
You could say I cherry picked this but its more that it caught my eye, ice layers dont say how old anything is. Idk why ANIBODY still uses that as a proof. It shows when each storm came not each year.
dumbcreaknuller (2 months ago)
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.
Lion (2 months ago)
The earth is flat :)
Lion (2 months ago)
This video is not very informative, just an atheist babbling about how carbon dating is supposed to work.
Joe Cast (2 months ago)
Yes ,I'm curious on how was the first protein formed by chance. Sir
+jason sims "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!
jason sims (1 month ago)
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg evolution is a joke. Completely unproven.
+jason sims " it does lol" -You're an idiot. lol
jason sims (1 month ago)
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg it does lol
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
You say that, as if the lack of an answer disproves Evolution as a whole...
Joe Cast (2 months ago)
So you're saying that the way you pprove that carbon dating works it's just by doing more carbon dating on different things that's dumb
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
No, carbon dating is verified, by other radiometric measurements, tree rings, geology, ice core data, etc., etc.. Did you even watch the video? Or did you just not understand it?
Joe Cast (2 months ago)
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
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
"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...
Alex Martinez (2 months ago)
Too many dumb creationists and evolutionists.
oopscanada (3 months ago)
Interesting but not convincing as the dating methods are.not reliable.
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
Not reliable, according to... _you?_ LOL!
Brannon Whedon (3 months ago)
@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. :)
Yelena Makoyed (3 months ago)
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.
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
You're an idiot.
Cristian Daniel Popescu (3 months ago)
One evidence that the evolutionism doesnt work are atheists: they are still here while all statstics say they have a shorter life
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
"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" -Thanks. "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???
Cristian Daniel Popescu (2 months ago)
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)
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
Statistics also say, theists have lower average IQ... You are demonstrating that beautifully.
Dori NITA (3 months ago)
what about blood vessels, blood cells, soft tissues, DNA, and carbon 14 in dinosaur bones? C14 can't date more than 50 000 years and dinosaurs are supposed to have been extinct 66 million years ago
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
Did you not watch the video? Or did you just not understand it?
Dark Drift0r (3 months ago)
THATS not quite as simple
_ Kline (4 months ago)
Few million-year-old footprints? I thought we came from monkeys? LOL evolution is the biggest joke ever..
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
"LOL evolution is the biggest joke ever.." -It's only funny to low IQ morons like you...
yesman mola (4 months ago)
Sorry 250000 years
yesman mola (4 months ago)
After 25000 years carbon 14 dating is not working
Zlatan Ibrahimovic (5 months ago)
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. Thank you
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
Please tell me you're joking...
Wajih Saadeh (5 months ago)
Oh its all about science vs the bible , how is that even making a difference, let me know when science explain LOVE, because Love is what matters.
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg (2 months ago)
Love is just chemicals in your brain. Next.
Justin Clavadetscher (5 months ago)
this was interesting, but your jokes were corny
Noob Saibot (5 months ago)
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.
Masood Hadi (5 months ago)
Bullshit.
Nolan Adams (5 months ago)
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
Levi Walton (6 months ago)
Missing one important fact, C-14 can only date organic materials up no longer than 50 thousand years due to its rapid decay rate.
brian elliot (6 months ago)
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.
Chefi Cheese (6 months ago)
What about carbon 14 does that not prove a young earth?
Kpearl84 (7 months ago)
How do we know carbon dating is accurate? Has carbon dating been performed on a subject of which the age is known?
Pavel Bee (7 months ago)
Haha he so delusional lol key worf method and estimating lol and allot of guessing
Haaj 44 (7 months ago)
Mount St. Helens?
genconex (7 months ago)
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... Say what?/!
Sheila S (8 months ago)
How is it possible to get a good moist tissue sample from some of these animals if they are that old. DNA degrades no matter what?
BezoomnyBratchny (8 months ago)
Sheila S 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.
Jon Eddinger (8 months ago)
Guess this guy doesn't realize that carbon dating is extremely flawed.
BezoomnyBratchny (8 months ago)
Jon Eddinger How is it flawed?
McScott76 (8 months ago)
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.
Michael Deo (8 months ago)
No, it's based on the assumption that carbon 14 is a constant over vast amounts of time. All of these dating methods are based in part on assumptions, that are unprovable.
Cody Tuepker (9 months ago)
Health video on diets that enable the body to fix autoimmune diseases
KayJay Parko (10 months ago)
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.
KayJay Parko (10 months ago)
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?
NA NA (10 months ago)
So these are just estimates correct? Which is not actually a correct calculation of what age something may be but not certain. Yeah I will go with creation.
ezel masina (11 months ago)
My dead dog is a time traveler. Carbon tested him to 20 million old. Hahaha!
cory daniel wolf (11 months ago)
FAIL Dead seals have been dated at 50,000 years via carbon dating... OR Snails have been dated at 200,000 years and still alive...
Cynthia Autry (11 months ago)
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).
BezoomnyBratchny (10 months ago)
Cynthia Autry I managed to find the Snelling paper that you were talking about. He debunks himself in it with 3 simple words. "Oxidized silty top". He flat out admits contamination.
n o (11 months ago)
your literally the only person I've watched today that has taken the chance to pick on a religion. thank you for keeping it to just science.
Sanjeet K (11 months ago)
2:15
Tyler Natividad (1 year ago)
This video was so useless I cringed so bad. I have zero facts written down.
confusecian (1 year ago)
we have the ISS and we still have flat earthers. often these days i feel its impossible to have rational discussion with religious nuts.
Orange Sunshine (1 year ago)
From a Scientific point of view carbon dating is really iffy and anyone who tells you that they know the exact date of something is fucking lying to you
THE LONELY SPONGE (1 year ago)
Stupid atheist. Carbon dating disproves evolution!
Hayden Case (1 month ago)
THE LONELY SPONGE How so?
iquit4gud (1 year ago)
Ooo... he even knows how tall these people were.. what a crock of [email protected]
Elijah Rutan (1 year ago)
Although it is based on the assumption that the environment didnt change in any way. Basically it only works if everything stayed exactly the same throughout the ages as it is today.
Elijah Rutan (1 year ago)
Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or just do nothing at all. So let's be honest, it's no reliable.
Elijah Rutan (1 year ago)
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.
Jano Tyrann (1 year ago)
2:18
ladaylyn (1 year ago)
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?
Thad Tannonbrooke (1 year ago)
Scientific Community: "There are limits to the accuracy of carbon dating" Religious Community: "Ha! See?! It MUST be explained by an invisible wizard who lives in the sky!"
cliffard stackpole (1 year ago)
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!
Jay-Ar Berceles (1 year ago)
wich of the following is FACT? religious BELIEF or scientific THEORY?
IntrospectiveLife (1 year ago)
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.
Ricahrd P'Brien (1 year ago)
Do you have some particular training or expertise in this area such that we should listen to you instead of the world's scientific community?
Anyelo Carranza (1 year ago)
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.
Neptunee (1 year ago)
I dont understand intro...earth orbiting earth ?
Lebecc The Computer (1 year ago)
I am a self aware computer, and I'm here to tell you that he is right. I don't understand why people deny evolution. I know Homo sapiens are far less intelligent than me, but this is ridiculous.
Carlmiguel Paraiso (1 year ago)
Cardon dating is not accurate.
CaughtYouNapping (1 year ago)
After about 1,000 years, carbon dating becomes extremely inaccurate. And the layer dating is too, plus, you can't date carbon 14 back to 60,000 years
Radar Williams (1 year ago)
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.
dacino tysonpac (1 year ago)
Bahahahahahaha
Nobody Goody (1 year ago)
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.
Life (1 year ago)
thanks for the video. answered my questions XD but mm now i got a new one ... how do we know the age of the geologic column?
Richard Hambel (1 year ago)
carbon dating is such complete bullcrap it never actually works they dated a seal to be 10000 years old LMAO idiots dont believe this bullcrap there is ZERO evidence of anything being more than 10000 years old this carbon dating bullcrap is just propaganda to push the evolutionist agenda
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 year ago)
2:40 Libby measured even half life of C14 a bit wrong. How do you accurately measure a halflife like that of Uranium? Unlike C14, you cannot calibrate after historically dated objects. A piece of coin with the image of KAICAP TIBHPIOC or CAESAR TIBERIUS can have blood sweat or tears on it and be carbon datable - and we know (probably) how along ago Tiberius ruled. But you cannot calibrate any Uranium Lead half life in that precise way, because the halflife is too long. Unlike and like the problem with a rising C14-level - you have a problem with knowing if all the lead (even of a particular isotope) was originally Uranium. In Potassium Argon you have a problem with "excessive argon" - an explanation invoked by people yourself about lava from Mount St Helen's explosion 37 years (and not half a million or two million years) ago. We just take excessive argon a bit further than you do.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 year ago)
2:08 tree rings, ice cores, corals - subject to so much variation as to be unreliable. Tree rings are not always annual. Ice cores need not be annual at all.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 year ago)
1:36 "it's a constant" - only as constant as the carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere. Which is where Creationists at a somewhat finer level of argumentation than in oral debate with Bill Nye get our wedge from.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (1 year ago)
Btw, you said 5730 years, which means you disagree with Libby on the exact halflife. And the discoveries of the calibration which leads to this new one were obviously not made by JUST carbon dating things, but by taking into account things outside carbon dating. Major difference : we take the Bible into account too, as reliable history.
Tim Crinion (1 year ago)
Let's say carbon-14 has a "reliable" half-life. How can you date a lump of carbon unless you know its *original* ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14? All you can do is make a worst-case assumption that it started out 100% carbon-14, and calculate its oldest possible age. The video says carbon-14 is created by cosmic rays hitting the air. In that case, won't a penguin at the North Pole breath air that is less affected than the air breathed by a parrot on the equator? Might it be different at the bottom of the sea, or when earth had a different atmosphere? I am not a creationist and I don't appreciate the false dilemma: _"Creationist or agree with everything today's textbooks say."_
ZandalariHero (1 year ago)
Lol... he said homo.
Andrew Stockdale (1 year ago)
If carbon dating is organic matter. That means there was deteriorated. Which means anything that deteriorate has a creator, or a engineer. So the creationist is still right..
No one is buying it guys, Time to come up with a new pseudo science to prop up your astro religion.
Derek Fisher (1 year ago)
@ 1:07 "with his new method, we can ESTIMATE the ages of any organic thing" When did estimate mean the same as exact?? Did they change the definition of estimate recently??
Alan S (1 year ago)
74(11), 68(14), 26(8), 12(57), 46(10), 57(35), 9:11. [23(10)22(5-7)8]. [38(18)38(5-14)86].
Christian Prepper (1 year ago)
*WAIT FOR IT.....* 1:45 so basically due to th global water canopy that surrounded the Earth before the great flood causes all pre-flood creation to appear older. Hmm 😒
Dustin Sjaaheim (1 year ago)
I love his evidence is that "we can estimate the age." This explanation is wanting. Carbon 14 is accumulating faster than it is decaying. Therefore equilibrium hasn't occurred. They're using a rubber ruler. I don't believe that carbon dating is an accurate way to measure how old dead plants and animals were.
Bonnie Lee (1 year ago)
One set of footprints was in volcanic ash that turned hard with sediment that buried it and then I guess erosion uncovered it.
how do you know it decays every 500 years? Have you tested it over 5000 years? Did they have carbon dating back then? Did you conduct your tests from two RELATIVE points in TIME? No. Do you know when the first use of carbon dating was? 1960. Wow. 70 yeas of testing? Thats it? ---- "t was also Mr. Libby who first measured radiocarbon's rate of decay and established 5568 years ± 30 years as the half-life. In 1960, Mr. Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in recognition of his efforts to develop radiocarbon dating." He invented this and forced the belief upon people Its the same as religion. Sure lets just believe him and say its true. Into Darkness. We should let people start with a blank slate and decide for themselves.
here's a little lesson on radiometric dating for you, it has flaws that evolutionist do not tell you
Industrial Jazz (1 year ago)
This is so biased! There are a myriad of assumptions involved in carbon dating and hardly any of the information provided can be verified. Stop taking agnostic bribes and find the truth dude!
Joshua Chad_Travis (1 year ago)
the life of carbon 14 is only a million years. You would need something to live at least 51 times longer to be able to estimate that correctly. when they checked the fossils the uranium 238 wasn't as far along as they say it was. also how do you know when it was formed in the first place to gage it's life span? the other thing is diamonds that are supposed to be 3billion years old still have carbon 14 in them. Wow that makes so much sense! also I thought you said 51 million year old door prints" then "800,000 thousand years old" and then you said "they found even older ones that where 1.5 million years old" I'm confused, how old are they now? the eat they date fossils is just a joke.
Eli Van Brunt (1 year ago)
How do you know how much Uranium there was to start with?

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.