Radiometric dating methods rely upon circular logic, such as calibration curves and dating fossils by rocks by strata by fossils by rocks by strata. When employing dating methods, evolutionists toss out dates which dissagree with the assumed age of something only to publish the date that seems to come closest to their assumption. You are never told about the dates which dissagreee with their assumptions. They are not scientific and ignora several scientific observations which make it clear that they are worthless.
The Unikaret lava formation near the bottom of the Grand Canyon has been dated at
The University of Arizona has discovered Native American tools have been found in the lava Unikaret lava formation, which they state were put there between 800-1,000 yrs old.
Samples from the 1986 dacite flow on Mount St Helens, Washington were K-Ar tested to a date of 350,000 years old! answersingenesis . o r g / tj / v10 / i3 / argon . a s p
Mt Ngauruhoe erupted several times in the past 25-50 years and several of these samples have been K-Ar dated to ages of 250,000 -- 3,500,000 years old! This is an 1,000,000% error! answersingenesis . o r g / creation / v22 / i1 / dating . a s p
Diamonds are the hardest substance known and can not be penetrated with contaminants. Evolutionists teach diamonds formed millions or billions of years ago out of carbon deep in the crust. If this is true than the radioactive 14C should be undetectable after 100,000 due to its fast decay rate. Diamonds were sampled from 12 locations all over the world and they contained measurable amounts of 14C. icr . o r g / carbon-14 /
CreationismCoal supposedly formed millions or hundreds of millions of years ago according to evolutionists but coal samples have also been tested and they also contain measurable amounts of 14C. These results support what the Bible says about the young age of the Earth and the world wide flood. icr . o r g / rate /
Radiometric dating methods use a material of pressumed age as a control for calibration, such as a rock of assumed age or an index fossil (of assumed age). There is nothing imperical about dating methods. To this are added "fudge factors". Dating methonds are circular logic and incapable of dating anything because they do not use a material of empirically known age for calinration, and are therefore incapable of providng a date for anything.
The sun produces C-14 in the upper atmosphere, and at the same time it decays which removes it from the Earth. Because the Earth has not acheived C-14 equalibrium but is instead still increasing, which would take approximately 30,000 yrs, C-14 verifies the fact that the Earth is less than 30,000 yrs old.
Another set of lies from you
Radiometric dating is supported by hard science about the generation, uptake and decay. It's calibration is amended by input of other data from things like stalactite and stalactite layers, tree ring dating, coral growth and sediment layers also check
You are confused. Nobody is saying the methods of dating are not good. The issue is not with the technology, it is with the assumptions that are involved. The process begins with an assumption, ignores critical environmental factors, and ends with and assumption. So long as assumptions are involved and certain factors ignored, it is not actually possible for a dating method to produce a known date. Moreover, the process produces a metric of dates, which are often wildly different. Evolutionists employ their assumptions to select the date and toss the others.
"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." - T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson - Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics, respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden, "C14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson - ed., Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1970, p.35
"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." - Richard L. Mauger, Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, K-Ar Ages of Biotites From Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15-1, 1977, p.37
"Whatever the figures arrived at by the dating tests, they are weeded out before publication in scientific journals, if they do not accord with the preconceived dates assigned to the evolutionary geological column." - E.H. Andrews, Professor of Materials, University of London, and Head of the Department of Materials at Queen Mary College, in book, God, Science and Evolution
For example, the Unikaret lava flows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon has been radiometrically dated as 10,000 YA, 117 MYA, 715 MYA, 853 MYA, 1.1 BYA, 1.39 BYA, 2.6 BYA.
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.” - J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51.
"Diamond, creation’s hardest substance, is extremely resistant to contamination via chemical exchange with the external environment. Finding 14C in natural diamond at levels well above the AMS threshold would support the thesis that even carbon that has been locked away from exchange with the atmosphere since early in the earth’s history nevertheless contains detectable levels of 14C." - John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
The earth has not achieved C14 stasis, a process which would take 30,000 yrs. Thus, the earth is less than 30,000 yrs old.
14C Evidence of a Young Earth, Dr. John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics, PhD Electrical Engineering, developer of TERRA, development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf
A geologist explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA4dOWDTbvU
Potassium-argon dating, method of determining the time of origin of rocks by measuring the ratio of radioactive argon to radioactive potassium in the rock. This dating method is based upon the decay of radioactive potassium-40 to radioactive argon-40 in minerals and rocks; potassium-40 also decays to calcium-40.
the expansion of the universe as seen in far away galaxies if calculated backwards would indicate nearly 14 billion years since their origin, since the oldest galaxies formed. if someone can come up with a convincing proof that the universe is 6000 to 10000 years they will definitely win the nobel peace price and get $1,000,000. I will add my 2 cents on top. the Bible has not improved in 2 thou years. but science has created incredible advances based by experiments correcting old assumtions. but according to religious scholars the Bible is a perfect document reflecting gods thoughts. I say the Bible was a reasonable attempt for the masses of people thousand of years ago to answer mysteries of nature. however the Bible remains fixed while science develops telescopes, medical advances, airplanes to rockets. how can modern man assume the Bible is correct when it includes crazy things in it that have been nullified by millions of scientists, engineers, experiments in so many areas.
I go to church despite being aqnostic because of the good character of the people and the sense of community. and I like the worship songs and good attitude of the people. but remember how different the denominations belief systems are. example Mormons, Catholics, Christians etc. that's why religious observance/belief has diminished over time. add to this the killings of one denomination of another denomination like in Ireland. if you disagree let me know. I try to learn from others as I can know only so much.
I do not engage in time-wasting text debate, which is all evolutionists want to do these days because they do not want a recording of themselves being refuted by a Christian creationist to be on the internet. Atheists, evolutionists, and Calvinists do not get to complain, debate, or preach on my channel in text format. I have not allowed them to since I opened my YouTube channel in 2007. If you ever move into the world of text posting to the real (live) debate, I take on all comers. Let me know if that day comes for you.
"There is no sensible cosmological model that claims that there was a time when there was nothing. Rather it is theism that makes the claim that an immaterial entity (nothing) created the universe from nothing by some unspecified process that is tantamount to magic."
We do not make a claim. We provide facts. nature cannot be it's own cause. All things have cause (Law of Causality). Nature therefore has a cause. The cause of a things is external to itself. nature is time, energy, space, and matter. The cause of nature is external to time, space, energy, and matter, and therefore by necessity SUPERnatural.
"They don't contain carbon 14 except as contaminants."
Carbon 14 enters organic material from the food an organism eats, not by contamination. C14's half-life is too short for any whatsoever to remain in anything even 1 million yrs old, much less 65 MYA.
"Hugh Miller's research, for instance, is considered sloppy at best, fraudulent at worse. In rare circumstances some tissue can be preserved for millions of years in much the same way that we store organic parts in formaldehyde."
It's laughable that atheists laways attempt to slander any scientist who makes a discovery that produces a serious problem for uniformitarianism or evolution, even if they are evolutionists. It's disgusting. No imaginative scenatio is able to provide a way for peptide bonds to last millions of years. For example, it is now known that DNA has a half-life of about 521 yrs.
"Gene duplication that is subsequently altered by mutations, is one important method."
Gene duplication by random mutation is rare - far too slwo to be plugged into evolution theory to provide for the continuous input of new information necessary to support evolution theory. Moreover, it has been proven with 90 yrs of scientific study that random mutation does not build anything in the design of an organism, but instead destroys it's genetic information making it less fit for survival. Evolutionists are in denail lf 90 yrs of scientific research into mutation.
"All organisms are transitional between their parents and their descendants."
Absurdity. There is no anatomical difference between parent and offspring or for that matter between any two members of a species.
"Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution over long periods"
Uncscientific wishful thinking. Scientists are increasingly questioning the potential and coming up empty. The first attempt to gain a consensus on the matter was back in 1980. The conclusion was NO. A recent meeting of secular scientists came to the same conclusion. There is no validity to the fantasy of evolution.
Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … "At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
"speciation inevitably occurs when a population becomes geographically or reproductively isolated for a long period and small changes accumulate to the point that the two populations can not breed."
The inability to breed does not cause anatomical change and therefore does not support evolutionism.
"The evolution of British river fish (roach, rudd and bream) is a classic example of speciation in action. These fish can interbreed, but generally don't and they are morphologically distinct, so they are in a state of not quite having diverged."
Morphology alone does not support evolution. Evolution requires anatomical change, for which there is no genetic mechanism. If organisms do not change incrimentally in their anatomy, there can be no evolution.
"Energy from the sun is captured by plants and fuels vital processes (when we eat them, for instance) - Entropy (loosly disorder) can be reduced locally given the input of energy. a simple physics 101 lesson on 2nd law of thermodynamics would help here."
Entropy is a fact for all materials of the earth including the earth itself. Entropy discredits evolution, which contradicts it. The sun is destroying the earth and all that are upon it.
"We are not meant to do anything, the universe really doesn't care."
God is our designer and he cares.
"Our brains developed the ability to think rationally in those cases where it matters for survival, due to natural selection."
Minds are not a product of the brain. Minds are nonphysical. Mental properties cannot be measured - they have no mass or dimension. It is a category error to equate minds with brains.
"Science relies on replicated observations (including measurements, field trips, geological and fossil finds etc.) of the actual world, not "proof" which only applies to logic and mathematics."
Evolutionary change has not been observed nor will it ever be. Evolutionism is not scientific. It is a philosophy, not science.
"Evolution is supported by a really massive set of observational data in many fields of science."
Nothing supports evolution. Science has empirically verified design of living systems.
"Too much religion acts to stunt your scientific education."
The brightest minds throughout history have been theists, mostly Christians. The vast majority of experts in a given field of science, philosophy, history, engineering, chemistry, etc are theists. Atheists account for a very small percentage of the world's most educated and prolific thinkers.
"1. Explain how something can come from nothing." There is no sensible cosmological model that claims that there was a time when there was nothing. Rather it is theism that makes the claim that an immaterial entity (nothing) created the universe from nothing by some unspecified process that is tantamount to magic.
"2. Explain why dinosaur bones are able to still contain carbon 14 since they are believed to be millions of years old." They don't contain carbon 14 except as contaminants. Hugh Miller's research, for instance, is considered sloppy at best, fraudulent at worse. In rare circumstances some tissue can be preserved for millions of years in much the same way that we store organic parts in formaldehyde.
"3. Explain the mechanism that is required to create and add genes to the DNA of an organism" Gene duplication that is subsequently altered by mutations, is one important method.
"4. Show me multiple different transitional phases from one species to another." All organisms are transitional between their parents and their descendants. Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution over long periods, speciation inevitably occurs when a population becomes geographically or reproductively isolated for a long period and small changes accumulate to the point that the two populations can not breed. The evolution of British river fish (roach, rudd and bream) is a classic example of speciation in action. These fish can interbreed, but generally don't and they are morphologically distinct, so they are in a state of not quite having diverged.
"5. Explain how time helps an organism evolve when all time ever does is degrade material." Energy from the sun is captured by plants and fuels vital processes (when we eat them, for instance) - Entropy (loosly disorder) can be reduced locally given the input of energy. a simple physics 101 lesson on 2nd law of thermodynamics would help here.
"6. Explain to me how you think humans are smart enough to figure out something that wasn't meant for us to figure out." We are not meant to do anything, the universe really doesn't care. Our brains developed the ability to think rationally in those cases where it matters for survival, due to natural selection. Even those creationists alive today have figured out that if you step into a busy road you could get killed. If you are stupid enuf to do that, then you don't get to breed and pass your stupid genes onto the next generation. But, where it doesn't matter much for survival as in the case of religion, beliefs are cheap, it really doesn't matter to your survival which particular invisible entity you believe in.
"7. Explain to me why science acts as if evolution is 100% fact, but yet has no substantial proof." Science relies on replicated observations (including measurements, field trips, geological and fossil finds etc.) of the actual world, not "proof" which only applies to logic and mathematics. Evolution is supported by a really massive set of observational data in many fields of science. A simple google would answer this question - providing you stay clear of creationist sites. OTOH we don't have a single reliable and replicable observation of a deity.
Too much religion acts to stunt your scientific education. You have to aks yourself whether you want to stay in the comfortable ignorance of childish delusions all your life or face up to reality as it really is. That may be a little painful, but real science is very rewarding too.
Religion is man made. No where in the bible does it talk about God promoting religion, that is just mans way of dividing ourselves. God wants a personal relationship with you and for you to help others. That's it!!!! One very important fact to keep in mind is that the Bible is not a science book. It doesn't exist to explain the science realm, it exist to help the human race survive, get along, and to go to heaven to be with God. The Bible says technology will increase. It also says as the time grows near to the end, men will become lover's of selves, children will dishonor their father and mother etc... look it up. It predicts today. It is not as out of date as you think. It is full of wisdom! The Bible has the most records of any ancient writing ever in existence. It has multiple citations in many different languages, not just one. I invite you to read a book by Frank Turek: I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHIEST. It goes over everything, fenominal book. If you YOUTUBE Frank Turek he has multiple videos of people asking questions about the Bible and God and they are all good questions. Check it out, please!
Did you not watch this video??? Start here:
This man is a PhD geologist:
This man has a master's degree in Chemistry:
This man has a PhD in physical chemistry:
That sounds good. But you must know that I am not a new earth creationist. But I believe the Bible is the most accurate record of the flood. Some new earth creationists are exaggerating the effect of the flood. I dont believe some of their theories. I believe that the flood accelerated the slow geological evolutionary process. However I know alot about how and where the post flood families departed and about how the confusion of languages effected the peoples. Look forward to hearing from you.
I'd love to discuss this with you in Skype. You have some interesting information i would like to talk about. Please add me as a contact in Skype if you are willing to talk. My user name in Skype is NephilimFree
Coal supposedly formed millions or hundreds of millions of years ago according to evolutionists but coal samples have also been tested and they also contain measurable amounts of 14C. These results support what the Bible says about the young age of the Earth and the world wide flood.
Diamonds are the hardest substance known and can not be penetrated with contaminants. Evolutionists teach diamonds formed millions or billions of years ago out of carbon deep in the crust. If this is true than the radioactive 14C should be undetectable after 100,000 due to its fast decay rate. Diamonds were sampled from 12 locations all over the world and they contained measurable amounts of 14C.
Samples from the 1986 dacite flow on Mount St Helens, Washington were K-Ar tested to a date of 350,000 years old! Mt. Ngauruhoe erupted several times in the past 25-50 years and several of these samples have been K-Ar dated to ages of 250,000 – 3,500,000 years old! This is an 1,000,000% error!
Dating methods begin and end with assumptions and ignore key facts which render them as circular logic and incapable of dating anything, such as ignoring the fact that it cannot be known how WATER has effected how much of the child element remains, which we know it does since water washes radioactive salts from fock! They ignore this, which makes the method wothless.
For example the surname Montgomery is form of Gomer the son of Japheth. The surnames Torrisi (Italy ) and Torrez (Spain ) is a form of Tiras son of Japheth. Gomers son Togarmah is remembered by Armenians as Thorgam. The Hindu legends call him Turk. His name is remembered by Mongols as Tok as in Tokakhan which is derived from marital alliances between the families of Canaan and Togarmah. He is also first shogan Tokagawah to the Japanese. Lakota refer to him as their warrior god Tokaro.
Fresh meat edible to dogs could only be in that ice from a quick freeze. In fact you dont need to know refrigeration concepts to realize this. Cooks realize it when food gets thrown at them if not frozen properly before preparation. I have self taught myself history and linguistics over the last 30 years as well. And I possess much knowledge of the post Babel families and their migrations. The things I know get me angry at times with these so called brains.
I must at this point let you know a bit about myself. I was never able to receive a formal degree. However I became an electrician instead. One company I worked for sent me to school for air conditioning and refrigeration. So while I do not possess a degree that would impress some of the snobs at Oxford including Richard Dawkins I do know something about physics and mammoths frozen solid with grass still in their mouths in Siberia were not due to ice glaciers moving at a speed of 1 ft every year
Funny you mention that, because I have been thinking of making a video about Haung Ti, who was a Chinese explorer who used a ship roughly the size of Noah's Ark, which atheists claim could not survive open seas, and yet the ark was of a design that was even more stable and sturdy than his. I recently collected information about Huang Ti for making a video. I need to get busy and do it.
And this is a problem i have with these armchair evolutionary quacks. They only believe what they read in a textbook. I personally know that the legend of the 8 immortals goes way back before the Song Dynasty. I know a older Chinese man that is descendant of a very prominent family and he told me this story, the story of Haung Ti and Nu Hua, and the legend of the Great Yu are Chinese stories of the Great flood.
The name Japheth for instance is the name of Noahs oldest son. But this is most likely a title given to him based on the evolution of how languages formed near the Middle East. In China I believe he is Chang Kuo which means ample space in that language. He is one of the 8 immortals usually and interestingly all pictured in or near a boat. In Taiwan there is a statue of them as if they were huddled on a mountain top.
One reason they were not inspired by God was because their ancestors rebelled in Shinar by attempting to build Nimrods tower. They were also trying to make celebrated names for themselves. God not only confused their languages but they also could no longer remember the names of the patriarchs. Each family left the area giving the patriarchs new names or titles based on the linguistics they were given.
@larjjlion All ancient cultures remember the flood in legend but record it incorrectly because they weren't inspired by God. The Book of Job has many astonishing statements by God about the flood, things we can only since the 20th century understand as created by the flood. It's astonishing to read them in Job. The change in the earth's tilt was caused by the movement of the continents during the flood. The canopy loss certainly could explain the change in magnetic field & atmosperic pressure.
I dont know if you realize that Inca and other cultures hold a ceremony during the winter solstice in which in memory of the great flood they tie a rope to a tree and a rock with the tree representing the sun. They believe that the sun moved right before the flood which may have been the change in the tilt of the earth and the resulting change in its magnetic field that you mentioned. This caused a pre flood water canopy to collapse effecting the atmospheric and geophysical situation on earth.
I happen to be a self taught historian and linguist. You are one scientist that has agreed with me on something I have believed for years. That is the understanding that the flood could have effected the dating methods scientists use in a very monumental scale.
I have finally found a scientist who has agreed with something I have been saying for years. The change in earths atmospheric and geochemical condition following this event could greatly effect the dating methods used by scientists on anything before or for a period of time after the flood.
I do not hold a degree. However I am a self taught linguist and historian. I am not a believer in new earth creationism either. I believe the earth is much older than 30000 years. However I also see know historical proof that man was on this earth prior to 6000 years ago. I am probably more aware of the many flood stories than many including you. From studying history and theway the worlds languages are divided I am convinced that there was a global flood that occured around 5000 years ago.
@prschuster All you have done is answer one assumption you make with yet another assumption. There is nothing scientific about your concept. It is not science. Furthermore, the rock was produced by the Flood as proven by the overwhelming evidence for the Noachian Flood. For this reason alone, your concepts are disproven. From this you should learn that 1. assumptions are not valid to science without verification 2. dating methods are worthless
@prschuster All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock contained UNKNOWN amounts of BOTH radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element and some amount of the parent nuclide. Assuming an unknown amount isn't scientific or testable. Again I as are you saying you know how much lead is naturally occuring and how much is the product of uranium decay? Adding and removing water repeatedly to rock will not metamorphisize or change the structure of stone.
@prschuster Si I assume you're saying, in rebuttle to this video, that we can know how much uranium or lead has been added to or removed from a rock by water during it's lifetime, which I assume also that you assume is millions of years old? And you're saying we can know how much naturally occuring lead can be in any place in the earth, so we can know that all of what we find was produced by the decay of uranium? You do know, don't you, that lead is naturally occuring throughout the lithosphere?
@guitardivababe The dating methods scientists use to claim the earth is millions or billions or years old are flawed systems and cannot provide a date for anything. Science proves the flood of Noah is truth.
@NephilimFree There is no evidence that the magnetic field of the Earth has a half-life of 1400 years. Indeed, application of the term "half-life" to the Earth's magnetic field is feeble-minded in the extreme.
@atheistcommonsense Seriously, you believe the earth is billions of yrs old? How could that be when the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field has a half-life of 1,400 yrs and would have been equal to that of a magnetic star just 20,000 yrs ago?
my friends chemistry lecturer dated the shell on a a living tortoise to a few hundred thousand years (it was a long tie ago and I forget the exact figure). Even most scientists don't consider dating techniques reliable. The bible tells us that God is the Ancient of Days, the Eternal One from outside time. The "material" he made the universe out of is also outside of time so it is not surprising that dating techniques show the universe to be billions of years old even though it isn't.
@hellavadeal The BB theory is not neutral because it cannot have come into existance by an infinite string of material causes. Thus, the First Cause must be supernatural by definition -- outside of the materal world. Investigate and learn more. However, I do not believe there was a BB, but instead a big creation which did not begin as a point in space because science refutes that idea.
@abrider107 It does not claim he is currently a professor at either university, but tat he has formerly been. Are you so stupid that you cannot understand what you read when you read a profile? Whining about creationists only verifies you are a denialist. Good job sporty.
You either didn't try or you're lousy at using the net. Did you think he claims to be a physical chemist but actually isn't? 0.o
creationwiki . o r g / Edward_Boudreaux
creation . c o m / edward-a-boudreaux-theoretical-chemistry-in-six-days
christiananswers . n e t / creation / people / boudreaux-e . h t m l
@Lombrette1657 Ofcourse you are. But you still strive to silence the truth in your head, which will never go away. I cannot imagine living in the continual groanings of my subconcience that atheists do. I live life with light and joy because of the truth. Atheists live in torment.
I can't find a single reference to this 'professor' that attests to his professional credentials.
Lots of theistic links to this video, but nothing else.
Perhaps you could enlighten us all to his professional work?
Many use the Big Bang to support creation. The big bang is neutral in this. The problem is in the age of the universe. New evidence however shows that the universe is not so old. But the big bang has not been proven . Sense no one observed it. Many atheists believe (not all) that the universe is infinite,(no beginning). The Big Bang deputes this.
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.