HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Tony Reed

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 17 Radiometric Dating

627 ratings | 17150 views
In this episode we examine the accuracy and application of Radiometric Dating. Is it really accurate? What about all of the anomolous readings? My investigation gets to the bottom of the subject. References: The Creationist Argument http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/ Lord Kelvin's Calculations for the Age of the Earth http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html Rutherford's Identification of Radioactive Particles http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/03/4.html Rutherford's Discovery of Radioactive Decay https://www.bibnum.education.fr/sites/default/files/rutherford-texte-partie1.pdf Half-Life http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli.html Ambient Atmospheric C14 http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp057/ndp057.pdf Xenolith Dating https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/jlowenstern/medlake/LowEPSL00.pdf qabalaHCTMRS
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (276)
science love (12 days ago)
I discovered your videos today.  Great work!  I wonder if you can investigate how some humans can believe that a book written by sheep herders can be the "truth"?  There must some evolutionary purpose to believe in mythology of religion. Thank you!
Tony Reed (12 days ago)
I won't address it in this series, but perhaps a future show.
Larry Clark (1 month ago)
Hello Tony. I did not see anything in your references detailing the specific high tech equipment that is used for the dating methods. Mathematically radiometric dating sounds plausible but how accurate and repeatable is the equipment? (Thermal ionization mass spectrometer, etc...) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating I wish I could find some of this equipment at a local college and talk to some people that actually use it. Seems it is not without some controversy. Are there any books or other resources that you can recommend? I went through Amazon and didn’t see very much. Have a good day.
Larry Clark (1 month ago)
Tony Reed https://youtu.be/PJyQjZXyorI That YouTube link at least shows what the TIMS equipment looks like.
Tony Reed (1 month ago)
That's a great question. Unfortunately I don't have any resources for you. If I find any, I will post them here for you..
Frans Dav (2 months ago)
Your reliable clock flies out of the window when radiometric testing is actually done, because it shows hundreds of percentage age difference on the same object when different methods are used and there are many examples that indicate that recent known rock formations are dated as millions of years old. This is typical of an evolutionist, they just ignore the obvious if it does not fit there viewpoint, resulting in false science.
Tony Reed (2 months ago)
Actually, you provided zero examples. I have, however, asked you for references for your claims. I will not ask again. You either provide them on demand, or you are blocked. That's the only rule I have in my comments. And yes, I actually have examined the weaknesses of all dating methods. I have also explained how scientists allow for them. I covered that here: https://youtu.be/9Ze1jO4jYE4
Frans Dav (2 months ago)
+Tony Reed I thought that your title says "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science and "My investigation gets to the bottom of the subject"" so I would imagine that you used some creationist proof , in your study, that radiometric dating is unreliable with the examples that I gave and many more. To help you i can recommend that you do a small search on google and search for 'reliability of radiometric dating' and you will find that there is many actual examples (which ones you would have to proof wrong to "gets to the bottom of the subject" ) that shows that radiometric dating is proven to be inaccurate with real life examples. Go for it and get wise, because i am sure the truth will set you free.
Tony Reed (2 months ago)
My references are in the description. Where are yours?
Des Gardius 2012 (2 months ago)
Citing instances where radiometric dating giving inaccurate results as proof that the whole method is unreliable is akin to saying that an instance of having a broken watch is proof that all watches are inaccurate.
Tony Reed (2 months ago)
Interesting analogy.
Nivalian (3 months ago)
Has anyone radio metric dated a rock of a known age? Not carbon dating.
Tony Reed (3 months ago)
Ahhh.... Yes. We HAVE done that multiple times. Not to determine an age for a rock, but to test materials within in. The most common example were volcanic rocks which contained xenoliths. The xenoliths tested for their presumed agewhile the rest of the material showed no age at all. They had only recently cooled. The process isn't circular. It's about prediction. I addressed that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ze1jO4jYE4
Nivalian (3 months ago)
+Tony Reed I was wondering because if radio metric dating argon-argon or uranium-lead was done for a known age then we would know it is accurate. If for example we tested a rock that was formed 2000 years ago, and the results came back in the millions, we then would know something is wrong with that dating method. Also, have we used carbon dating for rocks that are supposedly millions of years old and found carbon? I like to avoid circular reasoning because to me that isn't science at all. Thanks for your reply.
Tony Reed (3 months ago)
A rock of "known age" would have had to form during the time that hunan history was being recorded. So far, only carbon-dating has any practical application for rocks of that age.
Nivalian (3 months ago)
+Tony Reed Thanks for the reply. I was talking more like Potassium–argon dating method and the Rubidium–strontium dating method.
Tony Reed (3 months ago)
Yes. Thermoluminescence dating is used all the time.
Jeff Waller (4 months ago)
...assuming that there were no daughter elements present that added to the lead content. We can't make that assumption.
Tony Reed (4 months ago)
We don't make that assumption, which is why I go through those assumptions in this video: https://youtu.be/9Ze1jO4jYE4
El Coyote (6 months ago)
The age of the earth is 4,540,000,000 years - and it is easy to prove that that estimate must be pretty damn close. The oldest (whole) rocks that have been found: 4,280,000,000-year old rocks in Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt (exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec) and the 4,030,000,000-year old Acasta Gneisses (in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake). Further: calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions - the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System - are 4,567,000,000 years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. AND if you have the time, these are pretty good links: Geologic Time Scale by Geological Society of America geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale How reliable are geologic dates? sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php. Radiometric Dating Does Work ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work Consistent Radiometric dates  gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm search for: NIST Radiometric dating still reliable (again). Geochronology https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/common/geochronology.html Dating dinosaurs and other fossils https://australianmuseum.net.au/dating-dinosaurs-and-other-fossils How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks? Smithsonian - National Museum of Natural History https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24 Princeton Geosciences Department Opens New Geochronology Laboratory https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/about/publications/smilodon/SmiloSpg12.pdf The 25 Biggest Turning Points in Earth's History bbc.com/earth/bespoke/story/20150123-earths-25-biggest-turning-points/index.html
Tony Reed (6 months ago)
You wrote - "The age of the earth is 4,540,000,000 years" Yeah. That's, essentially the point of this video. I start with the creationist argument, and then I present the actual science that the creationists are misrepresenting in their arguments. -- You wrote - "AND if you have the time, these are pretty good links: Geologic Time Scale by Geological Society of America" I appreciate the links. I will include them in the description with my other references.
Ty Thacker (8 months ago)
I said you asked like an ass not because you were asking for a reference but because you were brusque and commanding in your tone (whether you meant that or not). A simple "Could you post your reference" or even adding a polite please would suffice. But I don't fault you for it because I understand the nature of your videos and a lot of the religious fundamentalists you probably deal with make conversation difficult if impossible. I am not one of those people, I am an engineer, so lets have a sensible conversation. I apologize for calling you an ass. I will explain at better length with better sources for you. Decay rates are not constant and have shown to be affected in some way by solar energies, neutrinos, or some other unknown undiscovered particle/energy emission. The old notion that they HAD to be constant is from 1904, and that went assumed until 2006 when researchers from Purdue and Brookhaven National Labs discovered discrepancies. They were working on a better random number generation method using the decay of Si-32 and Ra-226. They noticed that the rates changed depending on the season, the distance from the sun. "Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Petert Sturrock said. "On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare." https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html The scientific community at the time was skeptical and questioned whether there was errors in measurement, but the research team verified that their findings were valid and stood by their conclusions. Why was there an effect before the flare? Most likely there was some kind of energy emission that preceded it. In 2010 another research team in Germany published the experiments with the Ra-226 and other radioactive elements and had the same conclusions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47385924_Power_Spectrum_Analysis_of_Physikalisch-Technische_BundesanstaltDecay-Rate_Data_Evidence_for_Solar_Rotational_Modulation https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.3754.pdf The same team from Purdue also found fluctuating decay rates based on how close they were to the sun in terms of the earth's rotation. https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 So without a doubt decay rates are not constant. Although we have not discovered the exact mechanism, it is a fact that the sun is involved. That doesn't mean the earth is young, it just means that we humans have no SURE way of knowing anything about geological history except through observing geological processes that are going on in our time. The earth could actually be quadrillions of years old, or not.
lucky chucky (8 months ago)
Keep your options open everybody they could be right and they could be wrong the only time we're going to know cuz when you kick the bucket
Dev B (7 months ago)
Probably won't know even then.
Ty Thacker (8 months ago)
Decay rates are not constant, and can be altered by the rate of neutrinos from the sun, so current rates do not represent a uniform trend.
Tony Reed (8 months ago)
You wrote - "Since you asked liked an ass" You, sure as shit, do not take MY word for anything, so don't be surprised when I don't take YOUR word for anything. If you make an unsourced assertion, I will call you on it EVERY TIME and I expect no less from anyone viewing my videos. And in this case, I was right. I read your article, which was a particularly poor paraphrasing of these two papers: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-016-1008-9 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092765050900084X?via%3Dihub Reading your article, and comparing it to the actual papers it cites: 1. Your article misrepresents what both papers were actually trying to establish. 2. Your article is inconsistent on it's summation of the invariability of decay rates. Perhaps you've never asked yourself why radiometric dates are presented with a ± number next to them. It is because of long-known variances. This is not new. 3. Your article blatantly misquotes the oscillation cycles, and especially their variations, by a degree of magnitude. It cited them as 12.5 and 11, when in fact, the rates are 12.5^-1 and 11^-1 respectively. 4. Your article, as credible as PhysicsWorld usually is, takes great pains to explain that this has yet to gain any kind of consensus, yet overlooks that the measurements taken were miniscule variations of Si32 and AR40. Nothing near great enough to affect any current dating figures. If asking for a source for your claims "like an ass" is what gets you to actually cite a source, then I am proud to be guilty. You might be entertained to know that I even address variances in decay rates in Episode 65 Dating Assumptions: https://youtu.be/9Ze1jO4jYE4
Ty Thacker (8 months ago)
Since you asked liked an ass, https://physicsworld.com/a/do-solar-neutrinos-affect-nuclear-decay-on-earth/
Tony Reed (8 months ago)
My references are in the description. Where are yours?
Larry Clark (9 months ago)
Tony very informative video. Closing comment biased. Rest was excellent. Enjoyed the history lesson on Kelvin , Rutherford, Curie, etc. Also enjoyed The chemistry lesson. My honest questions: Calibration. Seems if you have to teach it what “good” is you can be wrong, right? Have you used one of these machines? I have not. I am reluctant to believe the accuracy on “blind faith.” In principle seems very interesting. All in all, well done.
Ciência & Fatos (10 months ago)
http://entropia.comunidades.net/teoria-do-neocatastrofismo-de-impactos-sodre-neto
Tony Reed (10 months ago)
Tentei assistir o vídeo, mas não está disponível. Eu leio o artigo sobre especiarias e equilíbrio pontuado. Ele mal apresenta suas fontes. Já me dediquei aqui: https://youtu.be/G8mE2EKdojs
lolbroklol (11 months ago)
This video is a real slam dunk for the validity of radiometric dating. The fact that you can calibrate against the presence of the decayed species stable forms (Like K to Ar) really shows that the "assumptions" that Creationists claim Scientists make actually are very educated ones.
Tony Reed (11 months ago)
You may enjoy my episode on dating assumptions.
Kelly Barthel (11 months ago)
Good video, do have a legit question. You say that this discounts the flood myth? Now the flood myth was not saying it created a whole new earth but moved the land soil and rocks around, along with wiping out a lot of plant life ect. So how would radiometric dating be effected? A rock decays the same weather underground, under water, or sitting in the sun correct?
Tony Reed (11 months ago)
Not exactly, but close enough.
Royal (1 year ago)
two sides to every story, check this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
Already covered all of that. Check this out: https://youtu.be/9Ze1jO4jYE4
john white (1 year ago)
have you ever done water or the human eye. Seem the creationism is using those as proof of creation.
Kashi Sinha (8 months ago)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
john white (1 year ago)
see if this works https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/water-one-of-the-oldest-design-arguments/
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
That's a new one on me.
john white (1 year ago)
Been seeing a number of videos on how properties of water are just too perfect for human life to not have been created that way, therefore proving that there is Intelligent design.
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
You're going to need to be more specific regarding the "water" argument. I've done a few on that. I have the eye episode here: https://youtu.be/hIhXajZZi2E
Anna Castiglioni (1 year ago)
Wow this is really well done! Thanks Tony! Oh, I was the 500th Like!
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
Thank you. You might be pleased to know that new episodes start this Friday.
Nick 421 (1 year ago)
The age of the Earth was actually established through the fossil record almost a century before the technique of radiometric dating was discovered. Radiometric dating was used only to confirmed the dates that had previously been accepted by science and not improve the timelines accurancy by disputing them. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions can lead to incorrect dates Or, more accurately, allow for the CREATION of any set number you want.The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to 3 UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS that every geologist/scientist MUST make when using the radiometric dating technique, conditions at time zero, contaminations and that a constant decay rate exist and is accurately depicted. That alone should be sufficient enough reason for science not to publish the findings of this technique as fact.
Monk (1 year ago)
Tony Reed "If the decay rates were faster enough in the past to only be the result of six thousand years of decay, we wouldn't be able to see it because the amount of heat that would be released would have already wiped out all life on earth and we would never have been born." The absence of naturally occurring short-lived radioisotopes on Earth indicates that our planet is billions of years old rather than the 6,000 to 10,000 years as proclaimed by religious YEC'ers. If the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, where are these relatively short-lived radioisotopes, namely: 146Sm, 205Pb, 247Cm, 182Hf, 107Pd, 135Cs, 97Tc, 150Gd, 93Zr, 98Tc, and 154Dy? Surely if the earth was 6k to 10k years old, at least one of those short lived isotopes would have been detected on countless routine mass spec analysis of geological samples.
Monk (1 year ago)
AMS scientist here. "The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to 3 UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS that every geologist/scientist MUST make when using the radiometric dating technique, conditions at time zero, contaminations and that a constant decay rate exist and is accurately depicted" Any loss or gain of parent or daughter nuclide during the history of the rock or mineral is detected in the data.That is the entire point of isochron and concordance methodology. In many cases the absolute age and the point in time in which a secondary heating event scrambled the isotopes can both be determined. Furthermore, Ar/Ar dating, isochron dating, and 3-D concordance are designed to determine the amount of daughter nuclide present at closure temperature (t=0). Saying we must assume no daughter product at the beginning is blatantly false because for most radiometric decay series that is not even possible. The amount of daughter isotope at t=0 is experimentally determined. Saying we must assume no radionuclides are removed or added is blatantly false because the methods experimentally test for contamination and/or leaching during the history of the rock. Also, fission track dating alleviates these false "assumptions" because it does not rely on accumulation of daughter elements, but instead relies on damage to the crystal lattice structure made by spontaneous fission of U-238. And of course the damage will be zero at t=0. These consistent results include countless samples that have been confirmed with two or more radiometric methods, fossil data, astronomical evidence, and/or paleomagnetic results (as examples: Baadsgaard et al., 1993; Baadsgaard et al., 1988; Queen et al., 1996; Montanari et al., 1985; Foster et al., 1989; Harland et al., 1990; Renne et al., 1998, p. 121-122; Hilgen et al., 1997, p. 2043; etc) Radiometric dating does work. It has been shown to work. 40K/Ar and Ar/Ar have been tested on the same sample and give a low error bias of less than 5% devation, which is amazing considering that 40 years ago geophysicists could not obtain this kind of resolution. Fen Complex, Norway samples give the same ages with many different types of isotope dating. 40Ar/39Ar 588 +/- 10 Ma K-Ar whole rock 575 +/- 25 Ma Rb-Sr isochron (phlogopite) 578 +/- 24 Ma Pb-Pb 573 +/- 60 Ma Rb-Sr mineral-wr isochron (recalc) 583 +/- 41 Ma Th-Pb chemical 570-590 Ma K-Ar (mica) 565 Ma Information above is from Meert et al, 1998; Verschure et al., 1983; Dahlgren, 1994; Saether, 1958 If radiometric dating wasn't accurate, then how come blind samples with different techniques show roughly the same dates? Maybe because it works, and has been shown to work(!!)
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
You wrote - "The age of the Earth was actually established through the fossil record almost a century before the technique of radiometric dating was discovered." I presented my references. They are in the description. Where are yours? -- You wrote - "The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to...conditions at time zero..." It would be rather coincidental, then, if deeper strata associated with older ages consistently contain fewer parent elements and more daughter elements, at a uniform rate, everywhere on the globe. Even moreso if we saw the very same pattern on the moon. Yup. That sure is one heck of a coincidence. Nothing more. It's just a coincidence. -- You wrote - "The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to...contaminations..." See my last response. -- You wrote - "The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to...a constant decay rate exist and is accurately depicted." If the decay rates were faster enough in the past to only be the result of six thousand years of decay, we wouldn't be able to see it because the amount of heat that would be released would have already wiped out all life on earth and we would never have been born.
Knifedge1 (1 year ago)
We can know what method of dating to use based on external factors such as index fossils or educated guess. Great! How do we know how old index fossils are to determine the right dating method? Index fossil age is determined by using one of the methods or by looking at which rock layer it is in. Can someone explain how this is not an example of a circular argument?
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
Knifedge1 The use of index fossils is solely in the interest of cutting the cost involved in using superfluous dating methods. You are welcome to perform every type of chemical or radiometric dating technique if you want. You will still arrive at the same figure for the age.
Fred Jaminson (1 year ago)
It is all based on assumptions, and an ass-umption makes an ass out of you.
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
-100% for vaguery. -100% for unoriginality. Assumptions are how a theory is tested. If you feel creationism is science, what falsifiable predictions can we make by assuming a six-day creation event six thousand years ago?
Math (1 year ago)
so obtuse, you dont even know how decay rates are determined? wow, lol, real good work
Tony Reed (10 months ago)
Here you go. Now you know how they're estimated. https://youtu.be/9Ze1jO4jYE4
Math (1 year ago)
Tony Reed you must be good at math
Math (1 year ago)
Tony Reed no, you talk about half lives, but dont actually explain how the rates are estimated
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
Essentially, you've just told me that you've only watched the first 30 seconds and then clicked away before I actually explained how decay rate are measured, why they are accurate, and ultimately, why they show the creationist argument to be wrong. You have something in common with creationists.
nneevveerrmmoorree (1 year ago)
It's embarrassing when creationists try to act like scientists Creationist idiots..no wonder we like reducing them
Timothy Chapman (1 year ago)
Conveniently ignoring all of the evidence against radiometric dating. Real science comes from creationists. Evolutionists just make stuff up and call it science.
Timothy Chapman (1 year ago)
Have it your way! Like I said, I will not waste my time with liars! And until you start showing and refuting the research instead of hiding from it, pretending that it doesn't exist, that's all I'll ever believe you are: A liar. *YOU* show your viewers the evidence that you *know* exists. Then we'll talk.
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
Timothy Chapman If your next post does not contain a link to this supposed evidence, it will be your last on my channel. That is my one rule. support your assertions or be blocked.
Timothy Chapman (1 year ago)
You know what the evidence is.
Tony Reed (1 year ago)
And your source for your assertion regarding the accuracy of radiometric dating is? Please present any arguments in the creationist sites I linked that you feel I've misrepresented or ignored. And yes. When YOU make he assertion, the onus is on YOU to support it. Not me.
Timothy Chapman (1 year ago)
We can start with the fact that radiometric dating methods do *not* give consistent results even within their overlapping "useful ranges." You flat-out ignored that fact, pretending instead that inconsistency is a rare exception rather than the rule that it is. And you expect me to do *your* research for you?! As for you not hiding any evidence from anyone, I know you're lying about that. You made no attempt to put any creationist research in your video to refute. If you could refute the research, you would have included the research in your video along with a refutation. Instead you leave it out and leave everyone with the false impression that there is no research.
442 Hz (2 years ago)
Interesting! Thank you for sharing!
Tony Reed (2 years ago)
Glad you enjoyed it.
MrJamesBecca (2 years ago)
LOL! Its possible to make lab diamonds from atmospheric carbon. So, yes its entirely possible to have diamonds with carbon 14. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2015/august/co2.html It would mess with peoples minds if special diamond preparations were made with hot samples. http://www.whoi.edu/nosams/Submitting_Guidelines
Tony Reed (2 years ago)
I'll be addressing Diamonds and C14 in dinosaurs in a future episode.
Bigga (2 years ago)
GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. amen
Oden Knight (2 years ago)
Did this being use material from a dead star to create Earth? Hope so, because that's what the evidence indicates :-).
Tony Reed (2 years ago)
+RichireX How irrelevant.
Ground Koala Soap (3 years ago)
The problem with radiometric dating is the amount of assumptions involved: -Assuming the amount of initial elements -Assuming the rate of decay has remained constant -Assuming there hasn't been any outside forces depositing or taking away elements (you touched on Carbon 14 in the video and how that is affected, but how do you know other elements aren't affected in a similar way?) The last two assumptions were disproved long ago by groups like RATE, and the first assumption is completely unverifiable. How can you know how much of an element was in a dinosaur's leg bone? You can't, you have to assume. Science isn't based on assumptions, but it seems that uniformitarianism is.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Ground Koala Soap You wrote - "The problem with radiometric dating is....Assuming the amount of initial elements" 1. It isn't about the amount of initial elements, it's about proportions of parent to daughter elements. 2. It seems a bit coincidental that, uniformly, proportions of parent to daughter elements seem to match decay rates when they are cross-checked. You are aware that radiometric and chemical dating is rarely done using only one method, right? 3. Where in the creationist assumption are these correlating results predicted? -- You wrote - "The problem with radiometric dating is...Assuming the rate of decay has remained constant" Any significant change in the rate of decay would be obvious by the presence of thermal fluctuations.... which we find no evidence for. -- You wrote - "The problem with radiometric dating is....Assuming there hasn't been any outside forces depositing or taking away elements (you touched on Carbon 14 in the video and how that is affected, but how do you know other elements aren't affected in a similar way?)" 1. t seems a bit coincidental that, uniformly, proportions of parent to daughter elements seem to match decay rates when they are cross-checked. You are aware that radiometric and chemical dating is rarely done using only one method, right? 2. How very creationist of you to assume phenomena that has no observational evidence, nor predictive value, as true. If that is your hypothesis, feel free to support it with demonstrable evidence. Until then, I'll adhere to propositions which we can test. -- You wrote - "Science isn't based on assumptions, but it seems that uniformitarianism is." So you admit that creationism necessarily requires the suspension of all known physical laws?
David Henry (3 years ago)
An interesting educational video, but doesn't tackle the issue of finding soft "dino" tissue and the carbon-14 dating of those samples. Keep in mind they found "dino" proteins which reacted with live test rats PLUS using other methods (see abstract). https://youtu.be/ji2cvuJ1mYg http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.abstract http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+David Henry Soft tissue was covered in a different video. https://youtu.be/SWDY7GSf6Rk
tread27 (3 years ago)
you spoke too fast like someone with add.
quetzalcoatul1 (2 years ago)
+tread27 haha just smoke a joint youll be fine
quetzalcoatul1 (2 years ago)
+Flat Water HAHA. GOOD ONE.
tread27 (2 years ago)
+Flat Water I take it all in, don't get me wrong brother. must have been off my meds when I commented lolz.
Flat Water (2 years ago)
you didn't understand, like someone with add
GSpotter63 (3 years ago)
Observable, repeatable, and verifiable experimental data obtained in labs show that the vast majority of the strata found in the geologic column may not have been the result slow deposition of particulates over millions of years. But is in fact evidence that the vast majority of the geologic recorded could have been deposited in less than a year under fast moving water currents. No. The entire assumed geologic column is just that, "an assumption" An assumption based on misunderstanding and presuppositions of how the layers were formed. Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBv-4jrzmNw Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SGB_uMRNU Part 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG6tfolc1i4 I find it odd that even after this data was unearthed the vast majority of scientists continue to desperately hold on to the slow deposition belief system. Could that be because this conflicting data is never shown in schools and universities teaching Uniformitarianism and the old principles of stratigraphy establish in the late 1800's? I would like to point out. If the entire earth was at one time covered by miles deep water, that water would not be standing still. The entire global ocean would be subject to tides and the coriolis effect. Uninhibited by the masses of the continents these processes would produce massive high velocity water currents stretching thousands of miles in width and length. As these experiments show, water conditions like those that would have be seen in the flood of Noah would have no problem producing the geologic column as we see it today.
Lynn Troller (1 year ago)
Earth techtonics had a lot of settling to do following the flood. Remember that what happened had not happened before that point in earths history and it would be a safe bet to say that things were rocking and rolling for MORE than a year even after Noah and family touched down. They must have experienced geologic changes bigger than average for quite some time. Probably YEARS. Some anomalies can probably be accounted for because of it.
RVapes (3 years ago)
+GSpotter63 Would you like to hear a creatard claim the G.C. was formed in 5 minutes? It's right here on YT. O.K., 3 seconds was a stretch, but it's just as stupid as the idea that Haymond was formed in a thousand years or two. You need work on your definitions. That was not a straw man fallacy. Neither is creatard an ad hom. An ad hominem attempts to refute a claim by disparaging the claimant. You are not wrong because you are a creatard. You are wrong because the science says your wrong. You're creatardism is a separate issue. You have reversed the cause and effect. You're not wrong because you're a creatard. You're a creatard because you are wrong. There's a difference. I'll keep the focus on evidence, but from 20 years of experience debating creatards, I know full well that you will not read it, you'll pooh-pooh the source as biased and you''ll counter with talking points from pseudo-scientists at creatard think tanks, all of which enforce a "statement of faith" that's entirely inimical to science.. That much is as predictable as the tides,.
RVapes (3 years ago)
+GSpotter63 Here's some info by a christian OEC and geologist regarding Haymond as well as the geologic column. It was reprinted in talk origins. This guy describes in detail every single layer in the 15000 foot column and how both it and Haymond are indisputable proof against a young earth. I'm posting the first few paragraphs. The rest of it is in the links if you have the cajones to read it. BTW, the Haymond is 15000 layers, not 25000. I was working from memory. .................................... The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine "landslide" (I am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over a long period of time. I made the comment that one feature of this deposit made it an excellent argument for an old earth and local flood. Earle F. McBride (1969, p. 87-88) writes:Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repetitious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87. "Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds. For the non-geologist who is reading this this means that the burrows are in the shales (which take a long time to be deposited) so the animals would have lots of time to dig their burrows. The sandstones are the catastrophic deposit which covers and fills in the burrows with sand. The fact that there are no burrows in the sand proves that the sand was deposited rapidly. I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down. The response surprised me a little. My friend suggested that all I had proven was that the Haymond beds were not deposited by the flood but that other beds were. This suggests that we need to find the flood layer. What I have done is the examine each of the layers in the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and southern Canada with the purpose of determining if any of the layers could have been the flood deposit. I have mentioned before that the entire geologic column exists in this locale (contrary to young-earth creationist claims) so there is not likely to be anything significant missing here. I might mention that some of the beds I will discuss are quite extensive, covering large parts of the Western United States. I mention this because some of the articles refer to regions where the rocks, deeply buried in North Dakota, come to the surface far from that area.This long article is divided into a description of the geologic column, and then a conclusion. Since there are 15,000 feet of sedimentary rock, it takes a lot to describe the whole column. Everything is documented for those that want to check me out. I would suggest that if you get bored reading the description of the column, skip to the conclusion section which is relatively short........ www dot .talkorigins dot org/faqs/geocolumn/
GSpotter63 (3 years ago)
+RVapes Equivocating that the Haymond formation couldn't be produced in a couple of 1000 years by comparing it to the grand canyon forming in "3 seconds" is a fallacy.  A form of the straw man fallacy designed to make the idea of the Haymond formation not forming in a couple 1000 years sound stupid.  It in no way refutes the promise that the Haymond formation could not have formed in a couple 1000 years.  There is not a young earth creationist that proposes the grand canyon formed in 3 seconds. Then of course there is the derogatory use of the word " creatard".  Clearly on another attempt at degrading the presenter of the evidence rather than refute the evidence.  What do we call that fallacy again?  Ad Hominem. Please keep the focus on evidences that can be clearly shown with observable, demonstrable, and repeatable facts.  Not unverifiable assumptions.
RVapes (3 years ago)
+GSpotter63 BTW, yes, I have a bias toward science and against pseudo-science and the oxymoron of creation science. Perhaps you could explain how 25,000 layers, half of them having been colonized by burrowing animals, can be formed and fossilized in 10,000 years or less. We know roughly how long it takes for mud to turn to shale and for sandstone to solidify. Hint: It ain't six months. So what scientific discipline are you going to insult by claiming otherwise? Geology? Paleontology? Chemistry? Physics? zoology?
GSpotter63 (3 years ago)
Since when can the sedimentary rocks found in the Geologic Column be used in radiometric dating?
Gondwana (3 years ago)
+GSpotter63 I think he was showing igneous rocks when talking about isotopes and when showing sedimentary ones you could see fossils inside
GSpotter63 (3 years ago)
Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before the first humanoid was even suppose to have walk the earth? Just in case you did not know..... Every newly expelled lava ever tested contained varying amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes. The preexisting daughter isotopes did not all boil out of the lava before solidification into igneous rock. When testing modern rocks. Rocks who's formation was observed. The daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. If the daughter isotope levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions. If two trains on parallel tracks were observed traveling in the same direction. One traveling faster and is 3 miles farther down the track then the other one. One could use simple math to calculate backwards to find at what point the two trains would be next to each other, sitting side by side on the parallel tracks. You could even find how long the trip took from the point that they were next to each other to where they are observed now. But none of the math would give you the starting point of either of the two trains. Assuming that they started in the same place and at the same together cannot be confirmed. Yes one could look how far back the tracks go and calculate the maximum time they could have been traveling. But that would be the maximum possible time, not the time they actually started. In fact, in every case when the trains starting position was observed, they never started together. Such is the case for observed solidifying igneous rock. If the solidifying rocks observed today have varying starting ratios for the isotopes then one must maintain that the rocks in the past would act exactly the same. Resulting in the same problem that was encountered with the trains in the above example. Without knowing the starting ratios of the parent and daughter isotopes at solicitation the math is useless. Thereby making the dates arrived at with this math irrelevant. Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used is the decay rate and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtained any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd. Again the train analogy was about the time and the distance traveled. Running the trains backward at the speed observed can tell you at what point the trains would meet each other. Another words, sit side by side on the parallel tracks. But this does not tell you that this is where either of the trains started. Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on unverifiable assumptions. If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith.
GSpotter63 (3 years ago)
+RVapes Ha Ha Ha.....As if Mark Twain has any more experience with death then any of the rest of us walking the earth...  " You have a deep seated ignorance about the nature and methods of scientific inquiry."  The number of assertions you make about me and my knowledge of how science works without a shred of evidence is a bit telling.  One would wonder, if you use the same sort of investigative assertions when investigating evolution and the existed God as well. There are times when I feel this debate about Gods existence seems pointless. When my brother and I were young we would argue about what was in the boxes under the tree for days. Only to have all of those arguments made pointless on Christmas morning when the opening of those boxes ended all debate.  There will come a time when every single man on the face this planet will die and the debate of Gods existence will be over. The truth and facts will present themselves without doubt. Making all of those years of painful debate moot. So..... If you are unsure as to the existence of God,  Just sit back and wait....Death will alleviate all controversy. But I must ask. Are you absolutely sure you want to make that bet? (The bet that there is no God). If you are correct, then when you die. You will cease to exist and you win absolutely nothing. If you are wrong, and lose that bet. You will lose everything, and get to spend the rest of eternity regretting it. I know, I know..... It's a form of Pascal's wager.....You may not like it. In fact you just might dismiss it. But the results of the equation will still apply to every single person in this world as well as you whether you like it or not.  You have been shown the undeniable evidence that evolution and the age of the earth is nothing but a hypothetical construct based on un-provable assumptions.  Assumptions made by self promoting methodical naturalists whose modus operandi is Deus Inconcessus. (God not allowed)  The ball is now in your court.  What you choose to do with this knowledge is entirely up to you.  And in the same respect you will also be the one responsible for those choices.  All I can say is good luck.  Because after telling God to go Fuck off. He will honer your request and that luck will be all you have left.
Riemann Hypothesis (3 years ago)
+RVapes "Nobody will see anyone when they die." Well and there you have your conflict: You simply dont know that. And you cant run away from that fact. So you can believe your statement, but it is faith, nothing more. "Is that so disturbing that you must devote your life to convincing yourself otherwise?" Is it for you? "You have a deep seated ignorance about the nature and methods of scientific inquiry." I think you have a deep seated ignorance about God and why we are here. "You have no concept of how scientists pursue their work" Yes he has and you just dont like that. Instead you are throwing ad hominems at him. "Your utter ignorance was exposed in full when you asserted that scientists routinely lie to preserve their careers" Well but they do! Not all of them of course. And he never said "routinely". You are laying words in his mouth he didnt say. Why are you doing that? Are you mad? Especially in ET scientists did forgery, establish lies, etc. When did scientists do that with the theory of relativity? Well the rest of your text is just insults. That is sad.
RVapes (3 years ago)
+GSpotter63 I have no desire for the childish, narcissistic dream of eternal life, and no you won't. Nobody will see anyone when they die. Does that disturb you? Is that so disturbing that you must devote your life to convincing yourself otherwise?  Mark Twain once said something to the effect that he wasn't particularly bothered by all those years before he was born, so it doesn't seem like all those years being dead would be much different. Of course, he wasn't operating under the threat of eternal torment like members of your sick blood cult are, so the fear factor was immeasurably smaller. You have a deep seated ignorance about the nature and methods of scientific inquiry. You seem oblivious to the high value scientists place on overturning established theory, most of all the holy grail of evolutionary theory. You have no concept of how scientists pursue their work and your slanderous accusations that people like Darylmple fudge their results in furtherance of their careers (and get away with it for decades in spite of voluminous peer reviewed publication) are simply delusional. Your fanatical extremism and delusional mindset was revealed the moment you claimed christians aren't christians unless they're fundie literalists. Your utter ignorance was exposed in full when you asserted that scientists routinely lie to preserve their careers or in furtherance of some conspiracy to deny god, as if they're all anti-theists whose work isn't published and subject to challenge by anyone in the world. Meanwhile, you parrot the bullshit editorials from creatard think tanks staffed with pseudo scientists who publish nothing and founded on an open commitment to deny any evidence that doesn't comport with literal scripture. That's sick, abysmally ignorant and delusional, all at once. You diminish, denigrate and slander people without which you'd still be sitting in a cave picking vermin off your pubes by firelight....people whose shoes you're not intellectually fit to tie. Once they've exposed themselves as such, I'll not converse any longer with mentally ill religious fanatics like you. I know the futility in that and it's become my New Year's resolution..
GSpotter63 (3 years ago)
+RVapes Well.... The good news is that one day we all get to die and the debate will be over......See you then... 
RVapes (3 years ago)
+GSpotter63 And BTW, don't presume that Darylmple, or any other scientist, is engaged in denying god. I have no idea whether Darylmple is a theist or not, but even though they may not qualify as christians in your narrow worldview, many scientists are still theists. Plenty of scientists love the idea of god and and plenty of them believe it. the difference is, the are not all ignorant fucks who take the bible as literal science and history. They're not part of a tiny, almost exclusively American, extremist cult of fanatic biblical literalists. Other than a compulson to kill infedels, which is not a common theme within your cult, fundamentalist literalists are no different from the extremist minority in any religion. Fortunately, more logical and reasonable christians do exist and they're in the majority.
HereAfter Now! (3 years ago)
What you are missing is that the Bible doesn't tell you how old the earth was. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void." So I'm not surprised that the earth can date to billions of years if the Potassium half-life can be believed. You are only looking at what has already been created by God all along.
Flat Water (2 years ago)
actually, the bible does tell how old, it's in ezras a part cut by the vatican.
kasanza (2 years ago)
+HereAfter Now! That's why when the earth rotates and the sun is hitting the other side, we can still see each other! Oh wait... I forgot about the moon reflecting the sun's light and of course all the various sources of man-made light on the planet. I guess even Christ has to sleep and save energy sometime.
Dann DaMann (2 years ago)
+soulblacknight Blue green
Gondwana (3 years ago)
+HereAfter Now! What wavelength is he?
HereAfter Now! (3 years ago)
+soulblacknight The Bible tells us that God Himself is the Light.Christ/Messiah said: "I AM the Light".
TheAtheistChef (3 years ago)
Anyone ever tell you that you occasionally sound like Total Bisquit?
TheAtheistChef (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed yeah you're the American version of him
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+TheAtheistChef I looked him up. I can hear the resemblance. Perhaps sometime I'll make a video and impersonate him, British accent and all.
TheAtheistChef (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed he's a video game commentator. Quite popular.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+TheAtheistChef I don't know who that is, but I bet I will start hearing that more.
AG747 (3 years ago)
Creationist argument against radiometric dating: "...the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history." from creation.com
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+AG747 Creation.com hasn't examined the question of how scientists know that the decay rate of the element has remained constant. Otherwise they would know that any significant increase or decrease in decay rate would be evident due to a significant increase or decrease in heat that would leave traces in rock. They also seem to neglect that, as we explore older strata, the ratio of daughter to parent elements increases across the board for all radio-active elements. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, this would be one heck of a coincidence. By their own logic, all forensic evidence used to solve murders should be thrown out, as no-one was present to observe the murder.
Nathan Ebersole (3 years ago)
So who was around to observe that Potasium 40 takes 1.25billion years to decay half way? No one because this isn't observational science ("real science") but rather historical science which cannot be observed or tested or proven which is the ("real") scientific method.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Nathan Ebersole You wrote - "This is a lie and there is no evidence for it." Here's a picture of a 30 day old human embryo. http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/30-day-old-human-embryo-omikron.jpg So unless you're claiming not to be human... -- You wrote - "That isn't proof of a common ancestor, it's proof of a common designer." It isn't "proof" of either one. It is evidence for evolution and... -- You wrote - "The same creator made both of us." If that's the case, than lobsters would disprove a common designer as they have no hair whatsoever. -- You wrote - "Going through the evolutionary process in the womb, as you suggested..." I suggested no such thing and I challenge you to cite me saying so. -- You wrote - "It is still taught in the school books..." No it isn't, and hasn't in your lifetime. -- You wrote - "using Haekel's fake drawings" Textbooks don't use drawings, and haven't for decades. They use pictures now. -- You wrote - "'tails', which are usually tumors not tails..." Citation please. -- You wrote - "extra arms and legs are mutations, not windows into our past." I never said they were. -- You wrote - "You spew on the apes and monkeys thing is ridiculous. You're reaaaallllly stretching here." What the fuck are you talking about? What stretch did I make? -- You wrote - "'predictions about the genome' - evolution helps understand evolution? - that doesn't help science. That isn't what I said and YOU KNOW IT. Since when is the genome synonymous with evolution? I'm beginning to think you're a troll. -- You wrote - "'the fossil record' again, evolution predicts evolution? The fossil record doesn't exist anywhere except in the theory of evolution and does not help science anywhere." Evolution has predicted exactly where specific fossils would be found. Creationism has predicted exactly zero. -- You wrote - "'control of diseases.' Not true..." Yes it is. You wrote - "unless you are talking about micro evolution aka adaptation which fits perfectly with creation and therefore is not an evolutionary discovery." And yet, it was evolution, not creationism, that predicted it. -- You wrote - "Have you heard of Louis Pasteur? He was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. "He was puzzled by the failure of scientists to recognize God's existence from their observations of the world around them." And where in the above was the assumption of a six day creation needed to make this observation? -- You wrote - "If you understand that everything was designed by an all knowing creator, you could predict that there would be laws that are constant and don't change." 1. So if I can show at least one law that has changed, would you then concede that your "creator" is a fiction? If not, than it isn't a prediction. 2. You believe the bible, right? If the moon stopped in the sky or an entire person can be formed by clay, then it would seem that creationism predicts that physical laws do, in fact, change. --  You wrote - "The laws of thermodynamics" Already did two episodes on those. I'm sure you don't understand any of the laws. -- You wrote - "Gravity, Planetary motion" The fact that you separate the two shows that you don't know what either one is. You wrote - "The understanding of this and the Bible is what aided the founding fathers of science." In what way? -- You wrote - "Isaac Newton Developed the laws of motion and universal gravitation..." Feel free to cite him saying anything like, "based on the assumption of a six-day creation, I predict..." -- You wrote - "Galileo Galilei - Father of observational astronomy" 1. As the church attempted to have him killed for it. 2. Again, feel free to cite him saying anything like, "based on the assumption of a six-day creation, I predict..." -- You wrote - "Johannes Kepler - Best known for laws of planetary motion" Feel free to cite him saying anything like, "based on the assumption of a six-day creation, I predict..." -- You wrote - "Francis Bacon - Father of the scientific method" 1. Scientific Method is what shows creationism to be silly. 2. Feel free to cite him saying anything like, "based on the assumption of a six-day creation, I predict..." -- You wrote - "Louis Pasteur - also responsible for disproving the doctrine of spontaneous generation (Life from non-life)" If you think "spontaneous generation" is synonymous with "life from non-life" than you need to get a dictionary and look up the word, "spontaneous". You wrote - "There are over 200 scientific statements in the Bible which are 100% accurate. These statements were written thousands of years before anyone could possibly understand them." 1. When I run out of ideas, I will be doing episodes on all of them because they are all bullshit. 2. Unless they appear in the first few chapters of Genesis, they have nothing to do with creationism. 3. For shits and giggles, feel free to list your three best and I'll happily eviscerate them right here. -- You wrote - "Many of those scientific discoveries were just discovered in the past couple hundred years." I'll bet they weren't. -- You wrote - "Farmers count on evolution being wrong every year. They expect to plant corn and get corn every time. They expect to never get a tomato, fish or a cat." Evolution makes no such prediction. You really should know what you're talking about before you try to refute it. -- You wrote - "If you search for the creator then you will discovery creation." Most of the people in the world who do, do not find the creator you worship.
Nathan Ebersole (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed "Actually, we do have genes for a tail. You, yourself, once had one and it was reabsorbed while you were still an embryo." This is a lie and there is no evidence for it.  "We have as much hair as chimps" That isn't proof of a common ancestor, it's proof of a common designer. The same creator made both of us. Going through the evolutionary process in the womb, as you suggested, is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. It is still taught in the school books (using Haekel's fake drawings) which is likely where you got this idea from. "tails", which are usually tumors not tails, and extra arms and legs are mutations, not windows into our past. You spew on the apes and monkeys thing is ridiculous. You're reaaaallllly stretching here. Again I say, Evolution has not helped science at all. You said,  "predictions about the genome" - evolution helps understand evolution? - that doesn't help science.  "the fossil record" again, evolution predicts evolution? The fossil record doesn't exist anywhere except in the theory of evolution and does not help science anywhere. "control of diseases." Not true, unless you are talking about micro evolution aka adaptation which fits perfectly with creation and therefore is not an evolutionary discovery. Have you heard of Louis Pasteur? He was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. "He was puzzled by the failure of scientists to recognize God's existence from their observations of the world around them." - http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Louis_Pasteur If you understand that everything was designed by an all knowing creator, you could predict that there would be laws that are constant and don't change. The laws of thermodynamics, Gravity, Planetary motion, math which can explain anything on earth and so on. The understanding of this and the Bible is what aided the founding fathers of science.  Isaac Newton Developed the laws of motion and universal gravitation, Galileo Galilei - Father of observational astronomy, Johannes Kepler - Best known for laws of planetary motion, Francis Bacon - Father of the scientific method, Louis Pasteur - also responsible for disproving the doctrine of spontaneous generation (Life from non-life),  and the list goes on.  There are over 200 scientific statements in the Bible which are 100% accurate. These statements were written thousands of years before anyone could possibly understand them. Many of those scientific discoveries were just discovered in the past couple hundred years. Farmers count on evolution being wrong every year. They expect to plant corn and get corn every time. They expect to never get a tomato, fish or a cat. If you search for the creator then you will discovery creation.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Nathan Ebersole You wrote - "Well we don't have genes for a tail first of all, the only reason evolutionists believe that is because it would fit their theory." Actually, we do have genes for a tail. You, yourself, once had one and it was reabsorbed while you were still an embryo. -- You wrote - "We do not have fir as a fetus that's a lie and an absurd one that that." Actually, we have just as much hair on our bodies as chimps do. It just doesn't grow as dramatically. -- You wrote - "You're suggesting ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is still evidence for evolution; that theory was proven wrong in the late 1800's." Nobody is suggesting any such thing. -- You wrote - "Then again you...ignore the children who were born with 4 legs and 4 arms." Extra limbs are usually caused by absorbed twins, or a mutation in the genes that code for the placement and number of limbs (See my episode on DNA). In both cases, it is not due to new genes for arms, nor are tails due to new genes for tails. They are all a matter of regulatory DNA. -- You wrote - "...evolution does not teach we came from a monkey, it teaches we came from an ape. Apes don't have tails..." You are right and wrong here, and so is everyone else. Including me. Currently, Monkeys are a paraphylitic group. New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. If taxonomists decide they are two separate groups, then apes would still NOT be considered monkeys, but will still share an ancestor with monkeys which had a tail. If taxonomists determine that Old World Monkeys and New world Monkey are under one monophylitic group (Monkeys) apes will fall under that same umbrella. In which case, we are monkeys too. -- You wrote - "I still don't see how evolution has anything to do with the cases you have mentioned 'hold up in court'" RVapes didn't say anything held up in court. I did. -- You wrote - "Evolution has not improved anything in science..." Evolution has given scientists a framework with which to make testable predictions about the genome, the fossil record, and the control of diseases. -- You wrote - "but most of science was discovered by Creationists." Name one scientific discovery that required the assumption of a young Earth created in six days.
Nathan Ebersole (3 years ago)
+RVapes Well we don't have genes for a tail first of all, the only reason evolutionists believe that is because it would fit their theory. We do not have fir as a fetus that's a lie and an absurd one that that. You're suggesting ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is still evidence for evolution; that theory was proven wrong in the late 1800's. Then again you go to "some mutations are tails therefore we came from monkeys" and ignore the children who were born with 4 legs and 4 arms. You're ignoring the facts to help your religion live. Not only that but, as you should know, evolution does not teach we came from a monkey, it teaches we came from an ape. Apes don't have tails... "What you don';t find is unexpressed genes contrary to the phylogenetic tree." You mean like 4 legs and 4 arms?  You can't accept the evidence that fits your theory and reject the rest. That is not science. I still don't see how evolution has anything to do with the cases you have mentioned "hold up in court" lol. Evolution has not improved anything in science but most of science was discovered by Creationists. 
RVapes (3 years ago)
+Nathan Ebersole My logic suggests no such thing. Humans have unexpressed genes for a tail. They don't have unexpressed genes for 4 arms and 4 legs, feathers, beaks or anything else not in our lineage.. They also have unexpressed genes for fur and, in fact, fetuses have a full coat of fur that they shed at about 5 or 6 months. Occasionally, these unexpressed genes are expressed, such as when a child is born with a fully formed tail or covered with a coat of fur. Likewise, other species have genes for animals lower in their own lineages, such as legs in dolphins and snakes and, occasionally, those are also expressed and there have been cases of dolphins caught with fully formed legs.. What you don';t find is unexpressed genes contrary to the phylogenetic tree. This is interesting given that the phylogenetic tree was created long before genetic science had the capability to confirm its predictions. This evidence of common ancestry is the same evidence that holds up in court every single day and condemns people to death or to 18 years of child support payments.
Chris Carter (3 years ago)
"The ambient amount of carbon14 found in dino bones ,Neanderthals, coal, and diamonds are the result of constant bombardment of radiation on the planet.", said no scientist ever.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
There is no uniform answer. Carbon 14 found in dino bones has always been, either, indistinguishable from ambient carbon 14, or the result of contamination. Carbon 14 measurements in diamonds are useless due to their origin within the earth's mantle which is considerably more radioactive than the surface.
Chris Carter (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed Yes, I understand the reason for the limit. I have never come across someone who uses the reason for the limits of c14 dating (or any of the points in your video) as a reason for rejection of carbon found in an object that is well within the limit.  I don't see how the reason for the limits are relevant. The carbon found in the dino bones, etc is significant and within the limits and even well within the limits of allowance. You didn't address the problem you stated at the beginning directly, plainly and explicitly. Another of your viewers noticed the same thing. After the stated problem, the rest runs together. Restating the problem and the solution somewhere towards the end would eliminate confusion. "In conclusion, we should reject carbon found in dino bones, diamonds, etc because...". 
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Chris Carter So you missed the explanation about the reason for, specifically, c 14 ' s upper limit of application. There is a very simple solution to that. All you have to do is watch it again
Chris Carter (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed  The only other conclusion I could come to is that because other radiometric dating methods "work", the carbon found in dino bones must be wrong. But I can't imagine you would conclude that because that would be throwing out results you don't like. Carbon found in dino bones, etc., is showing not that other radio methods can't work, rather the assumption they are based on (uniformantarism) and the gazillion of years is erroneous.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Chris Carter  This video didn't say that either. Nice, superfluous comment you've made.
jammapcb (3 years ago)
wait a second that is only 1 method of dating though... so its a moot point! you need many tests and samples to confirm anything.. and then some more! i just dont get creationists as nothing they provide is useful in science!... just oh its like that.. cos it is!... no! lol.... it has no application.. thus we cant learn from it! thus its not science!
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+jammapcb I do my best to get my point across. That's all I can really do.
jammapcb (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed why dont you make is creationist blah then science then creationist then science in smaller segments... that way.. people wont lose the will to live on creationist nonsense!
jammapcb (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed thing is science to me can be a wonderful exploration because it can bring tangible results... I also understand some science can be rather destructive! That ravi talks about science as if people involved are not responsible for the knowledge they discover! there is a good chance that some major break through's have been shelved/destroyed for moral reasons! i think both mind and heart need a little of each other when it comes to consequences of X technolgy etc
jammapcb (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed most of it i already know about... the funny thing about the god concept is one of practical application...supreme being = practical on many levels right? just when I read religious texts... its seems.... so unpractical in its claims... as if its written by lowly men guessing about their origins and using god to palm it off as divine knowledge!... alot of folk dont want to see that though... sadly!
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
No worries. I have to wonder if I would be able to sit through these episodes long enough to get to the real science.
Richard Anthony (3 years ago)
How deceptive of you to describe Radiometric Dating only in terms of Carbon 14... 
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
How deceptive of you to post a critical comment as if you've actually watched the video. The sad part is that you commented and probably left here thinking this was a "pro-creationist" video. I suggest you actually watch the video and then give me your feedback. Otherwise, you make scientifically literate people look just as dogmatic as creationists.
focusontheargument (3 years ago)
Awsome :)
Elenhith (2 years ago)
You did rule, you do rule, you will rule, even allowing for the small confission.
David Jones (3 years ago)
http://youtu.be/FsZiPtctgY0 Shout out. Dryer, but I like it
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+David Jones  I'm a big fan of Baud2Bits.
David Jones (3 years ago)
FatRakoon (3 years ago)
Yes, definitely one of the best Videos I have seen in a while... Certainly the best by far to explain Radiometric dating thats for sure...
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Thanks. That means a lot.
terrypussypower (3 years ago)
I just subbed btw! Cool vids.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Thanks, You can count on a new episode every Friday.
terrypussypower (3 years ago)
"Ooops, I meant 'Fusion',...NOT!" I know what you meant, but it looks a bit funny written like that!
Another excellent video within an amazing series. I have learned much from these videos and highly recommend them to any layman interested in science. Many kudos to tony reed.
isgdre (3 years ago)
These are interesting episodes.  Nothing spectacularly new but well presented the for people that haven't looked into these things.   Well, done.
TheBackwoodLink (3 years ago)
Another great example for the children of the lord to begin their recovery.
rudai123 (3 years ago)
We live in a world of "Merchants of Doubt" (a title of a book about PR experts who tried/try to defend tobacco and attack climate change). Creationists try to create a little bit of doubt with the average person who doesn't have the interest in digging deeper. Creationists try to disprove one thing in the age in the earth, which then they claim disproves the entire dating methodology. Great video to counter this strategy of doubt. 
Roq Steady (1 year ago)
@Aksu - Science is not an attempt to "prove" that creationism is not true, rather it is a collection of theories that summarise observations (measurements! in case you wish to resort to "you were not there" arguments), and predict what we will find when we make further observations. If we do not observe what those theories predict then we discard them. Creationism OTOH is a dogmatic framework that is based on an old book, and it's assertions, such as that the earth is 6K years old, are arbitrary and have no basis in observational evidence. You are right in one thing though: science is like a huge jigsaw puzzle in which every theory must fit with every other one. We don't know precisely what all those puzzle pieces are, but we know enough now to appreciate that the arbitrary musings of the world's religions are no substitute for observation in filling the gaps.
Aksu J. (1 year ago)
rudai123 you use the same methodology, you try to "disprove" one aspect of the view of creationism and then you establish all of it to be untrue... ie world is billions of years old, youre using an admittedly unstable methodology to prove to us creation account is wrong... what we are asking for is consistency, where both parties accept there are pieces of the puzzles both dont have and work together with a heart for truth...
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I used to always point out in religious discussion that the early church used to rely on the fact that their congregations couldn't read, but now they can count on the fact that their congregations won't read. Creationists just use the same strategy.
Lance Wilson (3 years ago)
Much, much better.  This presentation was nicely done.
Mike Edmondson (3 years ago)
The replenishment of elements at 6:40 on finally brought me the answer I needed to fill in the basic knowledge gap here, thanks. 
Michelle Campbell (3 years ago)
Very nice ... The examples with the scales was spot on. Hope you don't mind if I use it in the future. I haven't seen charts and graph like that for many years but I still remember them from school back in the 70's. The periodic table explains so much but these folk won't even look at it.
Michelle Campbell (2 years ago)
+Flat Water Some examples would be fundamental Christians, Muslims, Jews and of course the geosynchronous and flat Earth proponents none of whom have any problem trying to explain science to the scientists.
Flat Water (2 years ago)
what are you saying the table shows so much about? who won't look at them?
blackraptor311 (3 years ago)
This is sooooo good.  Keep it up.  In fact, may I suggest about the dinosaur soft tissue found when a T-Rex bone was dissolved.  This was done by Mary Schweitzer.  This has been used by creationist to suggest that the earth is young.
Avicaris (3 years ago)
One thing I noticed that you mentioned at the beginning of the video, that I'm not sure you covered, is why carbon is found in diamonds, etc. I'm a longtime subscriber to Claire, so I'm aware of the reason, but a creationist might use the oversight as an excuse to claim that you were unwilling to discuss it.
WildwoodClaire1 (3 years ago)
On a number of occasions, some callow creationist has attempted the "slam-dunk' argument that rocks lower in the rock column had been "contaminated" by daughter elements leached from the rocks above [presumably] by groundwater. I asked about the source of groundwater on the Moon, because moon rocks brought back during the Apollo missions also dated over 4 billion years in age. The response was crickets.
Anton (1 year ago)
Moon rocks = petrified wood
zemorph42 (1 year ago)
+mike white they're not petrified wood, that's certain.
zemorph42 (2 years ago)
Flat Water I've seen petrified wood, and I've seen photos of the moon rocks. Unless you claim those photos were faked, they're nothing alike.
Brian Garrow (2 years ago)
+Flat Water That lady you doubted actually has worked as a geologist. I have read your profile and can see what you are interested in believing. Go back to sacraficing goats and burning witches.
Flat Water (2 years ago)
+WildwoodClaire1 i have real things to do, rather than debate a brainwashed lacky, back to star wars and game of thrones for ya...lol
WildwoodClaire1 (3 years ago)
I like the bathroom scales analogy.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I'm still trying to figure out who I blatantly stole that from so I can give them credit.
maliciousbloke (3 years ago)
Very well presented :) But if I may make a suggestion, I'd recommend a Part 2 to this one, specifically about the reservoir effect.  A lot of the nonsense spouted by creationists about the unreliability of carbon dating specifically revolves around bizarre results (deliberately) obtained through dating samples of marine and aquatic organisms, even though the reason behind the anomalous readings is now well understood.
danekeeper1 (3 years ago)
well done sir!
EE Ehrenberg (3 years ago)
*Episode suggestion:* The majority of scientists only believe in evolution because they've been "educated" to believe in it. Just like most Indonesians believe in Allah. Science is a doctrinal religion...         I can't count how many times this creationist gem has come up in discussions.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I've been working on an episode called "Still Only a Theory" where that would work perfectly toward explaining the difference between "believing" in religion, and "accepting" a theory. I'm glad you made that suggestion.
Kristi Winters (3 years ago)
It's locked on +301!  Congrats!
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Oh my gosh! That's a surprise. Thanks for pointing it out. I wouldn't have known.
Leviathon672015 (3 years ago)
I wish you'd released this earlier, when I got into a heated argument with someone over fossil dating methods... I completely forgot about C-14's halflife and argued with a limp during that debate. That sucked a lot.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Well, I'm sorry I couldn't help, but you're prepared for next time, you will certainly see this argument again.
Peter S (3 years ago)
I was surprised by the blunder (pointed out already by a viewer) at 3:06. The sun produces energy by fusing hydrogen atoms to form helium, yet there is a diagram showing uranium fission. Good video apart from that.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
It's possibly the most embarrassing mistake I've made in the entire series. I put an annotation up in the video during that portion.
CSW Channel (3 years ago)
Tony Reed , can you  edit your clips and type  all the references you use ,I mean the links? Do you use info from talkorigins.org?
pilgrimpater (3 years ago)
You raise a very good point that i had not previously considered in that the rate of decay is consistent with the relative age of the rocks (via stratogrpahic correlation).  This is a pretty slam dunk argument against a young earth as is the fossil pattern against The Flood story. It is these very broad brush, but factual. observations that have the best chance of making YECs actually think.  Absolutely excellent ........ again but one thing i am not sure of is how we can actually calculate in the lab any isotope as having a half life of millions of years. Perhaps you could address that.
parityviolation (4 months ago)
@Tony Reed: why not at least include it in your comment :-P ? @pilgrimpater: We dont need to wait millions of years for two parent nuclei to decay into one daughter and one parent, we got typically around 10^23 or more atoms in just 1g of a substance, which will ensure that there are measurable decay rates in the lab. For comparatively small half lifes we do not even need to evaluate how much atoms there are in the probe, we could simply use a geiger counter and a reasonable enough time frame for measuring counts. We then detect a change in the decay rate by repeating the measurement a few times and take the logarithm of the resulting values. This yields a straight line that we fit via linear regression, the slope of which is inverse proportional to the half life. For larger half lifes, a difference in decay rates is not detectable within reasonable margin of error, but physicists are smart: Instead of measuring differing decay rates over time, they simply measure differing decay rates over various masses of the same probe. They do the regression fit just over a different function (n(m) instead of n(t), where m represents mass and n denotes decay rates). edit: This may be a few years too late, but I think it's still nice to have a response for other idiots who actually dare to read youtube comment sections.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
You always think of a detail I should have included and it's always something I wish I had.
pauldhoff (3 years ago)
One should get an Doctorate in "Evolutionist". But would take a lifetime because it covers everything known to man about the universe. Paul
pauldhoff (3 years ago)
Today it is 66 years that I've been hearing people show how little they know when they think they know more then people that have studied. Showing that they have willful ignorance and being proud of it. Paul
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Yes, but it's still a better word than "Scientific Consensusist".
Poseidon63 (3 years ago)
Well explained in layman's terms, thank you. Even a creationist dumbwit should be able to understand this.
RVapes (3 years ago)
+Poseidon63 They could understand it if their identity and eternal future didn't depend on NOT understanding it. They're like the ten year old kid who has just been given proof that all the uncles who came to visit their mother in the evenings weren't really their uncles. Go to AiG and read their "statement of faith". Such is the mindset of a creationist. All evidence not in accordance with scripture is to be ignored, denied or dismissed and they're not too picky about the tactics, lies, distortions and misrepresentations they have to resort to. Not only reason, but truth, is the enemy of faith.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Thanks, but don't count on it.
disgruntledscientist (3 years ago)
Great video series. You should also do one on the problems with carbon 14 dating when applied to life forms that acquire some of their carbon from non atmospheric sources. 
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I tried to shoehorn more about C14 dating in this video, but it just didn't fit with the overall theme.
uzimonkey (3 years ago)
People like Carl Baugh send rocks and fossils away to be carbon dated and then say "See?!  It can't be that old, all of this is false!" and creationists looking for anything to reinforce their views eat it up.  If _any_ of them bothered to spend 2 minutes reading about radiometric dating they'd be able to see how wrong that was and we'd have so many more Tony Reeds.  However, most people (science-minded and atheists included) are much more prone to listening to only things that reinforce their views, accept what people say if it agrees with their views and even ignore conflicting evidence.  It's just part of human psychology, but part of educating yourself is recognizing these little quirks in the human psyche and replace it with rational thought.
shadowmax889 (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed Yes, that's the one
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I will include it in an upcoming video on adding information.
Kira (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed Personal request, could you do a video on the Apolipoprotein mutation that ocurred in Milan in the 80s? It's quite irritating hearing creationists talking about how it was a loss in specificity when it was in fact a gain. Talk.origins has a great page on it.
irtehpwn09 (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed Yeah he is and its the one i linked above :).
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+shadowmax889 Are you referring to the one he published about 5 or so years ago? "There's no (bleep)ing carbon in it!"
Frozen4Blade (3 years ago)
God's work boss 😜 👍👍
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
"God's worK"? Haha! Nice.
Andreas Hagen (3 years ago)
Great video, but at 3:06 there is a small oopsie. Fission is not responsible for the sun's heat, fusion is, due to the fact that the sun is dominated by atoms in the range where fusion is energy favourable, while fission is not.
Andreas Hagen (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed No problem, keep up the good work man ;D
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Dammit! Did I say "Fission"? The script I wrote says "Fusion". I hate when I do that. I will put an annotation in. Thanks for pointing that out.
MrOttopants (3 years ago)
My fav part about the creationists on this one is that they always just start with "Carbon dating isn't accruate... blah blah.'  Especially since carbon dating isn't how it's done. Just remember, even though you got some shout outs, I was here first.  lol.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I haven't forgotten.
rollofnickles (3 years ago)
It's as if a light went on as to why and how carbon dating is possible. You're a great instructor for a dim-wit like me.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+rollofnickles I tend to agree with you about C0nc0rdance's series, but we all get our lights turned on a little differently. That's partially why I don't mind covering topics that have already been covered by others.
rollofnickles (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed You have a clear and simplified approach to your instruction. I try to understand C0nc0rdance's new series of videos without any success. His instruction is over my head. I lack the aptitude for his instruction and would not wast my money on his class if possible. Hell, I've even unsubed from him.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Well, aren't you the humble one?
siamiam (3 years ago)
thank you got another great video
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy them.
Artifactorfiction (3 years ago)
Consistently excellent
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Thank you. I put a lot of effort into these. It's nice to see them appreciated.
AstroRex (3 years ago)
Your best video yet!  You're hitting your stride.
Aintquite Wright (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed I genuinely appreciate that and plan to continue with them.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Aintquite Wright I meant to say, I watched a couple of YOUR videos and thoroughly enjoyed them.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
+Aintquite Wright I watched a couple and thoroughly enjoyed them.
Aintquite Wright (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed That can't be it. I've got no social life, and very amateurish videos.
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
Thanks. I owe it all to no social life.
ThoperSought (3 years ago)
I invariably learn something interesting from every one of these videos
ThoperSought (3 years ago)
+Tony Reed lol yeah, well that’s how life works.  they say that when an author gets the final print edition of the book, he’ll find a typo on the first page he opens to
Tony Reed (3 years ago)
I, invariably make a mistake in every one of these and end up learning something too.

Would you like to comment?

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