HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: A Skeptical Human

Debunking Creationism: "Radiometric Dating Is Unreliable!"

125 ratings | 3107 views
Radiometric dating methods are very accurate and very trustworthy. Creationist arguments to the contrary are riddled with flaws, as is the scientific research used by them to support their position. Support my videos on Patreon!: https://www.patreon.com/askepticalhuman Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aSkepticalHuman Follow me on Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ASkepticalHumanOnYouTube Text or audio version of this content on my website: https://askepticalhuman.com/religion/2018/8/24/debunking-creationism-radiometric-dating-is-unreliable Thumbnail photos: Waiting For The Word/Flickr; rodoluca/Wikimedia Commons
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (127)
A Skeptical Human (9 months ago)
Radiometric dating has revealed that today is the day you decided to support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aSkepticalHuman
a skepticl human you are no skeptic,. you are just a pathetic liar.
curtis reeves (4 months ago)
Debunk this https://youtu.be/OVNCFoXGdn8
2consider (7 months ago)
Why do you call yourself skeptical? You accept what you're told about radiometric dating, in spite of the fact your video shows you don't clearly understand the science. Seems your skepticism is selective. I should insert, I'm not a "young earth" creationist. There is one obvious and unavoidable problem with dating methods, they adopt a steady state assumption. In short dating methods do not and cannot account for the vast number of changes the earth has undergone. "Science" will tell you the earth's magnetic field has gone through many changes, bombarded with radioactive energy from solar activity. The earth has been slammed by countless asteroids, been through several global warming events and ice ages, the earth was molten at one time, none of this is accounted for in dating methods, because it cannot be known how much effect all this had, but there's no question it had an effect. Radiometric dating is the only method of dating the age of the earth, the magnetic field, sediments in the oceans, cosmic debris that has fallen on earth, the amount of certain gasses in the atmosphere, these are just some of the other ways to measure the age of the earth, but none of these methods give an age anywhere close to 4.5 billion years old.
Cameron Osborne (10 hours ago)
How is it determined how much of the decayed daughter material was already present in the specimen. Radiometric dating assumes that none of the daughter element (Uranium to Lead for example, Lead is the daughter) was present at the beginning. Google Dino Bones with Red Blood cells, DNA, proteins. They still have C14 inside, which is not possible given millions of years.
A String (7 days ago)
A respectable and logical point of view, although you’re definitely biased. You didn’t look at good science from the other point of view. You cherry picked the worst arguments. Genesis apologetics video was 1st grade science, and a terrible counter example. The answer is not so clear cut like you make it to be. You’re just as biased as the creationists. Definitely a leftist. You make that very clear! To be clear I’m not taking a stance here. I’m very uneducated on the matter, but it’s clear that you’re very biased, and you have an agenda you’re trying to prove. I challenge you to debunk Hugh Ross’s book an actual astrophysicist that brings some interesting points on creation to the table. In the mean time, go smoke another joint bud! You should have countered this article instead of your 3rd grade counter examples. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Roedy Green (16 days ago)
The other explanation for the creationist anomalies is they are lying. Creationists lie more often than not.
Roedy Green (16 days ago)
Because of the physics, the decay rate was constant in the past. There is no evidence for varying.
Roedy Green (16 days ago)
Radioactive decay, no matter what the material, follows a precise mathematical formula, exponential decay. The amount of decay depends precisely on the amount of undecayed material remaining. It is not a chemical process. It does not depend on the chemical environment or the temperature or the pressure. This is why it can be relied on as a rock steady clock. About the only thing that can go wrong with it is so much decay can occur the remaining decay is so weak it is hard to measure it. Radioactive clocks have been calibrated against other types of clock to determine the half-life (rate of decay) of various materials. Different radioactive materials are suitable for measuring different age ranges. If you don't know the approximate age, you have to try several clocks. In particular, carbon dating is useless for ages greater than 40,000 years. Carbon 14 decays too fast so you have almost nothing to measure after 40,000 years. Creationists do some of the nuttiest things, like try to date 80 million-year-old dinosaur bones that contain no carbon with Carbon 14 dating, then claim they have debunked carbon dating. They also claim there is no evidence that radiometric dating works. They date artifacts with brand labels on them from the 1800s as millions of years old when what they really dated was nearby rock contamination.
you did not and can not debunk creation. you are only lying in this video
max snodgrass (15 days ago)
Wow you are ignorant. Did you not witness him disprove the claim that the earth was created 6000 years ago?
Abebayehu Desalegn (21 days ago)
Why is that the atheists consider themselves as the only scientists?
Jedi Master (26 days ago)
It's funny that all the guys you used as sources against creationists are most well known for being against creationists. All part of mainstream science and when they couldn't debunk something they just say " Oh that's phoney science, we don't use that method or that must be a false result due to a foreign body that found its way into the sample " That's exactly what I expect to hear from these guys. Science always create a theory 1st and then try to make it fit and when you debunk them they just make excuses. I'm not convinced with any dating methods. I hear NASA people these days claiming they know what the conditions were like on Mars 2.4 billion years ago etc. Again full of shit! There's no fucking proof but people still believe what they are told. WTF!
Ricahrd P'Brien (1 month ago)
Basically every non-fundamentalist Christian college teaches that this is correct geology. Even the theologically very conservative, Bible-centered SOUTHERN BAPTIST Baylor University teaches that this is correct geological science. "Are decay constants actually constant? The question commonly arises whether the decay constants used in the isotopic dating of geological materials are actually constant, or do they vary in response to some external force? The answer is that the decay constants used in the dating of geological materials are effectively constant and invariant to external forces." "How old is the Earth? The current best estimate for the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is 4.51 to 4.55 billion years, with a confidence of 1% or better (Dalrymple, 2001). How old are the oldest fossils? ...The earliest life forms on Earth were simple procaryotes that could tolerate extreme environmental conditions and that reproduced asexually by cell division, similar to modern archaeobacteria. Cyanobacteria capable of photosynthesis were prevalent from 3.5 billion years, and persist today... https://www.baylor.edu/geosciences/index.php?id=953452
Eric Collier (1 month ago)
Very good presentation, but it left out a response to a common creationist complaint: parent or daughter element contamination of a sample. SH gave us a little about C-14 contamination, but no mention of other radiometric dating methods such as K-Ar, U-Pb & so on. Scientists are aware of the possibility of some kind of contamination in these methods but have a method for allowing for this--something involving an "isochron". I read an account of it somewhere & for me it was almost unintelligible. I'd like to see an instructional video about it..
a64750 (1 month ago)
my Dad said "after 100 years, Nothing matters"
El Carpe (1 month ago)
anything Eric Hovind says - is directly from his father's lies in the DVD's on 'creation science' 25years ago (and yes, I do realize that 'creation science' is an oxymoron... which is different than Eric and daddy - whom are just morons)
El Carpe (1 month ago)
no.  they don't trust radiometric dating, because it gives us the factual capacity to actually document the earth is significantly older than their holy book says.   The mental contortionists cannot wriggle around these facts.
El Carpe (1 month ago)
love the facts, love the slightly sarcastic tone...  give 'em hell... (if that even exists)
LeeTubular (2 months ago)
Cheers, I've just discovered your site and channel whilst banging my head against the wall with a YECer who brought up the Mt St Helens 340,000 years over on Aron Ra's channel. I'd already linked the Henke article in a previous post but clearly he didn't read it so I posted a link to this video in the hope he can listen even if he can't read. I've bookmarked both your site and this channel. One request, could you post links to articles, videos etc that you reference in the video in the video descriptions so we can more easily follow up and fact check you? Nice job, cheers.
Robert Bryant Lock (2 months ago)
Lots of ASS-umptions.....
Paul Dana (2 months ago)
Religions are billion dollar per year scams that repeat stories in mythology for donation dollars. Invisible gods, devils, and demons only exist in mythology but the religions claim they really exist then beg their followers to donate 10% of their money to "spread the good word". By "spreading the good word" they gain more donating members (just like pyramid schemes). Religions start by indoctrinating (grooming) children with their beliefs in an INVISIBLE "god" and then when the children reach adulthood and begin working they begin donating money to their church every Sunday and continue donating money to their church every Sunday until they die. So 18 to 20 years of grooming nets 50 to 60 years of donating. It's all about making untraceable TAX EXEMPT money for the owners of the churches while the gullible members never realize their INVISIBLE "god" only exists in MYTHOLOGY and they're being scammed out of their money.
99NEPtune99 ™ (2 months ago)
Thanks for the hard work you put into this video!
@A Skeptical Human you did a great work at proviung you are a PATHETIC LIAr/. ALL you DID IS LIE. CREATION IS A fact. your video proves you will only lie.
A Skeptical Human (2 months ago)
My pleasure! Thanks for watching.
James May (2 months ago)
There is no such thing as evolution that is why they call it the theory of evolution, because it's just a theory. not a conclusive platform to really trust in by my standards., I like to enjoy real science
Emperor Napoleon (26 days ago)
Ever heard of Germ Theory? A theory in science does it means what you think it means
The Watchful Hunter (3 months ago)
This kid sure is smug in all of his experience and wisdom. Maybe Evolutionism is just another fanatical religion full of factual flaws and dogmatic beliefs.
Nikola Tesla (1 month ago)
Your reply demonstrates that you couldn't stand the smart kid in the class showing you up. Geologists and nuclear physicists know that different elements decay into another isotope at a soecific rates. And the rate of decay is ridiculously accurate and predictable. So accurate that we define time by it. Today's scientific definition of 1 second is defined to be exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Geology and biology are science and can make very accurate predictions. You simply cannot do that with theistic dogma.
Samurai JackOff (1 month ago)
Evolution has lots of proof and were observed. Unlike people who say proof and facts don’t have mistakes like holy books or holy beliefs. Evolution took years to fully master and fully understand as we do today.
99NEPtune99 ™ (2 months ago)
You’re just jealous a kid is smarter than you
Dawson Stephens (3 months ago)
“Within analytical errors” but they don’t tell you that they throw out the errors that don’t work with their notions and that there’s a lot of them
Mysteroo (3 months ago)
Been trying to find some good counterarguments to mull over and this is the first explicit thing I've found on the topic - gotta say I'm pretty disappointed. - Your first argument boils down to "this can't be wrong because these other things say the same thing". Well you can do an equation many different ways to get to the same wrong result - if only you interpret one foundational variable incorrectly across the board. I'm not familiar with those other dating methods, and I doubt others will be either - so this doesn't help my argument at all. - Your analogy of the crime investigation is just condescending. You *start* your list of evidence with the damning fact that "we saw you on the recording stabbing someone." In what world is factual, visible, recorded proof -- the same as calculating what no one was here to see. You can't convince people by insulting them. So this is also unhelpful to any mature argument. - Your following argument starts with a statement that dares to say "to my knowledge" as a citation, followed by a Wikipedia resource. Really? - The source following that states that decay rates have not been observed to change since they were found to be measurable. That is precisely the problem when considering ranges of time spanning vastly larger than periods the entirety of human civilization. You cannot look at 1/5,000,000th of the relevant timeline and presume the rest to follow suite. - You then claim that it's foolish to question professionals and scientists who use these methods daily. I would propose that it is much more foolishly to blindly accept the information given by anyone - even if they are a scientist. Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. Watch Veritasium's video on the accuracy of published research. - You bring up that the examples of inaccurate radiometric dating are likely a result of flawed research - not flawed methods. While that is possible (especially for the first one, for which you cite evidence), I see no reason why a creationist wouldn't see it as equally possible the the inverse is true. Again - this is a phenomenon established in Veritasium's video. When the results are skewed or interpreted in a misleading way, the goal is to get said research published. Reproducing such experiments is less profitable as it is less likely to be published again; it's less interesting. So there are are few people reproducing experiments to verify their results. And when it DOES happen - they are often rejected and told that they simply did something wrong. Much like you simply assumed that these examples are a result of them doing something wrong, rather than being open to the possibility that there is potential for credible flaws being found in the method. - What the creationists will bring up is that it is incredibly convenient that the dating method works *only* on rocks whose age we cannot actually verify outside of methods like these. It is like looking at a magic pole that is gradually shrinking at a constant rate and assuming that the rate has never changed. Sure - theoretically there's no reason to assume it would change, but one could argue that it is equally ignorant to assume that it certainly never has. - You do make one good point - limitations of a tool do not invalidate a tool. There is creationist propaganda that tries to dismiss dating methods entirely. On the other hand, I feel that while it may have some use - we give it far too little skepticism. There are too many unknown variables at work. Seals and mussel shells both returned inaccurate results due to unforeseen variables. There are doubtlessly many more variables at play that could be interfering with results. For example, how can we know the original proportion of stable and unstable isotopes has always been the same as it was today? If atmospheric conditions were much better (or worse), then it is hard to claim with certainty that the solar radiation that creates carbon isotopes today, created the same amount 40,000 years ago. - I think you make a good comparison with medical science. Sometimes they get it wrong, but that does not invalidate the method. However - lets not underestimate just how often medical science *does* get it wrong. I know people who were told that they just had a flu or something - only to realize (nearly too late) that they had appendicitis. Misdiagnoses happen very, very often - even when all variables are present and accounted for, right in front of us. - You say, "One problem with this quote - it doesn't appear to actually exist. Much like God, I might add." Well alright. It's been fun, but I don't intend to trudge through the last 15 minutes of someone pretending to present an objective argument - all while stooping to insult worldviews that are only trivially related to said argument. ✌
Samurai JackOff (1 month ago)
Having multiple people have the same answer can say a lot of things. If A doctor said I had cancer while Ten more said I don’t must mean something. Second or three options are important.
99NEPtune99 ™ (2 months ago)
If the decay rates somehow changed, how is it possible for the dates gotten via different dating methods yielded approximately the same results, with a margin of error? And you would discredit scientists who spend their lives dedicated to their field of research over a bunch of people who are inexperienced and are only trying to get findings that agree with their presumed conclusion of a young earth? Also the christian worldview is exactly opposite of being trivially related, because that’s the exact reason why there are people who assert that the earth is young.
Breandon Surprenant (3 months ago)
The science of radiometric dating is accurate for minerals, the problem is with using it for fossils. Dating fossils based on the stone that covered them initially give us accurate measurements of the stone, not the fossil. This is what destroys evolution.
R Truth (2 months ago)
@Dave Robson ouch https://youtu.be/fg6MfnmxPB4 explain this
Dave Robson (3 months ago)
No. No it doesn't. Not at all. Your logic here could not be more flawed. Like saying that dating the age of a person in a house by going by when we know ( or think, or calculate) the house was built "destroys" the accepted views on human reproduction. Just nonsense.
Rollingrockink III (3 months ago)
"hhhmmhhmmmhhmmm... that is not correct, because according to the encyclopedia of dhjuhvghdfhhbvgfhhgghh!!!!!"
Fred Gotoc (4 months ago)
The radioactive materials inside a rock can be interpreted in two ways it depends upon the preconceived idea. If I believe that the universe is already billions of years, then I will immidiatele conclude that all the stable radioactive materials inside that rock is a result of decay.
bryan hill (3 days ago)
Dave Robson how does science explain a “400 million” year old hammer encased in limestone? Either the dating is wrong or the theory of evolution is wrong, take your pick.
Fred Gotoc (3 months ago)
@Dave Robson Do we have evidence that a certain rock does not contain any lead when it was formed?
Dave Robson (3 months ago)
@Fred Gotoc So, you start with a conclusion and then.......just stay with it no matter the evidence you find? Well done.
Fred Gotoc (3 months ago)
@Dave Robson If I believe that God created this rock 6,000 years ago and I found out that it contains 40% uranium and 40% lead, then I will immidiately conclude that he created it that way and after 6,000 years, some of the uranium became lead already.
Dave Robson (3 months ago)
That is the ONLY valid conclusion. They have tested, retested, retested, tested some more, and retested some more the processes that go on here. It is pretty solid . Your claim is like stating that the only reason that an auto mechanic will tell you that the lack of oil in your engine is the reason that it stopped working is because they already have a belief that lack of oil can cause an engine to stop functioning and not the empirical evidence that A LACK OF OIL CAN CAUSE AN ENGINE TO STOP WORKING!!!! They say it because it has been shown to be true over and over and over again. Same thing here. Geologists have methods ( well tested methods) to prove whether or not there has been contamination in a sample. By the way " stable radioactive materials" is an oxymoron. A material cannot be both radioactive AND stable. In these instances the "parent" element is "radioactive" and the ( end) "daughter " element is " stable". Though there can be " intermediate daughter elements" which are also radioactive.
Fred Gotoc (4 months ago)
How can we be so sure of the original amount of radioactive materials inside the rock? The rate of decay can be accepted. It is reasonable. But how can we be so sure of the original amount? If I have the preconceived idea already in place, there is no problem, isn't it? I will instantly conclude that all the lead in there is a decay product.
Matt Smith (27 days ago)
@Robert Bryant Lock Are you an expert in the topic? No? Obviously not, since you have no idea at all. I on the other hand _do_ have some idea, but I'm not an expert either. So what do we do in cases like these? Well, you can take the retarded route, and look to religious extremist propaganda, or you can do what a sane person would do and look to the scientific consensus. Does said consensus 'prove' the age of the Earth in some absolute manner? No, no science will do that. Does it show what is the most probable conclusion based on the evidence we currently have? Abso-fkin-lutely. So when I get sick, I go to the doctor, whose methods and advice is hopefully based on peer-reviewed science. You can go to the priest or witchdoctor if you prefer. You can also be wrong about the age of the Earth if you wish. What you can't do is say nobody knows, when it's just the ignorant fools who deliberately detach themselves from reality who don't know. Multiple, independent tests converge on the same range, and that's good enough for regular people.
Robert Bryant Lock (27 days ago)
You got two fallacies there in your response, Professa'..... :D But anyway, your logic is also flawed in thinking that me stating that neither of us know the age of the earth equates to me thinking that the age is anything BUT 4.5 billion years. It could be trillions of years for all the [email protected]#% you or I know.
Matt Smith (27 days ago)
@Robert Bryant Lock So, what dating methods do you recommend for use on rocks and fossils? Are you saying you don't know the age of the Earth, but you do know it's not around 4.5 billon years, as all conventional, independent dating methods show?
Robert Bryant Lock (28 days ago)
LOL - you can say I'm wrong all you want, but it doesn't change the facts I stated. Wikipedia isn't going to help you here boyo. I don't know the age of the earth, never claimed to, and furthermore, neither do you.
Matt Smith (28 days ago)
@Robert Bryant Lock Wrong, the half life of C14 is 5,730 ±40 years. How old is the Earth, and how do you know it?
Deisel 1968 (5 months ago)
I’d like to see you do a video on the so called immigration crisis Trump is spouting about.
Morgenstund (5 months ago)
When it comes to Snelling there is no doubt. He knows that he’s lying. The guy is a bona fide geologist and has earned his keep doing real scientific work. Now he’s being paid to ‘put a lab coat’ on Creationism. As someone with a very minor degree in geology I must say that I’m very disappointed.
Ignostic (5 months ago)
You should make a follow-up episode, because there are creationist arguments against the reliability of radiometric dating which might prove to be more difficult to refute. Take this for example: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/key-flaw-found-radioisotope-isochron-dating/
A Skeptical Human (5 months ago)
You know I actually had several other anti–radiometric dating arguments that I didn't get around to responding to, and I plan on making a Part 2 to this video sometime in the future. It's probably something I'm going to hold off on for at least a few months, however.
Holy Koolaid (5 months ago)
This was fantastically done. Props!
Joseph Radd (7 months ago)
In short... you're wrong 100%.
XepA (1 month ago)
@Samurai JackOff This? https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/miller_urey.html
Samurai JackOff (1 month ago)
We have created the beginning of life. Bacteria in a tube test. I forgot the test but it came up as this, Baterica cannot spawn. We also created amino acids by recreated earth’s early conditions.
XepA (3 months ago)
Lennart Van Tuijl Allah is the same god as the Christian and Jewish one, this one just has a boner for murder though. Odd how the same god could be so different.
Lennart Van Tuijl (4 months ago)
Joseph Radd Oh no here we have a brainwashed Muslim who brings his imaginary hatred friend Allah, if he is so powerful let him stop me from insulting. Oh wait he is powerless😂😂😂😂😂
The Centrist Gamer (4 months ago)
@Joseph Radd The Following Cartoon is one I’ve been fond of since coming across it in the past. I’ve included two links in case one of them dies in the future. If the links both die, Google image search the following phrase and you should be able to track down the comic: “Eat. Survive. Reproduce. -- What’s it all about” https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-41c530add6e301297d74b9d9482d964c-c https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1722ti/i_dont_know_im_still_stuck_in_eat_survive_and/ The comic lays out a chain of evolving animals and each one up to the human thinks “Eat. Survive. Reproduce.” until the human thinks to himself, “What’s it all about?” I’ve included this comic to demonstrate some important drives that living things share and to introduce the utility that ideals of right and wrong can have for meeting survival goals. The behaviors that communities deem to be appropriate and moral are often mutually beneficial. There are exceptions to this -- but I’m not aware of any exceptions where the people did not at least believe that their actions were in their best interest.There tend to be very real anthropological reasons that traditions or rules that seem strange to us (or even barbaric) have been practiced within their contexts. Of course not all groups benefit equally or benefit at all and what really muddies the water here is power. Power and leverage seem to be a large part of why some groups have been subjugated while others have profited at their expense (this is an example of the irony referred to initially in this section). What does seem to occur over time however is a general “leveling out” of sorts. I think it’s reasonable to say that people hate being oppressed and it turns out it’s often extremely costly and difficult to subjugate other groups without an enormous advantage -- just look at World War II. For an example of what I mean by a general “leveling out”, take recent history in the USA for example: - Slavery was outlawed. - Segregation was outlawed - Women obtained the right to vote - Gay marriage became legal To clarify, I’m not arguing about the way I think things should be. My attempt in this section has been to outline that our notions of right and wrong do not necessarily come from a higher power because there are other reasons people adopt moral codes. I’ve heard some argue that those other sources could not exist without god(s), but then you’re back at the First Cause Argument. Using a higher power’s decree as criteria for what is right and wrong does not take into account what god(s) does and does not do themself; their actions are beyond question and they can arbitrarily choose what is right and wrong or change what is right or wrong based on their own personal whims. According to this criteria, god(s) could say, destroy all of humanity with a flood and this be considered objectively good and right or have their people engage in religious justified genocide and this be considered objectively good and right because they said to do it and they make the rules. In this scenario, right and wrong are entirely dependent on the whims and desires of the most powerful being -- “He who has the gold makes the rules.” If this were our determinant for right and wrong, god(s) could simply decree murder and rape to be just and right and, by our criteria, they objectively would be. Suppose you disagree with god(s)’s idea of right and wrong. Well, that’s just too bad -- supposing we go with Allah or Yahweh for sake of example, they have the power (and apparently the will) to punish you severely if you refuse to follow them. If we use god’s fiat as our criteria for what is right and wrong then, supposing Islam is true, the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks were, in fact, not at all monstrous, but rather objectively good and moral acts committed at god’s decree. Eternal suffering in hell for a life of finite crimes or for a genuine lack of belief or a genuine belief in the wrong god(s)? Objectively good and moral. Religious justified genocide? Objectively good and moral. Suppose you question what real authority criteria other than god(s) truly has. A problem with this is that using god(s) as a determinant for right and wrong is every single bit as subject to that same line of questioning as any other criteria. In the same way one might get abstract and ask why well-being or self-interest really matter or what authority they really have one can ask this same question in the same way about a higher power. Why does god(s)’s fiat matter and what authority does it really have? The only difference is that now instead of making use of our own criteria or our own opinions, we just default to whatever the higher power’s opinion is. Consider the following scenario: Person A says that well-being and the starting point that suffering is bad are their criteria for determining what is right and what is wrong. Person B says that god(s) determines what is right and what is wrong. Person A and Person B are both making a value judgement and their disagreement ultimately devolves into a game of Who-Says-So. Person B’s position is akin to someone saying that they will trust the conclusion of their village chieftain on matters of right and wrong. One can certainly do this, but their village chieftain’s positions on right and wrong are every single bit as subject to question and criticism as the next guys. Why does Allah or Odin’s position on what is right and what is wrong matter more than your own? Well, provided they exist, they are certainly more powerful and they can surely punish you severely if you do not comply with their fiat. But the real criteria then is power, not divinity -- “He who has the gold makes the rules.” Suppose we say that whoever has the most power decides what is objectively right and wrong. Well then, supposing there is no god(s), Hitler did nothing wrong while he had the power to bend others to his will. Furthermore, what is right and what is wrong would change constantly depending on who holds the most power at any given time. This is the whole crux of it: Power does not make your position or a higher power’s position about what is right and what is wrong more valid than anyone else’s. What it does do is give you the tools you need to bend people to your will by force, but this is not the same as objectively setting or changing what is right and wrong. The following excerpt is taken from Bertrand Russell who I think does a far better job of explaining the problems with the Moral Argument than I have: “One form is to say that there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that He made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God who made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up—a line which I often thought was a very plausible one—that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.” - Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian” The Moral Argument makes the same mistake the Teleological Argument does in that it states that a higher power must necessarily exist because something else exists. This is akin to my saying that because rocks exist a higher power must exist when in reality all I know is that rocks exist. In that sense, I find a lot of these arguments are just masked or tweaked versions of the First Cause Argument.
Joseph Radd (7 months ago)
If radiometric dating is reliable, why do they keep changing the age of the earth? Not only that but let's think about the origin of life. If the universe and all the matter in it has always existed, can we accurately establish the date of the universe seeing that the universe has always existed? That would most likely give rocks an ageless timeline and we would never be able to determine age to anything before the existence of life.
The Centrist Gamer (4 months ago)
@Joseph Radd The problem with your logic is that it's this 1. I observe complexity 2. Therefore God This is entirely non-sequitur and is not the conclusion you should logically come to. You're completely skipping the step to which you validate your reasoning for complexity to indicate a designer. Without that step your argument is absurd and worthless.
Joseph Radd (5 months ago)
@Louie Taylor You misread my post. I said nothing different.
Louie Taylor (5 months ago)
@Joseph Radd I understand your point there, it seems different to your original point however. though, if this is you concept, i understand. I don't deny that there is potential for God to be the originator, I was merely disputing a question of whether the universe was eternal.
Joseph Radd (5 months ago)
@Louie Taylor Clearly this question was beyond your capabilities of understanding. How about you go and educate yourself and then come back and discuss these issues when you are more capable. This discussion is not for you. And you have no place here yet. But thank you for your comments.
Joseph Radd (5 months ago)
@Louie Taylor The concept I was trying to relate, but clearly I failed to get across is this... One cannot determine the age of a system or being that has no beginning. So if we give scientists every possible assumption as to the origin of the universe, they will still be left with unanswered questions simply because their theories and hypothesis are erroneous. They have no basis or foundation without God as the Originator of everything that is visible in invisible. Glory be to Allāh forever and ever.
budsio (9 months ago)
Just found your channel after stumbling on your blog. I was trying to search the IronChariots wiki but it's down for admin purposes or something and the backups on archive aren't working. This channel definitely deserves more attention. I hope you get it.
Jonathan Nguyen (9 months ago)
You’ll always find a radiometric dating denier that’s also a young earther because it serves their needs. You’ll never find a denier that’s also an old earther who just isn’t convinced with the current evidence.
radiometric dating is very inaccurate. it is only based on assumptions of c14 in the air and the half life time/. half life decay could have speed up or slow down.
The Centrist Gamer (4 months ago)
@أبو مريم وليد أنصاري No it shows that the evidence is convincing and likely to be true. Please avoid using a strawman next time.
That shows that there aren't really unbiased "skeptics" there. Are there?
Test Vex (9 months ago)
One creationist told me it’s impossible to know how old the earth is because you would have to believe the numbers that these dating methods give us. He then said that science does not go against a young earth because this is not science.
creation is true science you atheist losersz haTE.
2consider (7 months ago)
It's "junk science."
Ink129 (9 months ago)
Wait... young-earth creationists aren't doing science correctly? Whoa!
ink129 you attheist reject real science that debunks you religions of atheismn and evolutionism,
Subomi (2 months ago)
Fred Gotoc actually scientists don’t only use one method radiometric dating involves a myriad of other methods Argon- Argon, Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, Samarium- Neodymium and Rubidium-Strontium to name a few and geologist aren’t stupid if they what to know how much of a certain decay product is actually radiogenic the measure the isotopes that are not from decay and get the ones that are from radioactive decay.
Dobs R (4 months ago)
It’s not question of its helps determine a age of something. My question is how do you determine something is a million years old .
Fred Gotoc (4 months ago)
If I have already a belief that our universe is billions of years old, I will instantly conclude that all the lead inside the meteorite is the decay product of uranium. But if I have the preconceived belief that this universe is not even 10 thousand years old, I will conclude that uranium and lead are originally created inside that rock and the uranium inside it has not yet even spent its half-life decay process.
Tort (9 months ago)
Ink129 I'm utterly astounded by this incredibly unpredictable and wholly unexpected behavior!

Would you like to comment?

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