HomeТранспортRelated VideosMore From: Mike Scarborough

Carbon Dating...100% accurate right?...NOT!

979 ratings | 61973 views
Category: Транспорт
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (1206)
Strange Jay (1 month ago)
Close, but no cigar
David Loewen (1 month ago)
A 50m year difference between 4.55b and 4.6b years is a margin of error of about 1.1%. That's pretty damned good, given the ages we're talking about. Not that I expect you to agree with that, given your woefully lacking understanding of radiometric dating.
Ryan Oharra (1 month ago)
I just spent an hour breezing through the comments.... WOW It has never been so obvious that religion folds the mind of those who are theists. Where people whom are educated and bring valuable science, actually know what the hell they're talking about and you can tell, just in the mature and educated responses. The creationist in the video was in a debate and got shut down, so he just stopped responding. He's a fraud and it's obvious! Yeah you Mike, YOU ARE A FRAUD AND YOU KNOW IT!
Isaac Dominguez (1 month ago)
it took a hillbilly to explain to u idiots how carbon dating isnt 100 percent accurate...sad how much information americans believe in just cause they were told to...smh....
Graham Bunton (3 months ago)
The sand in the hour glass IS an accurate measurement of time because:- 1. 99.99% of the time an hour glass is turned over when there is no sand in the top [which then becomes the bottom] 2. 99.99% of the time you cannot add or subtract sand, the glass is sealed. 3. 99.99% of the time sand falls through the hour glass at a very constant rate [the hole it falls through cannot alter] So given a 00.03% chance of wrong reading most sensible people will accept the hour glass as being accurate. If only we could have a 99.99% chance that creationists were sensible then we wouldn't have so many stupid videos pointing out the failings of carbon dating.
William Slover (3 months ago)
Instead of all the aetheists in the comments say how wrong this video is, how bout I try to rebuttal it... I mean all of his points where fairly made, and legitimate. I’m not saying that y’all are wrong, but y’all aren’t convincing anyone by simply stating that this is wrong... before you make accusations back them up. The dude in this video certainly did.
Filam Kelub (4 months ago)
If you observe Investment bankers, you'll find that they play it really safe. Risk assessment is key. No matter how stern your decision is, IF things go tits up.... then what sort of losses are you really looking at. I suppose thats the case here, a man of belief as compared to straight atheist is atleast playing it safe to some degree.... no? i mean if a believer (Godly person) gets it wrong then... he just turns to dust, ready for carbon dating again.... but if an atheist gets it wrong, then what? just a thought
SmeltzerSounds (5 months ago)
a very misleading video.
Capell (5 months ago)
Religion VS. Science Both sides disprove the other and that somehow proves that their side is correct?
JabberCT (6 months ago)
Stick to your goat farmer's diary. Leave science to the scientists.
jason sims (5 months ago)
+JabberCT I've genuinely looked online for answers but I don't find any. Odd. Very odd.
JabberCT (5 months ago)
Yeah I said "carbon" dating in my last sentence. I should have said "dating methods". The stone is limestone. Carbon dating won't work. Limestone fits into a radiometric dating timeline. Like I said there are a dozen different methods. But the age of the rock will be vastly different than the age of the inscription. So dating the rock is useless. Still, no one argued with the archaeologists (aka, scientists) when they dated the rock using other artifacts and data from the area. (aka, a scientific method) Not a peep. Anyways, I can't show you the results you want because I'm not a scientist. I don't collect that data. And neither do you. So as I said, 2 choices. Believe you or the experts. Easy choice for me. If you want to know I'm sure the internet has it somewhere. Stay off the religious agenda sites though. And you never answered how we can see the Andromeda galaxy if the Earth is only 10,000 years old. But never mind. i really don't need to know because I'm not a astrophysicist so its another case of me believing the experts over you. And you can't tell me that Christianity isn't the sole basis of this argument. That would be dishonest. Only young Earth creationists argue this stuff. And I find it highly disrespectful when people with no scientific background slap all the scientists across the face with pseudo-science and try to impose it into a science classroom. Especially since there are no Atheists knocking down the Sunday school door to tell all the kids they're being indoctrinated into lies. So don't play the victim card.
jason sims (5 months ago)
+JabberCT since you couldn't show me anything or tell me anything about what tests were done over and over again to the point of repeatability than its obvious that it's impossible to prove it is accurate. There is also no way to verify that the plate rock is 2000 years old. Congratulations on looking like a fool who doesn't think and is simply trying to keep his religion alive for himself. I do not look at carbon dating with religious eyes. I look at it as a process that was invented which lacks and tests. To be science, it must be obvserable testable and demonstratable. It is only observable. Seriously let me ask, why do you think carbon dating I'd accurate? What am I missing? Also I don't have any proof of God so I cannot prove he exists. Also, what's with bashing Christians? Would you encourage your children to do the same?
JabberCT (5 months ago)
jason sims - Your arguments are getting worse and worse. You're acting as if rocks are some new discovery that scientists know nothing about. If carbon dating bothers you so much, you would have looked into it by now from a non-religious source. You haven't, because you don't care. You just want your wishes to be true. How are you testing if god is real? You have nothing to go by except 1 old book. But that's OK, right? Its funny how when the Pilate stone was found, religious people demanded they date the rock. And when the results said it was roughly 2000 years old, they celebrated as if it proves the bible is true, which it doesn't. But it seems you guys believe in carbon dating only when it serves your bias.
jason sims (5 months ago)
+JabberCT After reading my comment there will be no way you can honestly say that about scientists. There must be some previously discovered knowledge about a subject. I will give you two examples which you cannot deny. Cars. Today we have what are called OBD2 scanners which will connect to the cars computer as tell the mechanic what's wrong. The scanner is equivalent to the method for determining the age of rocks. At one point in time, mechanics had no computers and had to run tests to determine what's wrong. All of these tests to verify components became common and repeatable among different cars. Knowledge. So then, they invented a scanner to make the job easier. The tool requires the knowledge of what was common and repeated. If this tool was made and it did not give successful readings, it wouldn't have been introduced. Who wants to hear they replaced a part and it didn't fix the problem because of a tool. As I said before, the scanner is to carbon dating as cars is to rocks, as information previously learned is to...nothing! Another example. Numbers! When teaching children math, it starts with the basics. Numbers. When I give my son a banana I break it in half and put one in each of his hands and count 1, 2. He Wil say 2 back and he is 2 years old. If I tried to teach him addition before learning his numbers he won't know what is going on. After learning numbers they move on to addition subtraction multiplication and division. Now addition and multiplication can be used to solve a problem and come up with the same solution. Same for subtraction and division. Later on I'm high school they move on to substitution and elimination. Both of which can come up with the same answer. These are proven to work because of the knowledge of numbers. If these didn't work they wouldn't have been used. These methods equate to all the ways to tests age of rocks. Numbers is to rocks. Knowledge of numbers is to...? Nothing. There is nothing that states or tells what tests were done over and over to the point of repeatability. I have never seen anything online. If you have something for me to read I'm open to read and learn but scientists did this backwards. They used carbon dating and then came up with knowledge they claim works. The only way to test rocks is to to back in time. If you weren't there when it was made then you are out of luck. If you deny this then you literally are crazy and misinformed.
FALSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxCLkoVHacc
OriginalSparkstar (6 months ago)
I love how even seemingly smart people throw *_ALL_* of there intelligence out the window to keep their faith because thats what they were raised to do
OriginalSparkstar (5 months ago)
honestly I don't even remember the video I make it a point to forget stupidity as soon as possible
jason sims (5 months ago)
So how was he wrong?
Godless Recovery (6 months ago)
Mikey, you are a perfect example of why no one with a 4th grade education or better listens to your shit.
Natheforever (7 months ago)
Hey, just saying, you kinda ruin your cred when you start out just attacking people. FYI, that difference of 50 million years is actually 45 million, which is only a difference of 0.98901099% the lowest of the two, and 0.97826087% of 4.6B years
That Araqaunid (7 months ago)
wow it not 100% so what? u have a better way? i dont think the fact that we know it around there is good it have around 10%-1% error but that everygood in term of scicnce It is not 100% doesnt make it bad
Bejaardenbus (7 months ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxCLkoVHacc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxCLkoVHacc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxCLkoVHacc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxCLkoVHacc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxCLkoVHacc
Danny Willson (9 months ago)
Finally someone smart enough to know this. Don't believe everything they teach you in school.
José João Costa (10 months ago)
Nice music, nice presentation and nice voice! Too bad you don’t know a thing about Science! What a waste of talent!!!!
Ryan K. Sager (19 days ago)
Yes, please explain how we was wrong.
jason sims (5 months ago)
Please explain how he was wrong.
Mantis 04 (10 months ago)
Great video with just one little flaw... You've got it wrong
jason sims (5 months ago)
How so?
Chris Blyth (11 months ago)
I was told many years ago at school that carbon dating wasn't accurate. Why are the powers that be still insist on using it and teach it as factual? Do they have another agenda? Increasingly the truth on evolution is being brought into doubt for lack of honest evidence while archeological discoveries backing the Bible are being suppressed. Believe what you want or create but the truth will always point to itself in due time.
Stainsteel0 (11 months ago)
All you do is saying"I don't like science , therefor god " What the fuck
John Doe (11 months ago)
Just A Cover (1 year ago)
Fukkin' bullshit from a fukkin' idiot who believes bullshit from OTHER fukkin' idiots.
Cedar Poplar (1 year ago)
I do have a notion but I will never be able to create a scientific argument although, I don't need scientific proof 😁. to prove the reality of things. All I need is a little bit of basics and quite bit of experience to actually prove that a rock nor a diamond is not for ever existent. .. NOR GOLD! Call me wako! cause that's what I am
Z1BABOUINOS (1 year ago)
Do you, at least, play a _mean banjo_ ? 🍌
MMC (1 year ago)
Wether we understand the laws of the universe or not we are all still here, which means there is something bigger than us at play, stay humble
Muriah Rocha (1 year ago)
Th Bible is actually the most historically reliable text we have. Look it up yourself . Whether you believe or not Christ is real
Stainsteel0 (11 months ago)
Muriah Rocha you do realise that the reason people are becoming atheist is because they read the bible no? How can you say its the most historically reliable since you just don't know that?
5winder (1 year ago)
I don't believe much of what is taught in public schools... the bible is much more accurate. I think we're only here for six "days" (millennia) --- and then we rest (or burn, our choice).
Irene Lawson (1 year ago)
I give good head. check me out
J Weihofen (1 year ago)
oh god, my brain, can take all the "knowledge"
Captain Xenocita (1 year ago)
You're an idiotic fuck, go fuck yourself, you bitch
Charles Carona (1 year ago)
Carbon dating ok with organic material only! Earth, trillions of years old!
Ixiah27 (1 year ago)
Yes i was there 65 Million years ago, try to disprove it, i can ask you "Where you there ?"
Mickelodian Surname (1 year ago)
The 50 million year gap is what is known in statistical analysis as a population standard deviation. You take the data points, you subtract them from the average of all data points, then you square them, then you add those up, and finally you find the square root. This gives a standard deviation (in this case a population standard deviation) its a measurement of how wide the variance will be in the data. So lets say we had five runners... tom, dick, harry patrick and henry They all run every morning... but what we want to know is not only how far they run on average...but what is the NORM and what is the deviation from the norm. Heres how they got on on monday TOM = 8km DICK= 5km HARRY= 2km PATRICK= 4km HENRY= 0km (lets assume Henry was sick on Monday so he never ran at all... well maybe he ran to the bathroom...) So whats the average? well add em all up and divide by 5 Total 19km / 5 = 3.8km [this is the AVERAGE distance ran, but theres a wide varience and only 5 runners] This also includes Henry... he might be sick but he's only sick today, not every day. So we include him becasue when we take future measurements he'll be better. Now we take each data point (measurement) and we subtract it from the average and then we SQUARE the result for each. This give us: TOM : 3.8km - 8km = -4.2km and then ^2 = 17.64 DICK: 3.8km - 5km = -1.2km and then ^2 = 1.44 HARRY: 3.8km - 2km = 1.8km and then ^2 = 3.24 PATRICK: 3.8km - 4km = -0.2km and then ^2 = 0.04 HENRY: 3.8km - 0km = 3.8km and then ^2 = 14.44 Notice how some are negative but end up as positive integers. These are called variances. We add all of these variance together and we get : 36.8 Then we get the square root of that and this give us a Standard Deviation of 6.066 This means that the average is 3.8km but if we were saying this is what the average runner does daily it can vary by a whopping 6.066km With just five numbers the deviation can be huge.... its gets a lot lower if you have tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of measurements. In this case since the deviation is larger than the average its a useless measurement and in terms of science it would be dumped... it may as well be random distances (in this case it is, since I pulled them from my head). But if we had a marathon, with 10,000 athletes? and we measured all of their finish times? Well thats a LARGE amount of data. Its not like one runner will take a month to finish and the winner will run it in 25 seconds! In the case of some radiometric measurements such as sampling Uranium it might be a deviation of 0.0001 or so... becasue when you are enriching uranium its really important to know just how radioactive it is. Important becasue uranium enrichment is really expensive and so are nuclear power stations... so you have to get the figures accurate to extraordinary levels. Now, if we measured the same people the next day... and HENRY was now feeling better and the distances were : TOM = 8km DICK= 5km HARRY= 2km PATRICK= 4km HENRY= 2km The new standard deviation is 2.23km Thats a huge difference... it like saying the average runner might run somewhere around 5 miles or 20 miles... But if you had a lot of numbers, or data points...well, theres so much data that the deviation is really really small. The deviation decreases in relation to the amount of data. It also decreases with the amount of data where measurements are similar. Thats why A.I. and machine learning requires so much information...the more it has, the less mistakes it makes and the more accurate it is. Same principle different application. So the +/- figure you see beside radiometric dating... its a deviation. Theres also then whats called a 'confidence level' which varies depending on the range you are looking at. So in our first case above we can have almost 100% confidence that the deviation is accurate from 99.9999%, 1.25km to 9.67km but we would be 'less' confident at a lower resolution of say 3km to 5km... in fact we can only be 65% confident at that level. How many measurements are recorded to come up with this deviation generally?... well... several hundred to several thousand or several million, it depends on whats being measured. The amount of data and the 'confidence' level in the measurements is referred to as a SIGMA which basically denotes how many measurements, or experiments you'd need to take before ONE of them wasn't in line with the rest of the data. Radiometric Dating like all measurements comes with these deviations. When scientists say the earth is 4.6 billion years old +/- 50 million years? Well the age of the earth a Sigma 6 measurement. Its based on millions of data points and a sigma 6 means there is a 99.9999% confidence level that the earth formed inside that time period. There is therefore a 0.00001% chance it did not! Anyway apart from anything else this is a nonsense argument in the video, based on no science and instead based on the posters personal religious ideology... which is probably not the most accurate source of reason. All thats being accomplished here is filling peoples heads with rubbish, rubbish they can eliminate by reading how statistics work in ten minutes online! Its akin to saying the entire worlds best trained, most authoritative and brightest minds in physics are all wrong... and Joe the bus driver who hasn't a clue about anything and can't count to ten is right... To be saying it over a technology designed and created by these folks that are all wrong all the time is nothing short of lunacy!
Dave Powers (1 year ago)
My friend the debate isn’t over mathematical statistics. The question is over the data input being right or wrong? Your runner analogy and calculation can only be fact if you observed the runners and logged the input. If that is not done you are only left with a mathematical statistics exercise and says nothing about the real world fact. It doesn’t matter how many runners you throw into the calculation if the input is not known through observation and logging the information then it really is meaningless. In simple math nobody argues that 2 plus 2 equals four but what can be asked is whether the first or second group of two is the right number. What if you were trying to figure out the average of the TOTAL miles run by a group of runners? You would not only have to know how many days each runner did or did not run but on what day each runner started and at what point did he start. Now if all this information is KNOWN the calculation would be fact but if it is not known all you are left with is IF this and this and this were TRUE then this therefore is TRUE. That is true for stats of the individual runner and the average of all runners. With the dating methods we do not know the initial state, if the decay rate has been constant or if it was contaminated or affected by something along the way to the present. No matter how it’s sliced and how many rocks are thrown into the pile we cannot escape assumptions and the unknown in this calculation.
RussNo1 (1 year ago)
Where did the idea that carbon dating was accurate up to 50,000 years come from?
Thing is, when you expose one method of dating as flawed, the evolution apologists will say, that's not the method used to date that stuff. There's always an out. Thing is, every public school text book that takes on the topic cites radiometric dating or the fossil record, as in, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. Both are terribly flawed methods but that's what students are being taught. The laundry list of dating methods are not widely addressed.
Riddick State (1 year ago)
This video has to be a joke - it's junk. Scarborough's next video will probably be why the Earth can be approximated as flat.
Oasis S. (1 year ago)
It doesn’t have to be rocks. I tuned out after he said carbon dating is about rocks.
nicholas pullem (1 year ago)
you should have elaborated on the processes by which the daughter elements may have been "altered in the past" or that half life may have not constant which defies the laws of our universe.
Bela9a (1 year ago)
In science we have accurate models of reality the only field that deals with absolutes and proofs is mathematics for the rest of the scientific field we care about more accurate models of reality. We presume that the laws of nature has been the same in the past is because if there has been changes in those laws we would see effects happening which will change a whole lot of thing for example with radioactivity if the half life of the certain element would have changed over time we would see much more of the daughter elements since we can presume that the rocks on earth had the same condition to form as today therefore we would get the same amount of parent elements in the rocks and in addition we could also conclude that the radioactivity would have been higher making the planet more hotter and possibly change life as we know it since there would have far different condition of life to evolve and countless other things would be different. Until you can show evidence that the certain isotopes had different decay rates in history we can assume that it has stayed the same.
Just A Cover (1 year ago)
"absolutes and proofs is mathematics" ==> Not quite. Maths are pretty flexible if you adjust the axioms. e.g. Ordinarily, we assume that 1+1 is always "2". However, we can also assume ohter things: (a) 1+1 is a limit that only asymptotically APPROACHES but never reaches 2, (b) 1+1 can take any value, but has a statistically high liklihood of approximating 2, (c) 1+1 can be treated as vector quantities, in which case the sum is a VECTOR sum not necessarily equal to 2. Depending on the relative directions of the vectors.
Osama Manan (1 year ago)
people are questioning the Quran found by birmingham university based on this stupid ass scientific process which is highly inaccurate.. nice try !!!! why so much hate against the religion that you have to support your opinion with the fake ass experiments like carbon dating... use facts to disagree, no problem but please dont poke your nose with lies...
MrPorkncheese (1 year ago)
There is science like physics and chemistry and then there is philosiphy. Biology is philosophy. Problem is that their theories are taken as fact. A scientific theory is not established fact. First the theory must be proven before it becomes established facts
Dev B (1 year ago)
Learn the definition of "Scientific Theory." Also; "Biology is the natural science that involves the study of life and living organisms, including their physical and chemical structure, function, development and evolution." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology To suggest that biology and chemistry are different 'kinds' of science is ignorant.
Rishi Kishore (1 year ago)
Can creationist prove that things were created hippie sky daddy in that case. Carbon dating might talk with evidence which could be disputed, creationist talks with no evidence at all.
justinutube (1 year ago)
Turn back now ye critical thinkers who would fight madness with reason... "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
i redsky (1 year ago)
Carbon dating disproves the evolution theory and therefore makes fools of renowned scientists. Because c14 contradicts their theories they had to find another way to save face by using another form.
Tomatjävel (1 year ago)
At least it's more accurate than believing that everything was created 6000 years ago by a fictional character from an old book...
Borat Sagdiev (1 year ago)
what you said is correct, but.... this is exactly why scientists don't use only one method to date stuff, especially the age of the whole earth. they use different forms of radiometric dating, ice core Dating, dendro chronological dating, Palio magnetism,coral growth and many more and then compare them to produce an accurate answer. Besides, they can't even use radiometric dating to know the age of the earth, because rocks from that period don't exist anymore. But you won't dear say all that would you...
55 57 (1 year ago)
how did this video NOT explain it's exact tittle??????????
David McDonald (1 year ago)
Can creationists please stop coming up with new terminology, there is science, not historical science, not observational science, just science.
Matt Wright (1 year ago)
You're wrong. I can use observational science when I am dissecting a frog. The assumptions while dissecting a frog are more obvious since I can actually "observe" the object I am experimenting on. Historical science is different in that I can't observe the conditions of the past. I can directly observe the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere right now. There is no definite way to know how much oxygen was in the atmosphere in the past. To assume its the same amount there is today is absurd. Just a 3% difference in oxygen could affect the ages in rocks drastically. There is no absolute way to scientifically prove the age of the earth. Period.
Christian Wheatcraft (1 year ago)
Historical Silence is the best thing for this video.
Adam.M M (1 year ago)
"Other processes in the past".........such as?...................I mean if Radio metric dating is accurate from the time a rock exits the moltant state then by that reasoning it would have to return to the moltant state to alter the dating process right? Wouldn't that make the rock older than first predicted?
Marshall Jobe (1 year ago)
It's healthy to be a skeptic of religion. It is also healthy to be a skeptic of science... or, at least the part of science that interprets the facts found in the world that we find. I just read and article in "Ask an Astronomer' when someone asked: "Where did the matter in the universe come from?" Okay, if I'm right, acording to the Big Bang theory, the universe started out as a highly concertrated ball of matter. Well, where did that matter come from? I mean, where did the stuff to create everything in the universe come from? Did it just appear or something? (PLEASE answer! This has been bothering me for YEARS!) The answer was: In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. his is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays. and on and on... But this didn't answer the question the guy was REALLY trying to ask... "where does it ALL come from" for if you tell me that there were photons before matter (btw, a read it has mass ~n * 10(-48) or there abouts, and it obviously has energy)... so then where did photons come from? and if something was there to make photons, where did that come from, and so on and so on to infinity. I mean, all these bosons and antielectrons and positrons... all these things.... where did they come from. Eventually, you will have to say that the first item or items, whatever they were, ALWAYS existed. Hmmm ALWAYS, with no creation... that's as difficult for me to fathom as some God that has ALWAYS existed is to fathom. Think about that... ALWAYS existed... it's a HUGE concept... can you grasp it? ........... I can't.
Dev B (1 year ago)
The only honest answer I've ever heard was "we don't know." I would assume what the astrophysicist was talking about was the earliest we can detect, not what started it all. I've heard reputable scientists propose ideas, Krauss with the Universe from Nothing, Kaku with the multiverse and others with 'something always existed.' But I have never heard anyone state they know for a fact where it all came from that wasn't speaking from a religious perspective. Why is "we don't know" such a horrible answer for you? And is deciding 'god did it' a reasonable fallback after we have said we don't know? Doesn't the conversation stop with 'we don't know' until we have new information?
ParoMation (1 year ago)
He does realize when your off by 50 million when talking about 4.6 or 4.55 billion isn't that far off right? That's like saying I I have between 100 and 90 dollars 10 dollars far off right.
chris Bryson (1 year ago)
is that the theme tune from highland woodworking?
ForcefighterX2 (1 year ago)
Don't mind the matrix.
Johan (1 year ago)
I don't understand people who says and thinks that science is 100% accurate and get all defensive about it, not science nor religion are 100% accurate, deal with it! Great video by the way!
Stainsteel0 (11 months ago)
Johan Ofcourse science is not 100% accurate , nobody claims that , but enlist it does it's best , and when it makes claims it provides some evidence , while religion does nothing , just claim it's the truth , despite being proven wrong , so which would you trust more?
Vlad .exelol (1 year ago)
it is actually very accurate, ignorant idiot who think the earth is 6000 years old
Stainsteel0 (11 months ago)
Johan yes it is
Johan (1 year ago)
No it's not!
MegaFloyd100 (1 year ago)
Last time i google a video for dating advice :(
Yagami light (2 months ago)
Lol, rip bro
Just A Cover (1 year ago)
How come not just pray for "Ms. Right" to fall in your lap? Like in "Animal House"? When the half-naked girl falls in the 12-year-old kid's lap while he's wanking?
J Weihofen (1 year ago)
.... how do you do this google?
Erik Guerrero (1 year ago)
okey so carbon dating is wrong, the planet must be floating on the back of a giant turtle, or actually Allah is a better option, i want a bunch of naked woman waiting for me in the after life. or better yet i have a son and that makes me more fond of christianity. why pay attention to his little actions when i can tell him there is a god who watches him 24/7 and is ready to throw him in an eternal lake of fire if he doesn't believe me.
Farley X Wilbur (1 year ago)
Well, as a paleontologist and an evolutionary biologist, your conclusions are, as they say in Britain, bollocks. Don't want to debate it because Christians accept no evidence but their holy book, but I will give you credit that you at least didn't do what most Creationists do: turn off commenting. Still, your science is bollocks and radiometric dating is quite accurate. Oh, and please don't call all radiometric dating Carbon dating. Both are radiometric, but Uranium/Lead, Lead/Lead, Potassium/Argon and other radiometric dating works for very old stuff; carbon dating is only useful for 25K or so.
Ryan K. Sager (19 days ago)
You've stated this it's bollocks while offering no proof that it's bollocks. Which statements in this video -- specifically -- do you refute and what is your evidence?
heymonwazup (1 year ago)
You said it yourself. It's an estimate measurement. 50 million years isn't a big difference when your talking about 4 to 4.6 billion years. At least science gives a logical reason behind things besides just God done did it.
AntiReligious (1 year ago)
This is why creationist are stupid. You cannot understand science and you cannot understand mathematics. 4.6 billion and 4.55 billion with a discrepancy of 50 million years. So let us take out our calculators now creationist and I shall go slowly not to fry your fucking mind here. 50 million divided by 4,500 million (4.5 billion if you do not know how to move your decimal points) = 1/90 = .01 x 100 = 1%. That is pretty fucking accurate. 1% range of error. Next creationist, again I shall go slowly for the mentally handicapped brain of yours, we know the initial conditions. It is not a guess or some obscure assumption. Also little ones, you guys and gals are so cute in your sandbox, there is no such thing as historical science. Observational science can be direct and indirect. That is exactly what it entails. Next creationist. Radiometric dating does not work like the hourglass analogy. Sorry but your feelings are going to have to hurt for a while. We understand how isotopes work. If your version of the earth was 6000 years old, the amount of becquerels/kilogram is released into the atmosphere. Remember little girls the decay rate would have to be 750,000 times greater of every isotope such as Cesium 137, Radium 202, Uranium 238, Potassium 40, Strontium 90, etc which would = death of creation of all life as we know it. To conclude, if you want to learn about radiometric dating, try talking to geologists or read peer reviewed papers that discuss this. It helps when you go to reliable sources. And also radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution. So please do us engineers (myself) and scientists are favor and stop equation evolution with all this nonsense you creationist drivel out of your poorly evolved mouth. Thanks and have a blessed day.
pipos pipou (1 year ago)
your not even talking about carbon dating. ...
Der Tod (1 year ago)
Professor Stick made a nice video debunking this creationist nonsense. Check it out!
HASF fanatic (2 months ago)
Every time I hear an athiest say that, I laugh. Because they never actually debunk anything. They just show how little they know, and how little they think for themselves.
Suomi Poika (2 months ago)
Hello! I'm Professor who educates idiot minds. You should take a lot of time and learn something called ''thinking by yourself''. There are 2 types of people on earth... Followers and leaders, followers relies on leaders, while leaders provide for the followers. Follower never comes up with an answer, leader is the one to provide an answer. Only person to question the leader is philosopher. When a philosopher starts to ask questions... It will end up having more questions than answers. Have you ever heard of a term theory build upon a theory? We grow certain type of people with certain types of beliefs in our world which is build on theories upon theories. The answers we get will end up being assumptions and more theories. There are tons of methods to measure ages, and all methods give different ages... But we only use specific type of methods to measure the ages because the people who use these ''specific'' type of measurements are the people who have been grown to believe that earth is 1b years old and not 10.000 years old. Do you understand where i am going with this my comment and the talk about 2 types of people? Followers never cares where the answer comes from, they only care who gives the answer. You can spout any names you want, but the question still remains the same, we only see the one side and not the other side. We can argue who is right and who is wrong when in reality nobody can answer to that question.
FuckOffAlready (1 year ago)
How the fuck is this creationism? It is a fact that assumptions like costant decay are being used in calculations. Im an atheist and I dont see how this could all the sudden be in favour of saying the earth in 5000 years old... Doesnt make any sense.
subductionzone (1 year ago)
The poor narrator says "assumed" when it means "reasonable deduction". And then he goes into the false creatard "two types of science" dichotomy. Why aren't there any honest creationists that debate this topic? Oh yeah, the all accepted reality long ago.
A true meme master (1 year ago)
1:25 hl3 confirmed?
FreeFromWar (1 year ago)
That is why we do not use 1 rock to base the dating on. We take a large sample size and average it to compensate for the different conditions. You can never be 100% accurate. That should be pretty obvious
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
That sounds like pee pee's bullshit. >> Like > ''Historical science can not be tested''?!? Why Not?
Ivan Drago (2 years ago)
markIOP123 (2 years ago)
Typical christian turnip head has know idea of the science of radiometric dating who contently says it is complicated tells you do not need to know the fact then inserts his balloony loony explanation justifying his understanding of the subject. What a pathetic liar of imbecilic christian
Nats J.v.R (2 years ago)
Ever since they told us they dated fossils I have known that they were completely wrong! Not to mention the fact that the things that the earth is made up of is much older than the earth. Who knows how many collissions in space happened before our earth became what it is. In the beginning the earth was made and was without form and void [of life]. There was water - lots of it.
Brandon Matthew (2 years ago)
When I heard about a live animal, carbon dating something like 50,000 years old I quit believing most the science propaganda being shoved down my throat without doing my own research.
Justin Sankar (2 years ago)
assumed...assumed....assumed.Asummed....ASSUMED! what the FREAK. WHY IS IT ALWAYS ASSUMPTION. THATS NOT SCIENTIFIC
Neikhrie Khro (2 years ago)
Nice video, those questions always pops up on my mind every time I think of evolution. It's indeed all assumptions and theories. Science has advanced so much in many fields but yes science is NOT the answer to everything. Like ALL religions, even EVOLUTION is just a theory!
Dev B (1 year ago)
Learn what a Scientific Theory is. And do you REALLY think people who spend their careers in these fields haven't thought of the same questions as you, answered them, and the answers are available for all to see? Have you even looked into how these are answered and why evolution is a fact and NOT a religion?
christopher benson (2 years ago)
what about the turin shroud
Tim Marrier (2 years ago)
Except that the percentage difference between the 50 million year discrepancy is a mere .01%, which is not bad for calibration and accuracy. Even still, there are other methods used to maintain a neutral and objective accuracy when dating. *That's why scientists don't jump to conclusions professionally.* Unlike a church, you are not likely to hear presupposed arrogance at a science seminar.
David Loewen (1 month ago)
+MegaFloyd100 _Scientists do this by presupposing that no supernatural realm exists._ More correctly, scientists don't even consider a 'supernatural realm', because there is 0 evidence that any such thing exists. If it can't be observed, tested, repeated, and falsified, it's not something to be considered within the realm of science.
Simon Inniss (5 months ago)
+Tim Marrier yeah but the scale is wrong and one of the cones grows all the time while the other gets smaller. Evidence has been gathered and continues to be gathered through experiments in all fields of science, leading to breakthroughs and advancement throughout history. Religious evidence, and by that I mean objective, provable, repeatable through experiment evidence does not even exist. On top of that, even the circumstantial, confirmed by itself, shoehorned into place, entirely spurious body of religious evidence cannot grow unless you find another chapter in your holy book of choice.
Tim Marrier (1 year ago)
+MegaFloyd100 Let's say I grant you all of that nonsense. That would mean 2 things, the 2nd first: 2) The scientific method is therefore structured on the 'mountain' of discoveries. On this foundation rests everything scientists think they 'know' (medicine, technology, predictions based on tests, an actual 'track record', ect). At the top, the tiny sharp nose of curiosity, called: "I wonder what..."? Religion (or really anyone who hasn't look at the reams of logistics) that is too ignorant (or is too clumsy intellectually to focus on rational implications/inclinations of what you just said) occupies the _other_ triangle: ('down' triangle). On this point rests everything theists think they 'know' (reality based on nonfiction, god (and/or God) based on nonfiction, 'our future' based on nonfiction, state of the 'world' based on nonfiction, ect). At the 'bottom' is that fundamental crushed vertebrae coccyx 'point' called "We'll SEE, huh". 1) We meet fair and square in the middle of the room at the table. All we know is what we've seen, OR, made _patterns_ from. *Patterns.* Without patterns (especially repeatable ones) we have and know nothing. In fact, we call that 'dead'. So the holy books bring 'God's discover-able history with man', and science brings 'science's discover-able history with man', and we build a logistics chart (which will both be in the a 'triangular' shape, like this: RELIGION \ / \ / \ / \/ /\------------ "I wonder what..." / \ / \ / \ S C I E N C E --- you know, you _won't_ find any dichotomies in nature. Only religion brought us that concept. What a great coup-de-gras (we will also accept from religion: seppuku) and a fitting end to apathy. Save yourself! Ask, Consider, Try, Watch, Consider, Learn, Repeat to Know! (think: ACTWCLRK) (/\ not \/)
MegaFloyd100 (1 year ago)
'That's why scientists don't jump to conclusions professionally. Unlike a church, you are not likely to hear presupposed arrogance at a science seminar.'..oh, If only life was so simple lol! ....Actually Tim,i think you will find that scientists must jump to some conclusions in order to progress.Just like theists ,*both* parties in some way assume the very point in dispute prior to investigation.Scientists do this by presupposing that no supernatural realm exists.This is called 'Methodological Naturalism'.It affects the interpretation of dates because it leads to a *second* assumption of 'Uniformitarianism' which is a logical assumption based on the first assumption,but ensures 'long age' dates.
Steven Strnad (2 years ago)
That was really helpful. Thank you.
MrCoulurfull (2 years ago)
So weird? How is it that it is always the religious side of the world who have a problem with modern science? It is as if what we learn about the world does not match what their religions preach ...
Charlie Gomez (2 years ago)
I came hear learning how to date and all I seen was a stupid video about chemistry. My love life sucks.
nelson a (2 years ago)
carbon dating is for organic things, search google
Bobby Lloyd (6 months ago)
Then why is it so often used for rocks and metals?
nelson a (2 years ago)
not all
Neikhrie Khro (2 years ago)
nelson a so is evolution..
Marshall Jobe (2 years ago)
Perfect explanation. I've been saying this to people for years. So many assumptions. - What was the initial level when the rock was created? It is always the same for all periods of time at every place and time? What about how fast it cooled and where it cooled, underwater, on land, in the air as it fell from a volcanic explosion. - What all affects the amount of isotopes present thru the life of the object? Is there more of the isotope toward the center? is it even throughout? all the time, sometimes? - Can weather, sun, water, nature, anything affect the amount of the isotope present? - Can anything affect the actual decay rate? How do we prove that the decay rate is constant? We can only measure in the hear and now and our lifetimes are short comparatively, how can we know it is constant over millions of years? Seriously, I could go on and on and on.... its like the weather... so many factors affect it, even factors we haven't thought of or know anything about. e.g. Could a massive sun flare .... and so on and so on.... Again, I could go on forever. The point is. So much is based on what I see as a house built on sand. Objects could be much, much, younger than the scientific community claims, or they could be much, much older. SO, whenever I watch any documentary (and I love them) about Dinosaurs or anything else where they start spouting dates and times about when those events occurred, I chuckle to myself and think "ah.... let them have their fun... let them think thay know it all, it is good for their egos and makes them feel important and smarter than others... oh the human condition...". I know I don't know the answer, the problem is... neither do they.....
Zzykrkv (11 months ago)
Oh wow thats an assumption that we assume. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#The_age_equation
Just A Cover (1 year ago)
Wow. So much stieoughpied! So APPLY TODAY! Apply EVERY Day! Until you WIN your DARWIN AWARD! And DO YOUR PART to CLEAN the gene pool! Don't breed! If you already spewed out dummies, XTERMINATE 'EM in you Darwin Award application win "bonus points!" It's the "smart" thing to do!
Zzykrkv (1 year ago)
Marshall Jobe actually we do know. Scientists only date rocks when they are certain it has not been tampered and examine the rock with scrutiny. If somehow all of the decay constants changed to get equal but wrong results then earth would be dead
Marshall Jobe (1 year ago)
+monkeybznzz "Talk about assumptions? You're assuming the Bible was "God's" work" Not at all. I can't Know that it is... I agree that science is not exact. I agree that science is growing, expande... but I've seen conclusions scientist come to (claiming them to be fact), that turn out to be wrong 20 years later, that I would ask that they have a little more humility. The just need to admit (and oh wouldn't be nice) that they could be wrong, that, yes, they are making a lot of assumption, rather than saying "this bone is 20000 years old", they would say "giving our current dating techniques, we've believe the bone is 20000". That would be so refreshing. I'm not saying it's not 20000, but it would be nice and intellectually honest of them. Can't you agree? I'm looking for someone that can be so honest as to agree (at least a little). People are so so sunk into their positions unwilling to budge an inch. Just like I say, "it might be 20000 years old", they might say "it might not be, but we think it is".
monkeybznzz (1 year ago)
Marshall Jobe Talk about assumptions? You're assuming the Bible was "God's" work. Other than that "assumption" all your proof is...? I'm not saying you are wrong. I am asking for some sort of viable fact other than the Bible and all the assumptions that go with it. Science is not perfect, nor does it claim to be exact. Those are words people trying to debunk use. Science is like the Earth, like the Universe. Constantly growing and expanding. And I can guarantee that "proof of God" would send Scientists celebrating. Because it would be a new discovery. That's Science. That's life.
gaatje niksaan (2 years ago)
evolution is a budhist religion
Brian Joseph Music (2 years ago)
Yes, science makes assumption, since when is this a sexcret, one of the most powerfull features of saying is that it allow us to make predictions, the mistake here is talking as if only one pebble had been calculated, that would be stupid, but the key is consistency, if you measure rocks all over the world and they give consistent results you are allowed to start thinking you are poitint at least at the right direction, and, not all rocks are the same age, measuring rocks is not a way to measure the age of the earth, its a method to measure the age of the rock, and the oldest rock that has been found is 4.5 billion years old, that means that for it to have formed the earth has to be AT LEAST and not accurately but AT LEAST that same age.
Basil Serpent (2 years ago)
carbon dating is NOT used for anything that is not a human artifact.
Darren Carter (2 years ago)
One of the major drawbacks of Science is that not all findings and results are published or given credence. It's fair to say that science champions the idea that it provides facts which are ascertained by observation and testing. A fact should be absolute. However, Science constantly disproves previously stated 'facts' all the time. Facts are only facts when they are 100% absolute and quite frankly if there is one thing lacking in this world it's truth. Without truth we are left disputing ideologies and suppositions. I believe that the truth is being suppressed as it would discredit and debunk a huge chunk of humanities beliefs regardless of creationism or evolution.
David Baker (2 years ago)
It's scary that in the 21st century people STILL think that a bronze age novel holds any sway in the modern world 😐
A.J. Lovell (2 months ago)
What is with atheist comments and emojis ☹️😭😏🧐😎🤨😔🤓🙁😕🙃😘😍😙😀😄😆😨😱🤫😐😮😶🙄🤥
Juno Donat (4 months ago)
+W3RD0 Lack of evidence and obviously recycled stories is convincing people that the Biblical god is just as fabricated as th Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, or Mayan gods.
W3RD0 (4 months ago)
Yes it is a myth because google/Wikipedia said so. Biblical stories are called myth's because the government and everyone are pushing the idea that religion is false and the bible is a fairy tail.
Juno Donat (5 months ago)
Muriah Rocha Some definitions via quick Google search... The Exodus: "The exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites. Spread over the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy..." Founding..."MYTH" Noahs flood: "The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth found in the Hebrew Bible The story..." Flood "MYTH" Adam and Eve: "Adam and Eve, according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, were the first man and woman." Creation "MYTH" Do you see a Common Thread here? All biblical stories are defined as "myths." http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/2007/2/07.02.01.x.html On the Epic of Gilgamesh... "This is the oldest written story, period, anywhere, known to exist. The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform.  The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language.  The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE), so notice that "file sharing" and plagiarism are as old as writing itself)." https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/flood-myths-who-believes-in-noahs-ark-and-why/ "The Gilgamesh epic circulated for centuries throughout the Near East and was known in Palestine before the coming of the Hebrews. D. G. Wiseman noted that a fragment of the text was found in the 14th-century B.C.E. level during the excavation of Megiddo, Israel. Literary comparisons make it clear that the biblical flood stories are borrowed from older versions of the tale."
EnderMitten (7 months ago)
Can you... tell me what that truth is? You can't just make a claim and not back it up
P R (2 years ago)
there is no ONE direct answer. you are right from your side and i am right from mine. we can all sit here and debate whos version or study is better, but fact is we were not around long enough to have a definite answer for anything other than the obvious (i.e the sun is hot, the night is dark, death will come... in the mean time, all this is making us do is insult and debate each other till the bitter end, infact the same people who claim that religious folk try and cram their view down some one throat is no different than a science nut who trys to do the same thing from his side. in the end, one thing is for sure, this ends up bringing negative energy between us as humans or in reality should be sticking together, not belittling one another. who cares in what you believe in, cant we all just agree on the fact that while on earth, we are in this together ?
pbodymathis (2 years ago)
In the end times, many will be deceived and evolution is one method to take people away from God.
DON'T PUSH ME (2 years ago)
+Friendlygamer Basil hehe kay
Basil Serpent (2 years ago)
+pbodymathis Over millions of years of slow evolution, need an intermediate example? Tiktaalik rosea. there's your example.
pbodymathis (2 years ago)
So, how did a fish turn into a land dwelling animal......
Basil Serpent (2 years ago)
+DON'T PUSH ME no we shouldn't. you know why? the study of palaeontology has existed for about 200 years and in that time we probably have discovered a fraction of all life in the past. and as i said. fossils are rare. they require near perfect conditions. we haven't even discovered millions of dinosaurs or extinct mammals. intermediary forms (like archosaurian animals growing a longer neck and smaller head) would be even rarer. what i presume you are asking for an animal that's half something half something else. that is not how evolution or transitional forms work.
DON'T PUSH ME (2 years ago)
+Friendlygamer Basil But you didn't answer my question, If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species.
Kevin Owens (2 years ago)
Lol I have such a fun time in the comments with atheist, evolutionist and creationist going at it. Truth of the matter... none of us have ANY idea how the universe was made. We only all have "theories" or "beliefs" and things we think based on our own limited understanding of it. One thing I hate is how everyone shoves their theories and beliefs down everyone's throat, "Oh I'm right and I have proof blah blah blah..." is so ignorant.
Nezeriah (1 month ago)
+Just A Cover i literaly have no idea what you said😂😂its like gibberish
A.J. Lovell (2 months ago)
Akrian Mapping (5 months ago)
SmeltzerSounds Exactly
SmeltzerSounds (5 months ago)
there you go. we know... up to a point. that's fair.
Akrian Mapping (5 months ago)
Kevin Owens THANK YOU! I find the Big Bang a weird theory. How did all this come from nothing? I need help plox
Kirk Hahn Jr. (2 years ago)
Are you kidding me??? ken ham looked like an ignorant fool in that debate! that debate is largely why I became an atheist. Bill Nye had intelligent, thought out and tested explanations to many things, he admitted that science doesn't have all the answers but they are constantly looking for them. Ken could not explain a single thing, he could only say "the Bible" as his explanation and then smile a shit eating grin. wtf? even a large portion of Ken's own audience thought he lost that debate.
Dan Shetler (2 years ago)
funny how people see what they want
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
No, the first and primary method of dating the earth is called geology.
Matt Wright (1 year ago)
There you go high jacking the word again. Which evolution are you talking about? Cosmic evolution? Biological evolution? Macro-evolution? I know you must mean Neo-Darwinian Macro Evolution....of which there has never ever been any proof that scales turn into feathers. Remember mutations never increase information. Mutations are quite harmful to organisms. Always losing info.
QuantumFrost (2 years ago)
+777THUTH777 you can't just do that See that is exactly the problem with your thinking You think of it as a fact when it isnt
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+QuantumFrost No one is trying to prove it, they are trying to figure out how it happens.
QuantumFrost (2 years ago)
+777THUTH777 so I could say people knew about God thousands of years ago doesn't mean it's solid proof
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+P R '', we would have discovered evolution 150 thousand years ago '' The Greeks knew about evolution.
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
Anyone who thinks Ken Ham won the debate has never opened a science book.
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+QuantumFrost They did that 80 years ago, it works fine. 
QuantumFrost (2 years ago)
You use it on things that you know the date of For example I would test it on something that is 5 years old then 10 years later test it and see if it gives the same number that being 15 (years)
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+QuantumFrost How do you know what is correct?
QuantumFrost (2 years ago)
You'd want to find the answers that you want so you can be correct...
QuantumFrost (2 years ago)
You are using the typical Everyone believes it so it's true argument Also how old is the oldest tree that has been dated with tree ring dating?
NE Sniping (2 years ago)
Literally almost all science is guesswork. I'm not a bible thumping hick, I believe in God, but I don't dedicate my life to religion, and I consider myself a rational person, but science just mocks itself so often, and is so often hypocritical. Scientists make up random equations, plug in what they want, and use those numbers as their basis for everything. I'm not saying 100% dinosaurs walked with man, but the fact that the Coelacanth was said to swim the seas 380 million years ago and it's still alive today, science should dictate that that creature should've gone extinct already, yet it's still there. And try carbon dating on living things that we know both forms of science on. Living penguins get carbon dated at 8,000 years old, then they expect us to sit here and assume that their guesses of the age of earth and all of its former creatures are accurate? Science can be a real joke.
SETH HALL (24 days ago)
+David Loewen The person's opinion who found the discovery of what she found is actually not my concern to be totally honest. Radiometric dating has also demonstrated that Living penguins are about 8,000 years old. So there's that. "It has been estimated that the C-14 in the earth’s atmosphere would reach equilibrium (the formation rate would be equal to the decay rate) in about 30,000 years. The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is still increasing. This research indicates a young earth (probably less than 10,000 years)." Radiometric dating is unbelievably unreliable. Living animals being shown to be thousands of years old. The same rock being tested multiple times and coming up with multiple different varrying results, all with significant variations. People sending dino bones and them coming back to be thousands of years old, etc. Not to mention, in addition to the blood vessels or whatever you want to believe the are (they are undecayed tissue regardless), there is the Triceratops fossil with living tissue and a massive study that says 90 Percent of species appeared at the same time as humans... If Darwinism was true you should have tons of mutations that neither help nor harm a species. There should be tons of mutant versions of each species that have very odd and unuseful mutations. At the very best one can argue for orthogenesis. But then you would have to explain who decided the purpose that orthogenesis aims for. And no you aren't going to convince me. Even if you could why do you care? What would you gain? If you're right then we all fade to black at death. What do either one of us actually gain? Life's "purpose" would be wildly subjective, so I have gained nothing while being here and If you were right then we all die never to consciously know for sure if there is an afterlife. Because we would not be conscious by then. If you're goal would ultimately be to gloat, well we're both dead by then so who cares? And if we were alive to know for sure then you obviously couldn't gloat... If your purpose is to enlighten me, then why does it matter if i know "the truth" (as you preceive it) if I only have about 100 years give or take to be enlightened before i die and am forgotten about? In your world view there is actually no true justification to turning others on to your world view. So it's pretty dumb to try and do so. At best all you could purpose is to "strengthen your numbers" because there is comfort in numbers. You could feel all the more justifed to believe what you believe the more people you find that agree with you. But from a worldview like yours, this too is also ultimately meaningless. As you would eventually just die and lose all of that knowledge you worked for. You could try to say your cause is noble by leaving others your knowledge. But your "knowledge" is far from good news. Your knowledge would tell the next guy that "Life's a bitch and then you die"...and then he dies. This keeps happening until a big crunch finally happens. Thats assuming all of humanity hasn't been hopelessly wiped out long before that. So why was your cause so noble again? Were you spreading good news or tragic news? So if you're right, ultimately who cares? Definitely not me. Just for the record I was actually an atheist before becoming a theist... so... Yeah i really don't care about the mess you are speaking in all honesty.
David Loewen (25 days ago)
+SETH HALL And despite creationists not accepting it, radiometric dating has demonstrated a 4.55 billion year old Earth. As for the "blood vessels", actually read her work on the subject. HER work, not the misrepresentation present on YEC websites. She's stated on more than one occasion how much she dislikes the hijacking of her work to try and support something like a young Earth. Not that I expect anything to change your mind, though I have seen it happen.
SETH HALL (25 days ago)
+David Loewen The problem is you have to be able to actually prove that enough time (millions and millions of years) has ellapsed in order for such a huge change (the change from microevolution to macroevolution) to take place. You have to do this without making assumption after assumption, and actually consider the evidence against the assumptions being made. And when you find blood vessels in dinosaur bones you also have to throw any of your quasi-"proof" of an old Earth out the window. Don't be so condescending. I think most of us understand that enough inches equals a mile. A three year old realizes that. Its the fact that you haven't really proven to old earth skeptics that the earth actually is as old as they claim. There are plenty of reasons not to believe. Most scientists are "wishfully thinking" thus they ignore all the holes in the old earth "evidence."
Matt Wright (30 days ago)
John Daedalus, that’s the most nonsense make believe fairy tale I have ever read.
John Daedalus (30 days ago)
+Matt Wright the isotope carbon 14 decays to nitrogen 14 and it's half life occurs in approximately 5700 years ±50 years. This is not the isotope measured to date older celestial bodies such as earth for this very reason. Instead we rely on other radioactive elements with a longer half life. In the case of earth we have found that the oldest minerals discovered (zircon crystals) have been radiometric dated by examining the uranium to lead decay. To confirm this, we have done the same with several meteorites as well as moon rocks which concur with an age of approximately 4.5 billion years ±50k through the testing of several isotopes. For instance thorium to lead which has a half life of approximately 14 billion years. On top of this we have observed the Galaxy to be 14 billion years through several methods (clocking the speed of relative celestial bodies, radiometric dating other isotopes, and observing the evolution of globular clusters and neighboring stars) and this age is consistent with our understanding of celestial body formation and the approximation of the age of earth. We know the age of rocks from carbon dating because we know that carbon 14 decays to nitrogen 14 and we can count both this parent isotope and the daughter isotopes in a sample (chosen carefully) to approximate the total number of original carbon atoms. I am afraid that you have fulfilled my fear of your intent in this conversation. When I asked before if you were curious of the facts and to educate yourself or if you merely wanted to deny the facts supporting your claim, you had continued the conversation in a way that was consistent with your wanting to understand what you lack knowledge in. However I'm afraid that you have made it apparent that you were lying. I do not *want* anything but the truth. As I pointed out, all the evidence supports these theories. If you do not wish to believe the truth and ignore the facts then that is your prerogative but do not come to me and tell me that you are willing to educate yourself of the truth and accept evidence when you literally write that you are incapable of doing so. Your belief in god is merely a god in the gaps fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. You don't understand and therefore god did it. I think it is time that I accept that if you refuse to conceive of an alternative viewpoint regardless of how much your viewpoint lacks evidence or how much the opposing viewpoint is supported by real evidence (as you had admitted in your previous comment) that any more of my time here will be wasted. I wish that you were upfront and honest with me when I asked if you were closed minded to protect your own fragile ego rather than sinfully lying...but c'est la vie. On that note, I say goodbye to you and good luck.
Jose mendoza (2 years ago)
A lot atheist arguments, but none seem to be logical and professional. Just petty insults and slimy whining with bias opinion and no facts.
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+Simon Premkumar You can't see that the sandstone deposits were laid down by the wind? Water makes V shaped canyons that shape the world..  When you go to the Grand Canyon stop looking at the hole in the ground and look at the 44 distinct layers raised up to 7000 feet above sea level.  Most of the layers were made in a shallow sea. I bet you think uniformitarianism means slow and gradual.   WRONG
Simon Premkumar (2 years ago)
+777THUTH777 you serious? the fossil record in itself is the greatest evidence of the flood. you cannot see the landscapes carved by water all over the world? the plates, the trenches and there are enough sandstone deposits. you are assuming uniformitarianism that's why you can't see it
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+Simon Premkumar There is no Geological evidence for a global flood.  None.  Do you understand? There is no global mud layer. And it is impossible anyway
Simon Premkumar (2 years ago)
+777THUTH777 all those ppl didn't have to survive the flood. the survivors retained knowledge of the food and passed it on from generation to generation and with the great human migration and repopulation specifics of these stories obviously were lost in translation, modified, elaborated and summarised especially during the oral traditions prior to written documentation. but there are enough similarities and way too many of them to be dismissed as myths from uncivilized bronze age people
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+Simon Premkumar Every story is different.  And how did all these people survive the flood to tell their 'stories' . .
Jillyn Ashworth (2 years ago)
Stupid Atheists in 3...2...1
Ryan K. Sager (18 days ago)
+Scuba Diver Not the fact that it's studied at every university in the world.
Scuba Diver (19 days ago)
+Ryan K. Sager What does make it correct?
Ryan K. Sager (19 days ago)
+777THUTH777 "Evolution is studied at every university in the world" is not evidence that it's correct.
Juno Donat (5 months ago)
Jillyn Ashworth Some definitions via quick Google search... The Exodus: "The exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites. Spread over the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy..." Founding..."MYTH" Noahs flood: "The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth found in the Hebrew Bible The story..." Flood "MYTH" Adam and Eve: "Adam and Eve, according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, were the first man and woman." Creation "MYTH" Do you see a Common Thread here? All biblical stories are defined as "myths." http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/2007/2/07.02.01.x.html On the Epic of Gilgamesh... "This is the oldest written story, period, anywhere, known to exist. The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform.  The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language.  The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE), so notice that "file sharing" and plagiarism are as old as writing itself)." https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/flood-myths-who-believes-in-noahs-ark-and-why/ "The Gilgamesh epic circulated for centuries throughout the Near East and was known in Palestine before the coming of the Hebrews. D. G. Wiseman noted that a fragment of the text was found in the 14th-century B.C.E. level during the excavation of Megiddo, Israel. Literary comparisons make it clear that the biblical flood stories are borrowed from older versions of the tale."
Noob_On_Console (1 year ago)
777THUTH777 You are the biggest idiot on the planet tied with every other athiest on the planet
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
''50 million seem like a lot.''  It is just 1%It is a good thing that geology already proved the earth is old.
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+P R  good luck sheep  ??????  I thought you were the creationist !?! 
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+P R about how a theory can easily be disproven by 1% ''  But The Theory was not disproven.  It was just incomplete.  Now we have new facts.  So The theory is revised to show that 1% of the population does not have working pain receptors.  New and better theory and science advances.  That is the Scientific Method, not this observable in the lab shit.
P R (2 years ago)
i do not believe in a bible or a single god. let us get that out the way now. i do not base my claims on a biased opinion . i will leave that to you. considering you completely ignored my pain receptor comment, about how a theory can easily be dissproven by one percent ( i doubt you remember that, cause you do not take the time to read or dissect other peoples views, due to the fact that in your mind only you can be right. for that very reason i will stop talking to you, cause you have no intention on sharing common ground, just parroting what you have been taught to believe. good luck sheep
777THUTH777 (2 years ago)
+P R  Dear Creatard.  Theories are what Science is all about. The Theory of Relativity The Theory of the Atom The Theory of Evolution A THEORY IS NEVER A FACT. The process of evolution is a fact, there is a theory that explains it.
P R (2 years ago)
that is the entire point of this subject// A THEORY IS NEVER A FACT. do you just like to hear your self talk ? or is admitting when your wrong trigger some sort of time bomb that you have to avoid ?
ferrel81 (2 years ago)
I've been reading a lot about radiometric dating from various creationist sources and it seems that the general claim regarding these dating methods is that they are flawed on three counts. These being the assumptions they make about 1. initial conditions, 2. non-contamination and 3. constancy of decay rates. I have 2 questions regarding this claim. 1. I am a graduate student in particle physics and, from what I've learned, it seems extremely unlikely to me that decay rates, in general, could have changed dramatically over time. For them to have done so, would not the fundamental constants of nature (coupling constants, particle masses etc.) have to have changed dramatically? If this had happened, the entire Universe as we know it would be drastically different and, based on the observed fine tuning that the Universe exhibits, I feel that such a Universe would not contain life as we know it. This might be an ignorant statement, and from what I've read, it seems that there is preliminary evidence that there may be some extreme environmental conditions that might effect decay rates. But I can't see another mechanism (apart from changed fundamental constants) that could bring about a prolonged and uniform change in decay rate among all elements and isotopes. 2. If the first two assumptions above are invalid, wouldn't we expect them to result in wildly varying results between different rock samples and different dating techniques? I know they vary, but I'm talking about order of magnitude variations. The fact that we don't get this indicates, to me, that practitioners of radiometric dating have these assumptions under control, at least to some degree. I'm hoping that a creationist with a physics or geological background can let me know how they would respond to these questions.
Marshall Jobe (2 years ago)
The problem is not the decay rate, but the way we make measurements. We don't measure the radioactivity of individual molecules, for that is probably impossible. We measure the radioactivity of the entire object. Even if the decay rate was constant, that would mean basically nothing. Your 2. is not logical and fully thought out. I wouldn't expect wildly varying results for all rocks from a given volcanic event. I would expect them for events that happened in diff parts of the world. And still this doesn't address initial conditions and the time between then and now that would affect how much of the isotope remains in the rock, not that decay of individual molecules again. Still it is a theory, albeit an interesting one.
ferrel81 (2 years ago)
Of course I believe that 'environmental conditions of all rocks on earth have gone through many changes, such as being immersed in water'... But this would not change the rate at which atomic nuclei decay because it would not change the coupling strength of the weak nuclear force. I'm a Christian, and I think that a young earth position is nice theologically, I'm just trying to reconcile it with certain observations. Radiometric dating being one of them. Do you have a physics or geology background?
bio2020 (2 years ago)
Wait... did you just say you find it "incredibly difficult" to believe that decay rates could have changed? You really don't think that the environmental conditions of all rocks on earth have gone through many changes, such as being immersed in water? And you believe that contamination never occurred throughout all this time?
Lol, half-life.
Vicente Unicorn (2 years ago)
I have evidence that the world is only 200 years old, like the Holy book of the Unicorn says. We use 30 liter of water a day. If you look at the amount of water in the oceans you can caluculate that the oceans would be empty if the earth were older than 200 years. Checkmate a-unicornists!! And were you there? How can YOU know the earth is older than 200 years. and all this dating is false. Don't know why, but it just is. CHECKMATE a-unicornists!!!
Walter Witty (2 years ago)
This video is for NASCAR fans who don't read books. And Trump voters. Same people. Next you're going to say that the Earth is 4000 years old and God created it with apparent age, right? About Ken Ham, he's a total idiot. In fact, he is mentioned in IDIOT AMERICA. A bestseller.

Would you like to comment?

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