HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: cdk007

Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?

4110 ratings | 108566 views
THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). Scientists admit that radiometric dating, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old is flawed!!! The earth is not 4.55 billion years old. Watch and find out just how old it really is. Of course, scientists are always refining their techniques, it's part of of science works. Creationists have pointed to a number of "results" from radiometric dating that prove it doesn't work. Here I go over all the reasons why. Why is there Carbon-14 in some coal. Why did Potassium-Argon dating of the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens give ages on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. To download this video, copyright free, please go to: http://www.mediafire.com/?yytzwtrzmwh To download the scientific paper featured in this video please go to: http://www.mediafire.com/?mhljmmzn3m2 If you wish to translate the subtitles please download them from here: http://www.mediafire.com/?0mynummmyz0 And remember to always, Think about it.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (2868)
Jukka Shiki (3 days ago)
Asking the right questions: what's the music called?
Rosanna Miller (18 days ago)
Here is a challenge: recreate the tests on things that we have created and know how old it is, share the results so we can recreate the tests to see if the results are the same and you'll convince us. Since you will prove your tests are accurate. Otherwise, it is YOU that are the ones with blind faith. Can't provide a test that we can use and try? You remain liars.
Rosanna Miller (18 days ago)
777THUTH777 BAHAHAHA.....seriously?!? I thought you didn't believe in fairy tales? Blind faith is not good.
kekistani bear (28 days ago)
How do you know how much carbon-14 is present to begin with?
sponge head (1 month ago)
Total bullshit! Im sure there has been no erosion for billions of years and oil stays under pressure for billions of years to! Do scientist lie? YES!!! Really the sun in billions of years has never had a super nova and cooked our planet. That's one helluva stable sun! Also our moons orbit is so stable it has been going around the earth billions of years! Look up 101 proofs the earth is young and argue with that science!
ElectricBadgerCo LLC (1 month ago)
Thank you. Great video.
dumbcreaknuller (2 months ago)
calling radiometric dating not flawed is like calling a broken bike working bacause the wheels are stil spinning.
RedXuchilbara (2 months ago)
The thing about these videos and other info on the internet, we are expected to believe it without question because science, they are not thinking about it they are being told to believe it. or else they are called stupid or worse. How many here actually carbon test things? or know anything about carbon dating first hand by running the experiment, or running the test? who here knows what dating process was used before carbon dating was invented? and what lead scientists to looking for a better dating process?
kikimo57 (2 months ago)
why are atheists God hating ? all of them ? has someone actually interviewed each one ? I'm sure most scientists didn't get the memo about there being an "agenda". Ultimately, you are no better than a Jihadist also convinced of his truth in the name of god.
Daniel Sampaio (2 months ago)
Not would be, they ARE rich. In our world, hypocrisy IS worth money, sadly.
Grant Knott (3 months ago)
Ahh the bible doesn't teach that the earth was around only 6000 years. It does, however, teach (through a rather large study but well worth it) that humans were only here for around 6000 years
El Coyote (3 months ago)
The age of the earth is 4,540,000,000 years - and it is easy to prove that that estimate must be pretty damn close. The oldest (whole) rocks that have been found: 4,280,000,000-year old rocks in Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt (exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec) and the 4,030,000,000-year old Acasta Gneisses (in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake). Further: calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions - the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System - are 4,567,000,000 years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. AND if you have the time, these are pretty good links: Geologic Time Scale by Geological Society of America geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale How reliable are geologic dates? sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php. Radiometric Dating Does Work ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work Consistent Radiometric dates  gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm search for: NIST Radiometric dating still reliable (again). Geochronology https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/common/geochronology.html Dating dinosaurs and other fossils https://australianmuseum.net.au/dating-dinosaurs-and-other-fossils How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks? Smithsonian - National Museum of Natural History https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24 Princeton Geosciences Department Opens New Geochronology Laboratory https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/about/publications/smilodon/SmiloSpg12.pdf The 25 Biggest Turning Points in Earth's History bbc.com/earth/bespoke/story/20150123-earths-25-biggest-turning-points/index.html
chris topher (3 months ago)
If an atheist is someone who has a disbelief in the existence of a god, then how can they hate a god? Since most people do not believe in dragons, unicorns, leprechauns, and genies, then they must hate them, right?
True Colors (3 months ago)
The bibles right and your wrong...True history only started 6000 years ago..we see the rise of nations , kings , currencies , wars , inventions , writings etc etc at human history only began that is indisputable 6000 or so years ago...china is 4000 years old for example..and list goes on. You cant name jack crap before 6000 years except science fiction cave man stories and billiins of years ago dino and mythical ice age crap
oopscanada (4 months ago)
There are still a lot of assumptions being made. Not possible . Sorry.
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
A QUESTION CREATIONISTS CAN"T ANSWER What genetic model do they teach genetic students at university before they graduate to be geneticists? Do they teach the evolutionary genetics model or the creation science genetic model?
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
METEOR STRIKES PROVE OLD EARTH The meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs left a huge crater, and along with it is a thing called the "iridium ring". (And it is embedded into the crater wall.) The iridium ring is unquestionable proof of old earth cos it’s hard evidence of a colossal strike (that can be sampled and tested). It would take millions of years for the earth to fully recover from such a strike...so the strikes obviously happened at least millions of years ago (disproving young earth)! No record of any huge strikes (like that) happening during human's lifetime, and many more meteor strikes are proven by the iridium ring and some even larger than the 180 km diam crater (the strike that killed the dinosaurs). With up to a million cubic km of soil and rock excavated in about one second (in the largest strike) it's obvious we wouldn't be here now if the world was only 6,000 years old (and according to your "young earth" all strikes must have "occurred" within that 6,000 year period). lol So creationists will always maintain that the meteor strikes are "NOT" strikes (but the iridium ring chemically proves it). That's cos it's in a ring and it's an integral part of the crater rim (simply a layer in the wall) that must contain chemicals that were in the meteor, cos of over concentrated rare metals contained in the iridium ring. You can even see the iridium ring (on YouTube) as a 2ft deep dark layer around the rim. And creationists can test the iridium rings of various craters for the presence of concentrated rare metals (like mostly iridium). And being an integral part of the crater rim, the iridium ring was obviously formed along with the crater (formed by ejecta that was originally in the meteor). Let me explain...High powered bullets disintegrate when fired into sand and meteors travel many times faster than bullets and so it's reasonable to say the meteors also disintegrated on impact. No meteor has been found in its original state (for strikes over a certain size). But the bullets disintegrating is good evidence of the meteors breaking up and its contents forming the iridium rings (what else could form them)? And it's a known fact that many asteroids in space also contain similar such rare metals. If they are not strikes how did the iridium rings get there? You can get a sample of the iridium ring and test it yourself for rare metals (if you know how and if you get to visit a large impact crater). Or you can obtain a sample and get it analysed by a professional (and don't tell them why you want to know what's in it). You would need like less than a pea size sample.
craig frascone (5 months ago)
its way off
Eric D (5 months ago)
There are many fallacies with this argument. The primordial lead hypothesis was rejected a while back, so if one is being honest, no baseline amounts can be established. Besides, it defies common sense to assume the ratios are consistent throughout the ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!! Measuring ratios is a waste of time without good initial data, which unfortunately we don't have. When uranium decays into lead, it first goes through several steps to get there. It stops decaying when it reaches lead because lead is not radioactive. But along the decay chain, radium is formed. Why are there still measurable amounts of radium in the samples? If the sample really is billions of years old, there shouldn't be any detectable radium left, but that's not the case! The video did address some of the counterargument but there are still too many flaws to be convincing, if one really thinks about it logically. There is plenty of research done on the techniques used in radiometric dating, and to be honest, they have improved. But there are still too many assumptions that have to be made for this to be compelling evidence.
Dylan Dixon (5 months ago)
Most cosmologists now agree that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. So now lets look at theoretical physicist and nobel prise winner steven weinberg's description of what the big bang would have looked like. And since he is an atheist we can be sure there isn’t any believer bias in his description. "In the beginning there was an explosion and in 3 minutes 98% of all the matter that is or ever will be, was produced. WE HAD A UNIVERSE!" For for twenty five hundred years most scientists agreed with Aristotle on the idea of a steady state universe, that the universe has always existed and had no beginning and no end. The Bible disagreed. In the 1920s Belgin Astronomer George Lemaitre a theist said that the entire universe jumping into existence in a trillionth of a trillionth of second out of nothingness in an unimaginably intense flash of light is how he would expect the universe to respond if God actually uttered the command in Genesis 1:3 “LET THERE BE LIGHT!” In otherwords the origins of the universe unfolded exactly how one would expect after reading Genesis and for 2500 years the Bible had it right and science had it WRONG! All of which points to a God who created it, you see in the real world we NEVER see things “jumping into existence out of nothingness” but “atheists” want to make one small exception to this rule…. Namely the universe and everything in it! For example Richard Dawkins in his book “The God delusion” said “That if you tell me that God created the universe then I have the right to ask you, who created God? Dawkins question only makes sense in terms of a God who has been created it doesn’t make sense in terms of an uncreated God which is the kind of God Christians believe in. Even leaving God out of the equation I have a right to turn Mr. Dawkins own question back around on him and ask if the universe created you then who created the universe? You see, both the theists and the atheists are burdened with answering the same question of how did things start.. I believe that something created everything and that something was God. Atheists believe absolutely nothing created everything…. What I am hoping you pick up from all this is you don’t have to commit intellectual suicide to believe in a creator behind the creation in the extent that you don’t allow for God you’ed be pretty hard pressed to find any credible alternative explanation for how things came to be. Stephen Hawking "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something instead of nothing, that is why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe in motion." Professor John Lennox who teaches mathmatics and philosophy has demonstrated that there are not one not two but three errors in logic contained in the one simple sentence and it all boils down to circular reasoning. Hawking is basically saying the the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist therefor it created itself. It’s like this, if I say to you that, "I can prove that Spam is the best tasting food that has ever existed because in all history no food has ever tasted better." You’ed probably look at me strangely and say “You havent proven anything.” And you’ed be right. All I have done is restate my original claim. But when Hawking claimed the Universe created itself because the Universt needed to creat itself. And then offers that as an explanation to how and why it was created, we don’t immediately recognize that he is doing the same thing. But he is. Prompting Lennox to further comment “Nonsense remains nonsense even when spoken by famous scientists.” —John Lennox Even though the public assumes they are statements of science! For the last 150 years Darwinists have been saying that God is unnecessary to explain mans existence and that evolution replaces God. But evolution only tells you what allegedly happens once you have life…. So where does that something thats alive come form? Well Darwin never really addressed it. He assumed that maybe a bolt of lightning hit a stagnant pool full of the right kind of chemicals and BINGO a living something… But it’s just NOT THAT SIMPLE! You see Darwin claimed that the ancestry of all living things over 17 million plant and animal lifeforms species came from that one single simple organism which reproduced and was slowly modified over time to the complex lifeforms we view today. Which is why after contemplating his own theory Darwin uttered his famous statement “Natura non facit saltum.” Meaning “Nature does NOT jump.” Once noted author Lee Strobel pointed out that if you can picture the entire 3.8 billion years that scientist say life has been around as one 24 hour day. In the space of about 90 seconds most major animal groups suddenly appear in the forms in which they currently hold NOT slowly and steadily as Darwin predicted but in evolutionary terms almost instantly. So “nature does NOT jump.” Becomes nature takes a giant leap.” So how do theists explain this sudden outburst of new biological information? And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:20 In other words creation happened because God said it should happen. And even what looks to our eyes to be an blind unguided process, could really be divinely controlled from start to finish. For Christians the fixed point of morality, what constitutes right from wrong is a straight line that leads directly back to God. With no God there is no real reason to be moral, there is NOT even a standard of what moral behavior is… For Christians, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, disobeying parents etc. are forbidden but if God does not exist AS DOSTOEVSKY famously pointed out “if God does NOT exist, then everything is PERMISSIBLE.” Not only is everything permissible but everything is absolutely pointless.. All of our struggle, whatever we decide here in life is meaningless all of our lives and ultimately our deaths are no more meaningful than that of a goldfish. Some of you atheists have a great/perfect life and feel you don't need God. Sometimes the Devil allows people to live a life free of trouble, because he doesn't want them turning to God. Your sin is like a jail cell except it's all nice and comfy and there doesn't seem to be any reason to leave. The door is wide open. Till one day time runs out. The cell door slams shut and suddenly it's too late. Atheism is a faith that doesn’t add up. John Lennox, Professor and Christian at Oxford, points out something else: if your brain is the result of mindless, unguided processes why would you even trust it? To be sure, atheism is a belief system in many ways like any other. Yet when you say that to atheists it touches a raw nerve. Lennox says: "Atheists like to say that Christianity is a fairy tale for people who are afraid of the dark; I suggest that atheism is a fairy tale for people who are afraid of the light” Where do you find your hope? John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Dylan Dixon (5 months ago)
Science = "Big Bang" = nobody said nothing and BOOOM LIGHT, OUT OF NOTHING and so on, if that's not magic then i don't know what you believe is reality. "Big Bang theory" = the only "THEORY" where we have "effect" WITHOUT cause, and reaction WITHOUT action! This defies the laws of physics = IMPOSSIBLE! Therefore the "Big Bang theory" = "Magic!" God = "reality," atheistic science = moronic! "Explosions” destroy 100% of the time! So how did the BIGGEST explosion in history "the Big Bang" CREATE EVERYTHING? There are only 2 possibilities... God created the universe and all life in it or Nothing did..... If nothing did, then nothing would exist… Life does NOT come from non life, something does NOT come from nothing! "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle … Therefore...God created the universe and all life in it... I believe that something created everything and that something was God. Atheists believe absolutely nothing created everything…. Therefore atheists believe in "magic!'
Dylan Dixon (5 months ago)
EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! For example…. A simple single celled bacterium has thousands of different proteins… Francis Crick won the Nobel prize for co discovering the structure of DNA. He calculated what the odds would be of getting one protein by chance in the acient ocean. They are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 and if you want to know how big of a number that is you couldn’t fit that many electrons in the known universe…. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica… "A simple one celled bacterium “coli” containd DNA information units that are the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica.” Mathematicians say that anything with odds greater than 1 in 10 to the power of 50 is impossible… So it would be impossible to get even one protein by chance, let alone the thousands a single cell would need. And lets think about this…. For the first cell ever to exist "that suposidly created itself” on the earth before it died in the span of one lifetime would have had to develop and profect the process of cellular reproduction because if it didn’t then their never would have been a second cell to continue…… And Darwins evolutionary process would have stopped right there! And athiests beleive that not only did this first coli somehow write 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica worth of DNA code to create itself somehow BEFORE they came into existance…. But the also believe the entire universe and all life in it suposidly did the same thing, i.e. came from nothing WITHOUT A MASTER DESIGNER! Someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics. That someone was God! Now, prove me wrong!
Dylan Dixon (5 months ago)
Planck Satellite The "Axis of Evil" is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance. Most scientists believe the anomaly to be a statistical fluke. Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project. Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article: "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” Before the Planck Satellite discovery, the Scientific View stated: "Present astronomical knowledge recognizes no singular geometrical point in our universe—in accordance with evolutionary ideas. Consequently, there is no geometrical center and also no defined edge. No place in the universe has a special position. This means that even Monod’s statement about an edge is invalid." The Bible: However, the earth occupies the central position in the entire universe because of its God-given role, even though it may not be in the geometrical center. The first astronomical object that God created was the earth; this clearly indicates its importance amongst all of the other stars and planets. The creation account gives a day by day report on the preparation of the earth as man’s dwelling place. God’s attention focuses on this planet: “To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it” (Deut. 10:14). On this planet, He implemented most of His creative ideas, as the Psalmist cries out: “. . . the earth is full of your creatures” (Ps. 104:24). No other astronomical body is called God’s footstool (Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:49). The clearest indication of the earth’s central position is that God’s own Son was sent here. Jesus Christ became a human being for our sake. He destroyed man’s sin exactly in that place where it had been introduced into the universe, namely the earth! The cross of salvation stood on Calvary and no other place in the cosmos. Jesus ascended to heaven from the earth, and He will return here as exalted Lord when He comes again. These few cosmological considerations from the Bible clearly indicate that evolutionist ideas are completely foreign to Scripture. "Does the Bible teach geocentrism? Does the Bible teach that the Earth is the center of the universe?" Answer: This is a very important question because the answer helps to shape our belief system and worldview, both of which have eternal consequences. The short answer to this question is “no.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is at the center of the universe. For many centuries, however, people believed that Claudius Ptolemaeus and others were correct when they advocated an Earth-centered universe. They wanted to believe this theory because some thought, incorrectly, that this is what the Bible teaches. Taken in order, Genesis 1:14-18, Psalm 104:5, Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 were often cited to support the geocentric theory of Ptolemaeus. Yet none of these Scriptures, taken in any order whatsoever, state that God designed the universe with Earth at its center. In fact, Earth isn’t even the center of its own small solar system; the sun is. We can understand why Copernicus and, later, Galileo, who posited the sun-centered (heliocentric) theory, caused such a controversy in the church. It was thought that heliocentricism contradicted the biblical teaching of geocentrism. But, again, the problem was that God’s Word doesn’t say that the Earth is at the center of anything. Sadly, as time went on and people came to understand that the Earth did in fact revolve around the Sun, many simply lost faith in God’s Word, because they had falsely been taught geocentrism. We must remember that Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. How ironic that science has never disproved one word of the Bible, yet many people cite “science” as their reason to walk away from God. The ever-changing theories of fallible man come and go. Not so with the Word of God, however, as it endures forever (Matthew 5:18). Any time there is a seemingly irreconcilable difference between the two, the Bible is where we need to place our faith.
Neosin1 (6 months ago)
If you believe that our infinite universe/everything was created from a single point and by “chance”, you are dreaming! Science itself can be proof to show everything around us didn’t happen by chance! Because that chance would be 0!
Neosin1 (6 months ago)
How exactly do you work out that uranium has a half life of approx 4.5billion yrs?????
Stainsteel0 (6 months ago)
Religion is one of the most fucked up inventions ever
Dylan Dixon (6 months ago)
There are only 2 possibilities... God created the universe and all life in it or Nothing did..... If nothing did, then nothing would exist… Life does NOT come from non life, something does NOT come from nothing! "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle … Therefore...God created the universe and all life in it... Matthew 14: 16 - 18 Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand 16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” 17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered. 18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. So from "only five loaves of bread and two fish” Jesus God feed 5000 people and they all ate and were satisfied….and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.. So the question is did Jesus creat Old fish or did he leave for a few years and come bace after rasing them from fish eggs? Did he take the time to bake bread from mixing flour eggs water or did he create fully cooked bred in an instant? The answer is he created the fish and bread old in an instant! Genesis 2:4-3:24 Adam and Eve 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g]and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” Did God create Adam as a sperm or an infant or an adolesent or did he instantly create an adult male? Did God create Eve as a egg or an infant or an adolesent or did he instantly create an adult female? The answer is he created the man and woman old in an instant! If the uneverse is 14.5 billion years old and if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old it is because God created them old for mankind i’d say less than 20,000 years ago. Because “mankind” is less than 10,000 years old!
Kristi Parson-Smith (6 months ago)
You forgot to mention, however, if ever there was a world wide flood, NONE of these methods would be accurate. You also fail to recognize that one ring in a tree may NOT represent a year. Other variables can cause additional rings in a tree meaning you really don’t know how old a tree is unless you were there when it was first planted. And let’s not forget your favorite.... Circular reasoning isn’t really reasoning, is it?
Leendah Munoz-Roberts (6 months ago)
is it significant that c14 is found in diamonds and not just coal?
Wapper Jaw (7 months ago)
I believe in the Bible but I am no creationist. There is absolutely no reason in the Genesis account to believe that the day period was 24 hours long. This is what I believe is a flaw on creationist and scientist who try to discredit the Bible according to the creationist beliefs ... etc. And at the same time I think it just plain ridicules to argue over such matters. I have no idea how science can determine the age of something ... it simply does not matter. The earth according to scripture could be even older that what scientist today say. I see no conflict! Especially the earth and solar system according to Genesis account we have no idea when that 1 day began and therefore the earth could be very old. And again there nothing in the scripture to indicate that the day's were 24 hours long. Its a ridicules argument and in reality proves nothing of what each side believes. I do believe the earth and everything on it was created (Note: I don't believe in evolution either) but it appears Scientist for some reason seem to think that all Christians are creationist ... that simply not true. And at the same time scientist need to clarify there dating methods ... carbon dating is all I hear! I have never heard of these other methods as explained in this video ... etc. So yea ... lets think about it ...
Carlos Evans (7 months ago)
false. if radiometric dating requires the sample to be of cerain ages for the particular method to work, then the dating method needs the age to be assumed before it tests the age. this is bogus methodology
Yougetagoldstar (7 months ago)
Read the Bible. Do what God tells you to do and boom, he will show you that he exists. Don't read the Bible, don't do what God wants you to do and you'll believe whoever is making you feel better about your current life situation. I read the Bible. I did what God wanted me to do, and he blew my mind. This is seriously incredible stuff. and it was a little scary. God is real and he's waiting for everyone to wake up and take him seriously. All we have to do is do what he tells us to do--repent and stop being proud, wayward children. It's so straight forward but people don't do it because they just want to do whatever the hell pops into their heads. It's so simple, but people just say... naw, the Bible is just a fairytale. Ever wonder why people are still reading the Bible? It's because it actually works. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad how people are completely overlooking this.
wade cooper (7 months ago)
You say argon "Can" diffuse out of molten rock, once it reaches the surface you mean, and instantly develops a crust on it... Fail. Every unstable isotope has a parent isotope, sometimes two. One cannot know the mix of different isotopes at the point of a rock forming. The material in the rock is already 4.545 billion years old, so how does it forming into a rock alter the reading? It doesn't. It's just a mix of variables multiplied by variables and assumptions.
Noob Saibot (8 months ago)
So... the ratio of U235 to U238 means WHAT to the age of the solar system? I'm not sure what your point is? You mentioned Curium amongst other influences on the uranium and lead concentrations. Having a particular ratio of U235 to U238 gives you a tangeable date that you can trust? You give a half explanation of why the dating method is flawed, but then simply make a contrary statement (ignoring your own explanation) that somehow proves a calculated age is reliable. Your are another good example of where science is at today. Up shit creek.
Hi-tech (8 months ago)
Read the "replies" to my previous comment (1 a) below, which will give the details of this true story, of how these radiometric dating methods are not being followed, even by these very paleontologist, who claim that these dating methods are true.
Hi-tech (8 months ago)
(1 a) When they explain the radiometric theory, as it is here, it sounds like a very true scientific fact. But in actual practical use, these very scientists, who claim this dating theory is accurate & verified by many other kinds of dating methods, yet they themselves prove it to be wrong & not to be trustworthy, as they reject the date, if it is NOT in their pre-convinced date range. You don't have to hear what the critics say, just follow carefully, their own actions,..(given below, in the "replies"):-
Hi-tech (8 months ago)
13) “Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time.…, In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.” - (Michael Oard, meteorologist and scientist, 1984)
Hi-tech (8 months ago)
11) "..There are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates.” - (Dr Henry Morris, scientist and hydraulicist, PhD in hydrology, geology and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1974)
Hi-tech (8 months ago)
10) So, in this 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs finally won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon /argon dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn’t the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins.
Hi-tech (8 months ago)
9) Then the famous paleontologist Donald Johanson came into this area in 1975, and he insisted that the dates of the KBS tuff and the skull - 1470 had to be CORRECTED... ( -WoW..! - now the dates needed to be corrected again). The main problem was that, now the dates did not conform to the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans. So, finally in the end, only those dates were agreed upon, which were in harmony with the pigs...
Faith Truth (9 months ago)
This video starts with an unprovable assumption about how the earth was formed and then builds it's case with other assumptions.
Faith Truth (9 months ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUJ-PZ0nXNo
stacy price (9 months ago)
who wants to meet up? check me out
Mam Amheus (10 months ago)
A very good description of the various dating techniques. So good and comprehensive, yet not going over us non-scientists' heads. Therefore you can guarantee that if this were presented at a YEC conference, only a handful would understand it and they would be the loudest voices against it. Why? Because their bank balances depend on the gullible buying (literally) into their fairy stories.
Flagrum3 (11 months ago)
Talk about idiotic! This video and whomever made it has a very general, almost laughable understanding of decay, and is filled simply with errors and mistruths. Btw there are three assumptions made with ALL radiometric dating types, not two.
BezoomnyBratchny (9 months ago)
Flagrum3 What are those 3 assumptions?
papalee53152 (11 months ago)
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Blah Blah Blah! Assuming the Big Bang is A Real event! The Earth is Flat and there isn’t any molten core which would not have any magnetic properties, Earth has a Massive Magnetic Field! Curious Fact that DISPROVES A MOLTEN CORE!!! Science the Religion Of Lies!!!
Tim Kuhner (11 months ago)
No Christian is trying to drag anyone back to theocratic rule.
obie dobie (11 months ago)
you can puff up yourself and believe you are superior to those simple minded Christians but science proofs the existence of a grand engineer (GOD) not disproves it. I am so sorry that you have been brainwashed to believe that science and God are at odds with each other and you have to believe in one or the other. I was one of you people until one day I had enough of my sick adulterous drunken self and said whats it gonna hurt if I actually ask Jesus if he is real. He is ! Do an experiment and try this if theirs nothing to fear. Find a true on fire crazy christian you know and tell him you dont believe in God but are willing to hear the Gospel and receive prayer. See what happens..If its fake then you have nothing to fear..Know one has all the answers and we are mistaken if we think we can ever answer the creation of this planet and its contents by science. But we ARE going to die and if there is any chance that there is a heaven or hell I sure dont want to be wrong then. Furthermore Jesus and the Bible does so much more and brings Joy and love into your heart and compasion for others as well. It can do nothing but make you a better person. Dont look at the money swindlers on TV or the perverted Pope, abusive Catholics, child predator pastors, and so on. Jesus doesn't respect denominations or monetary goals. He came for the hurt and broken..He saved me!
Scarecrow (1 year ago)
Great video!
PaulfrmTXtoCO (1 year ago)
At 1:17 first problem, how much was in the original material. At 2:26 Principle of nuclear reactor is not from decay but from fission, slitting of atoms. At 2:34 "if you accelerate the rate of decay", you just said they were unable to accelerate the rate of decay. Lie after lie, but not from theists.
Alex Rutledge (1 year ago)
Based on assumptions
ScienceFoundation (1 year ago)
@ 2:46 The floor is lava
Bronzesnake (1 year ago)
The arrogance is classic,If this age old debate was anywhere near as "scientifically" settled as some would have us believe, then what's the arrogance about? And for people who enjoy playing the part of the all knowing, scientific data font, with all the right answers, accented through impeccable timing with a flick of the left eyebrow upward, while simultaneously flicking the right eyebrow sharply downward with such scientific confadence, and a steely determination, you just know this is a man who has figured out the mysteries of time travel! Here is a scientific Juggernaut, who leaves nothing to chance, I have to believe here is a man so thorough, so utterly and completely prepared for the unknowable, that he doesn't even allow himself the luxury of trusting his own farts! This man has obviously traveled back in time to the absolutely correct time, where space, time, matter, and...wait.....wait for it....wait for it....POP! Ahh haaa!! Chuck Darwin was correct, as I had suspected, no strike that, which I had KNOWN all along!! LIFE had burst into existence in an event so dynamic, so extraordinary, so overbearingly magic, and wondrous! If he were to lower himself to mere human standards, he may very well describe what he witnessed in this manner ...AHH AHEMM! AHH AHEMM!! "Ewww purple hearts, green clovers, yellow moons it's magically ambitious"!! LOL!! You Neo Darwinians are a sad, yet hilarious lot! As your buddy Lucky would say - "you're Homosexually suspicious"!! LOL!! You lot have been hoaxing, and fumbling and lying all along! What is it like when each and every "missing" link comes out and you're all happy and gay! Only to be bitterly disappointed a couple of years later when you discover YET AGAIN, that you've been goosed again!!? The recent sad news which put the whole human evolution deal to bed must really, really sting! The real scientific fact is , there is only a paltry 82 to 85% similarity, and that's only within the exceedingly tiny second that there are any similarity at all!! LOL!! In order for you fools who believe "NOTHING" exploded in spite of causality, I though you were scientists?? and became time, space, matter, and life, , in order for your human evolution fairy tales to be plausible you need 99% similarity, which is based on current know mutation rates in humans and the alleged splitting of humans from the pretend common ancestor some 3 to 6 million years ago!!! You've been dancing with the dead, rotting corpse of chuck Darwin for far too long now. Time to let it go folks, you've wasted everyone's time for far too long, with your retarded suggestion that something as complicated as DNA -super uber duper code just happened to have happened!! IT'S RETARDED LET IT GO JACK ASSES!!
Sebastien Roux (1 year ago)
So lead 204 does not decay but we can't watch it decay for billions of years so once again we are forced to trust the words of men. From an atheist point of view you have just as much reason to believe in God.
Sebastien Roux (1 year ago)
Problem with the radio active material decaying is that we can't measure billions of years worth of decaying to see how long it takes before the rate changes so it still can't be proven.
Grace Roberts (1 year ago)
hold up. the universe maybe billons of years, but does that mean that humans are, too?
MultiMurmaider (1 year ago)
Scientists are not god hating Atheists. Some are religious, of every faith, But scientists know how to separate faith from fact, or they are not scientists, they are a fools. Atheists do not hate god, why would anyone hate something they don't believe in? Most of them are just sick of the stupidity of religions. There are about 10,000 religions in the world, and they all claim to be the only way to heaven. Anyone who can think should find that suspicious, to say the least
jamie Russell (1 year ago)
Perspective my cocky friend. I believe Einstein. How old? It is RELATIVE. Depends on where you were standing. space/time, inflation, and the CMB prove the bible had it right. Check out the "axis of evil". and then read what God started making first.
Scott Wortherman (1 year ago)
You mentioned that the piece of meteorite came from a supernova. Which one? Where was it? How long ago?
Thomas Mahoney (1 year ago)
Thank you for affirming that Radiometric Dating is 100% HORSESHIT. You have NO IDEA what elements, amounts, or ratios of elements your "big bang" started with. This entire argument is back figured to support the result that you want. If you wanted the earth to be 2 billion years you would change the ratio of cesium to another number and the same if you wanted 10 billion years old. in a nutshell: All horseshit to support magical BANG echo that travels in a vacuum. (more horseshit again)
Deacon Verter (1 year ago)
So...all these scientists involved in radiometric science are collaborating in a big conspiracy? Enough with the creationist fucktardery!
Boshua Borman (1 year ago)
LOL we don't hate god, he doesn't exist.
Jonathan Converse (1 year ago)
Wow, im a creationist so im dragging society back? There's a ton of really smart people that believe creationism and young earth. This video was at best inconclusive, and insulting to people with other views. Thought you atheists were tolerant of others...guess you only demand tolerances of Christians.
will 1 (1 year ago)
advancement of civilization we are fucking the planet you muppet
nathan mckenzie (1 year ago)
Yes creationists are retarding the advancement of civilization.
Nosey Parker (1 year ago)
Garbage
WE OBEY JESUS (1 year ago)
Yes every date requires assumptions about the origin of the rock. The presence of assumptions makes it theoretical. Theories are not evidence.
Differ Dog (1 year ago)
LEAFY GUITAR SOLOS Hi here is a link to irrefutable evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology If you would prefer videos explaining what we know as fact, search on you tube. If you find fault with this, let me know what it is.
Sandy Combs (1 year ago)
There have been scholarly papers written in which researchers C14 dated dinosaur bones to approximately 40,000 years ago. However there has been a tremendous effort by the establishment to disregard this data and even keep it from being published. Science is lass about finding the truth than one would think.
Happy GoLucky3939 (4 months ago)
https://www.quora.com/Do-dinosaur-fossils-with-C-14-in-them-prove-that-dinosaurs-existed-less-than-40-000-years-ago
Andy (1 year ago)
Were the samples contaminated?
Arexodius (1 year ago)
None of this conflicts with the bible. People who think the bible says God created the universe in 6, 24-hour days have to really think for a bit. First of all, the word "day" is used to mean several different lengths of time in the bible. The word itself is flexible in that sense. Secondly, if God created the means for us to gauge time, all the stars, the sun, the moon and also the earth, why would he need to limit himself to an "earthly" way of measuring time? Genesis mentioning "...there was evening and there was morning..." does not necessitate a 24-hour day. It could simply mean that God took a break of unspecified time to further plan his creative work, just like a human artist might take breaks to gain perspective, or to eat or sleep. God, being a spirit creature, doesn't eat or sleep. Don't apply human rules to God. During the 4th day of creation the light from the stars began to be visible on earth. How long does it take the light from the thousands of stars visible from earth to travel to earth? It takes way more than a couple of 24-hour days (since the 1st day of creation). If you want to insist on saying the creation days were 24 hours long, you have to make God a liar, since the light could not possibly reach earth by the 4th day from when they were created during the 1st day. In Genesis 2:3 it says about the 7th day that "...for on it God has been resting from all the work that he has created, all that he purposed to make". And it says that he "has been resting", meaning he was still resting at the time when this was written down by Moses, according to Bible chronology, around 2500 years after Adams life began. Note that nowhere in the bible it says that the 7th day ended or that the 8th day began. So according to the bible, we are at this time, more than 6000 years from Adam, still in the 7th day of Gods rest. If the 6 days of creation would be 24 hours long, why is the 7th day still going on? Since the bible is not specific on the length of these days there is no point in trying to adjust or review the methods of dating earth or the stars to fit a dogmatic teaching of 6 literal human-days. It has no bearing on the validity of the bible. The universe exists and we live in it, whether it was created or not, but since the bible isn't touching the subject of the age of the universe or earth, you can't say that it is wrong on the matter. Furthermore, the bible isn't a book of science, that's not it's purpose. But, when it touches matters of science it is accurate. Isaiah 40:22 reads "There is One who dwells above the circle (original word also means sphere) of the earth". Two centuries after this was written down the Greek philosopher Pythagoras theorized that the earth must be a sphere. Before that most people thought the earth was flat. Why would Isaiah think differently from other people? A common belief was also that the flat earth rested on top of different animals. Job 26:7 mentions God "...suspending the earth on nothing". The point is that proven, empirical, irrefutable scientific evidence never contradicts the bible. Only what people think they know about it.
FerociousQuesadilla (11 months ago)
I know its weird to try and continue a conversation 10 months later... but I have been looking into the creationism vs evolution debate a bit lately, and I’ve always thought the Bible is pretty ambiguous about the age of the earth, but there is one problem I have with the idea that the Bible allows for a billions of years old earth, posited by Ken Ham: if death entered the world through man, then how could anything have died before the creation of man?
Differ Dog (1 year ago)
Arexodius Must admit you would make a good PR man though.
Differ Dog (1 year ago)
Arexodius Wow, how do you know all this stuff. Do you have a thought Think this thought again Have faith this thought is correct Believe in this thought Tell others about your thoughts Convince them it is true, demanding that they need to have faith without evidence Advocate your belief to anybody that wants people to think for them You know, this is how religions get started. If their is a God, you know as much about what he thinks and does as I do. And that's zero!
Arexodius (1 year ago)
Snakes don't talk. Satan was speaking through the snake. Satan is a spirit creature. You saying it would be too difficult for him? Satan is described as the "original serpent", and "the one misleading the inhabited earth". Eve was his first victim.
Arexodius (1 year ago)
God is a spirit creature. You need a body of flesh to have sex. God miraculously placed an already fertilized egg within Mary's womb. Because it's well within his power to do so.
MrJamesBecca (1 year ago)
very interesting!
D.B. Keosababian (2 years ago)
What are your sources?
Daft Sage (2 years ago)
The idea that if you find a rock that only contains lead, then you can determine the ratio of isotopes that are naturally occurring seems suspect to me. You would have to assume all formed rock had the exact same distribution of isotopes at formation which i am not sure is necessarily true.
Daft Sage (1 year ago)
+Francesca Anderson I majored in biochemistry in college and it doesn't make sense to me. I guess i just don't know enough about rock formation.
Francesca Anderson (1 year ago)
You just don't understand radiometric dating. Have you tried taking a college level chemistry or geology course? It made perfect sense after I took chemistry 101 but I understand not everyone has the opportunities to go to college.
jesusstudentbrett (2 years ago)
Another slick assumption unverifiable stated at 2:35 mins...the ground would be molten. Ahhhh yeah ...assumption. As for the core of the earth, we know pressure increase as we go deeper down there. We cannot get there for that reason. The heat there is related to the increase in pressure...we can say because of the observable relationship of pressure and heat. At that hugh temperature, the is certainly a lot of atomic activity...decay...and exchanging of particles etc.
jesusstudentbrett (2 years ago)
Awww very slick and smooth at 2:00 mins. "IF IT WERE POSSIBLE to accelerate the rate of decay"...he left out "by people artificially accelerating the rate of decay"...and the he passes this off as if natural changes over 1000s or millions of years could not have varied. Let me state some common sense: WE CANNOT VERIFY THE RATE OF DECAY TODAY = THE RATE IN THE DISTANT PAST. Verification and observation are fundamental to true science. Historical science is largely theoretical because it can't be verified.
jesusstudentbrett (2 years ago)
As an electrical design engineer for a variety of companies and jndustries, including defense and the space shuttle, being involved in accelerated environmental testing methods like varying things like temperature, vibration, shock, pressure, let me say they CANNOT SUBSTITUTE for varying TIME. They have found to help "accelerate" the apparent aging that happens over a few decades...it seems equivalent to TIME acceleration with this short span, but we cannot assume ...assume this would be the case over 1000s or millions of years. That means to determine the possible changes for rate of decay is just not good science but rather steering the results to pop out your desires. Science is about observation of objective evidence...verification this substitutes for time over a longer time span is not observable.
Tony Clough (2 years ago)
The debates between young earth creationist's and evolutionist's I find educating for it exposes the flaws of the other side. Dating is a messy business. Some good and some bad. I learn a little from both sides but find I must be skeptical with both sides too.
Tony Clough (1 year ago)
An one with half a brain could logically "know" that the sun and moon would not have been created on the fourth "day" / time period. When your dogma is more important than common sense, your sincerity to the inspired word and to God is then called into question. Atheist's and Young Earth Creationist's try to burn the bible but just at different ends. The question is which "boss" are they both working for? " (John 8:44) You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.
Francesca Anderson (1 year ago)
"Young earth Christians should read their bible" You should too. Genesis says the sun, stars, and moon were created on the fourth day. After the earth, and after the heavens.
Prle Tihi (2 years ago)
Back then there were no space in between the words so was it really accurate translation? "someone" can be broken into "so,me,one","some,one".
Tony Clough (2 years ago)
Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God CREATED the Heavens and the earth. (That includes all the stars (suns) and all the planets. every galaxy too.) Young earth Christians should read their bible. If you can't find the name of the true God in his word the bible, your chances at getting this Genesis 1:1 right would be slim without his spirit. People who mix pagan teachings of hell fire, Trinity,  immortality of the soul with the holy bible can not expect to get God's insight on his inspired word. https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Creation
Prle Tihi (2 years ago)
http://creation.mobi/age-of-the-earth
Max Sterling (2 years ago)
Radiometric Dating is flawed, that's a fact, since it has assumptions. However, even the earth is very old, it's still not conflicted with what the Bible says. More and more believers believes that God's time frame is different from our time frame. Meaning a day in Heaven could be thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands, or millions of years on the earth. So, 7 days in Heaven could be very long.
Ethentent (2 years ago)
+Dj Hudgins I'm sorry that science doesn't provide a pretty picture of an eternity of everlasting peace. That sounds like the best and I wish it were true. But there's no evidence that indicates that it exists. From what we can tell, everyone dies and their bodies break down and that's all we can see. You can't prove to me that anything more more to a human life than the impacts of our finite lives while living and the legacies we leave for future generations when we die. It is possible to live a fulfilling life without the dream of traveling to an eternal paradise after we die. If anything, life is made sweeter by the idea that life is finite and that we only have so much time to enjoy it and to do good with it. Doing good by your fellow humans and animals and helping to improve society and the world make your life meaningful. All ideas of an eternity in paradise are nothing more than the dreams of beings with seemingly boundless imaginations and a curiosity for the world around them and what, if anything, could lie beyond our universe. All that has ever had meaning is that which we have determined to be important via reason-based ethics. We don't need the Bible to be good people and to play the game of life. How have you come to that conclusion that we are in "the last days"? How does your Christ bring you peace?
Ethentent (2 years ago)
You're assuming the Bible isn't a heap of man-made nonsense! I don't see any modern evidence of miracles or divine intervention. If it happened so often thousands of years ago, why has it stopped? Where did God go? How do you know that the Bible was divinely inspired? At least science is trying to answer questions purposefully instead of just saying that God did it all as described in your precious Bible. I would think that a benevolent, well-meaning God would provide us with a clearer picture of the history of the planet on which we reside and which he supposedly created than that which we can interpret from old documents that undoubtedly have been altered by self-interested people with the intent of gaining power or money or from just being insane! Science and reason are the only things that keep us away from the fantastical ideas and delusions that we humans are all too good at concocting. That's why I'm sticking with science and reason to lead me to happiness and fulfillment in the answers to life's questions rather than believing in a collection of doctrines, many of which are clearly nonsensical and inapplicable to reality.
B. G. (2 years ago)
I viewed this site and I noticed how in the conclusion, it said: "False ringformation in P. banksiana appears to be more common when trees are young or in the codominant or intermediate canopy position. There was an even split in patterns of growth rate between the two stands, one of which had significantly faster growth rates prior to event years with frequent false rings and the other which had no significant changes in growth before or after false ring event years." I don't entirely understand this, but i do wonder how this author can date a tree without this method? And how is it that respectable scientists like Bill Nye rely on this method if this site supposedly proves it wrong? I am new to all of this and I am completely confused. There are so many smart, logical sounding voices coming from so many directions! And I have no idea how to find out who is reliable and who is not.
B. G. (2 years ago)
Can you give me a credible and non bias source?
Lex Luther (2 years ago)
facts...those who think the earth is millions years dont have faith in GOD... and they admit it is assumptions... we still dont see the evidence still saying when materiel decay... but still what do that give us
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.
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
+Nic What I know about genetics is BASIC really simple stuff like heredity is real and mutations sometimes work. That is so limited and basic, a child could easily comprehend that. I'm going by basic logic, if something works that means the theory behind it is tested to be right. Please challenge that point if you can. lol I don't personally know anything about genetics (and nor do you). That is simply cos we aren't geneticists and don't actually practice genetics. Only the ones who actually practice genetics know much about genetics. But UNLIKE YOU, I DON'T claim to know BETTER about genetics than the geneticists. So where did you get your "PHD" from?
Nicholas Pereiro (4 months ago)
Justwantahover Yep uh huh very interesting, just earlier you said you knew the basics now you’re a PhD there’s no point in trying to talk to people like you if they are just going to never counter your arguments at this point I grow weary of your asininity and have resolved to mute you. If you must reply to get the last word but just know I won’t see it byee
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
+Nic In order to have won you have to explain how? Me not knowing much about genetics has nothing to do with the argument. In fact you are not only arguing with me, you are effectively arguing with the geneticists as well. So isn't it REASONABLE to say you lost cos all the geneticists say you are wrong (except <1%). Creationist practicing secular genetics would agree with you but they don't apply their personal opinion to genetics IF IT IS DIFFERENT TO THE SECULAR MODEL! And in peer review the creationist geneticists are outnumbered by over 99%. Science is never like religion where they are 100% CERTAIN. But that NEVER means that creationists are more likely to be right than evolutionists. When it comes to REALLY SPLITTING HAIRS (like you do with science) with 2+2=4 (when you look at it strictly scientifically) we CAN'T say it's a fact. We can say that it's MOST LIKELY to be a fact. That's a certain as science will ever get, but on regular practical basis (so far, anyway) 2+2=4 is a fact and so is evolution. But your Bible scenario is so UNLIKELY to be fact that of course science is going to completely dismiss it! It's a fairytale! What I know about genetics: 1) All our ancestors' DNA is in all of our DNA (going right back to the amoeba). 2) Mutations sometimes beneficial and can cause hybrid populations. But I DON'T personally know! I fucking haven't seen it personally, myself, so I take their word for it like you take their word for it that the DNA molecule. It's a really complex double helix, isn't it. But how do you know it's fact when you haven't personally seen a double helix yourself??? So you may say I BLINDLY just follow their opinion, but why do you do the same when it comes to the double helix and not for other genetic stuff? It all come from the SAME SOURCE (secular genetics) the ONLY genetics ever practiced. Or do you want to challenge that, please tell me if you do. I take the geneticists' word for it cos they know HEAPS about it and I know very little about it (so I haven't got the NERVE to challenge it). I wouldn't want to look that fucking stupid. lol But you DO challenge it and know LESS about genetics than me cos geneticists DON'T use creation science in their work. If you want to argue that, do it with the GENETICISTS not me (I'm only talking through their minds) I'm a PUPPET to what (very much) seems like to be a FACT! You are a PUPPET to an ancient book written by goat herders.
Nicholas Pereiro (4 months ago)
Justwantahover atleast you admit you know nothing of genetics and your whole argument is just based on fallacy’s fewwww took a while but I won thanks for being honest bue
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
+Nic You are the one who is intellectually dishonest, you can't even answer a simple question like what genetic disciplines do they teach geneticists and what genetic model do they use to actually practice genetics? Answer my question first then ask me a question. That's intellectually honest. So what genetic disciplines do they teach and what disciplines do they use when practicing genetics (secular or creation science)? How in the fuck is that FLAWED LOGIC when both answers are OBVIOUSLY the secular genetic model (NOT creation science clap-trap)? How is that LOGICALLY FLAWED? If your genetic scenario has NEVER been tested and the secular one does every day, how is that LOGICALLY FLAWED? GENETICS WORKS, and that proves the disciplines behind genetics to be true (and it's NOT creation science clap-trap). It's the secular world view evolutionary applied genetics that works. And if it works it's more to the truth than creation science genetics that has never been applied. How is that LOGICALLY FLAWED? You can't answer the simple original question (and any other one) but if your fantasy was true, you would be able to easily answer all my questions. You can't answer so you just want to change the subject and ask me questions I can't answer (cos I don't know the details of genetics at all like you reckon you do). But (hang on) you don't really know anything about genetics either cos the ones who actually practice genetics don't use your shit. And how is it LOGICALLY FLAWED to say that? Ask me some questions I can't answer. I don't know anything about genetics except some BASIC stuff that you REJECT. And why tell me about creation science genetics when (you know) that real geneticists REJECT IT (and yet do just fine)! I don't know shit about creation science genetics, so would it make any difference if I was a genetics professor? Would I still not "know'' anything about genetics? Another question you can't answer!
Logical APE (2 years ago)
For folks who claim that the Earth is young. This is what they are up against. I did a search on “age of the Earth” in Nature and Science and here are my results - Science 19,497 and Nature 15,464, Science and Nature are among the top 3 science journals in the world based on citations and impact factor.  Not even a single paper argues that the Earth is young or these dating methods are useless. Dating methods are not mutually exclusive: their range overlap so one method can be verified by multiple dating methods. All the methods agree with each other in showing that the Earth is magnitudes older than 6k. Dating methods cover a wide variety of disciplines such as Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Paleontology, Chemistry, Geomorphology, Physics etc. There are around 40 or so types of radiometric dating techniques. Here are some of the dating methods used today. All of them point to an OLD EARTH. 1-      Lunar samples (samples of rocks brought by Apollo 15 dated 4.08 billion years and samples of Apollo 16 rocks dated 4.46 billion years) . http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/15415.pdf 2-      Testing of lead in uranium (over billion years) 3-      Dating of Zircon Crystals (over 4 billion years old) 4-      Age of the Sun (Helioseismic verification) 5-      There are a close 35-40 dating techniques to date various matter 6-      Radiometric dating of meteorite matter 7-      Distant star lights 8-      Globular clusters 9-      Gyro chronology 10-  Corals 11-  Amino acid racemization 12-  Iron-manganese nodule growth 13-  Cosmogenic nuclide dating: 14-  Rotation of the Earth 15-  Petrified wood 16-  Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows:[32] 1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite) 1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.543 ± 0.019 billion years 2. Sm-Nd isochron 4.55 ± 0.33 billion years 3. Rb-Sr isochron 4.51 ± 0.15 billion years  4. Re-Os isochron 4.68 ± 0.15 billion years 2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite) Pb-Pb isochron 4.556 ± 0.012 billion years 2. Pb-Pb isochron 4.540 ± 0.001 billion years 3. Sm-Nd isochron 4.56 ± 0.08 billion years 4. Rb-Sr isochron 4.50 ± 0.07 billion years 3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.553 ± 0.004 billion years 2. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.52 ± 0.02 billion years 3. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.55 ± 0.03 billion years 4. Ar-Ar age spectrum  4.56 ± 0.05 billion years Some other methods that clear show that the Earth is much older than 6k. Thermoluminescence dating:  Valid for dating objects up to 10k years. Dendrochronology dating: Valid of dating objects up to 11 to 12k years. Ice layering dating: about 150k And the responses I get from Creationists are not only silly but borderline retarded. What about Mt. Helen? What about a dinosaur with traces of soft tissue? They have found Caron in diamonds. Then I have to explain to them and educate them about each of the specific claim and show them why it is absurd. No wonder studies show that Creationists are likely to be less educated.
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
METEOR STRIKES PROVE OLD EARTH The meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs left a huge crater, and along with it is a thing called the "iridium ring". (And it is embedded into the crater wall.) The iridium ring is unquestionable proof of old earth cos it’s hard evidence of a colossal strike (that can be sampled and tested). It would take millions of years for the earth to fully recover from such a strike...so the strikes obviously happened at least millions of years ago (disproving young earth)! No record of any huge strikes (like that) happening during human's lifetime, and many more meteor strikes are proven by the iridium ring and some even larger than the 180 km diam crater (the strike that killed the dinosaurs). With up to a million cubic km of soil and rock excavated in about one second (in the largest strike) it's obvious we wouldn't be here now if the world was only 6,000 years old (and according to your "young earth" all strikes must have "occurred" within that 6,000 year period). lol So creationists will always maintain that the meteor strikes are "NOT" strikes (but the iridium ring chemically proves it). That's cos it's in a ring and it's an integral part of the crater rim (simply a layer in the wall) that must contain chemicals that were in the meteor, cos of over concentrated rare metals contained in the iridium ring. You can even see the iridium ring (on YouTube) as a 2ft deep dark layer around the rim. And creationists can test the iridium rings of various craters for the presence of concentrated rare metals (like mostly iridium). And being an integral part of the crater rim, the iridium ring was obviously formed along with the crater (formed by ejecta that was originally in the meteor). Let me explain...High powered bullets disintegrate when fired into sand and meteors travel many times faster than bullets and so it's reasonable to say the meteors also disintegrated on impact. No meteor has been found in its original state (for strikes over a certain size). But the bullets disintegrating is good evidence of the meteors breaking up and its contents forming the iridium rings (what else could form them)? And it's a known fact that many asteroids in space also contain similar such rare metals. If they are not strikes how did the iridium rings get there? You can get a sample of the iridium ring and test it yourself for rare metals (if you know how and if you get to visit a large impact crater). Or you can obtain a sample and get it analysed by a professional (and don't tell them why you want to know what's in it). You would need like less than a pea size sample.
Dave Von Saunder (8 months ago)
mopar Mike The parent daughter question you mentioned was already addressed in the video. It’s based on how we observe the formation of other exploding stars.
Dave Von Saunder (8 months ago)
Max Sterling As an aerospace engineer, I require the use of assumptions in the laws of physics in order to develop more efficient designs for aircraft. These assumptions include Kutta Condition, in which we assume that the air flow at the trailing edge of airfoils flow at a consistent speed on the top and bottom of both airfoils. This is not always the case and despite this, aircraft don’t crash because of this assumption, they perform as expected.
Smelly Clan (1 year ago)
that has nothing to do with how stupid we are when in reality i am pretty much very good at science and passed it with commence sense not by luck but with my knowledge I was able to play along of how stupid most of what i was taught made no sense yes a free thinkers most Christians don't mess with scientific knowledge or tend to get a job that deals with science when they already know the truth and know assumptions aren't very accurate like you assumed most Christians are stupid never assume and look at reality
Logical APE (2 years ago)
+Max Sterling 1-         If your last comment was directly towards me, I never claimed that I am more educated than you. Stop making false claims. All I said was that various studies and research shows that creationists are likely to be less educated -  And unlike you, I can back my claim by quoting the studies/ research. 2-         It is interesting that you ran away from the discussion about your another misconception about a theory and a law. An honest person would have done some research and acknowledge their misunderstanding /confusion. 3-         Again, almost every experiment we do is based on assumptions. What specifically do you want to talk about assumptions relating to radio-metric dating? Clearly state your position and where you are going with it? What you trying to prove or disprove? Some of the key assumptions for radio-metric dating are constant decay rates, rates are specific to an isotope, absence of daughter element at the time of formation etc. Next time if you have a question, don’t be lazy and Google it. Don’t ask me to teach you a fundamentals of science. Just pick up a book or Google it.
James King (2 years ago)
if carbon 14, only last 5,000 years how then is it found in diamonds since it should be there, how can it be in the earth or dinosaurs or anything over 5,000 years old? it wouldn't be there. doesn't prove anything but a younger earth.
kekistani bear (28 days ago)
+Logical APE so everything just came from soup being struck by lightning it really takes a lot of faith to believe everything came from nothing.
FerociousQuesadilla (11 months ago)
I believe I have heard a credible scientific argument from a creationist named Dr. John F. Ashton. Actually, I read his book, Evolution Impossible. Of course, being generally traditionally uneducated on the physical sciences, I have no way of knowing exactly how credible his claims are, but all knowledge, except that which is directly observed, is based on trust in the source. I believe his PhD suggests that he is very intelligent and educated, and the citation of numerous scientific papers and articles suggest there is evidence of his claims. Also, every point he makes seems logical to me, one whose IQ was once measured to be 143. Maybe that validates my perspective in your eyes. Anyway, here are some questions and suggestions I have for you: 1. Is our goal to educate the uneducated? Or is it to belittle them by "winning" arguments? Sure, creationists may have been found to have a higher likelihood of being less educated, but is it really helpful to assume that of the person you are interacting with? I imagine you don't think Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI is uneducated. What about the geneticists and biochemists that also happen to be creationists? They may be in the vast minority, but the fact that they are able to make such a conclusion after decades of studying a relevant field in which most, if not all, of their peers disagree with them gives their perspective validity, no? Should we not hear their scientific reasoning? Are we so arrogant as to believe that they couldn't possibly have based their disagreement with us on logical reasoning, but rather religious zeal? And even if the person you are debating is uneducated, why not reason with them rather than insult them, or better yet, be curious about their viewpoint, asking questions over and over until someone's mind is opened to the other's view? And if your opponent asks "stupid" questions like "If the earth is revolving, how come we don't get dizzy?" then answer the question without insults, i.e. informing them of what dizziness really is. 2. You say any sensible person would conclude creationism is nonsense after just a few hours of research, which I find insulting (which is perhaps your intent), because I have spent days researching this subject and have not been able to make a conclusion. I would also argue that if you only spend a few hours researching, you will only find one viewpoint, the evolutionist viewpoint because that is the majority's viewpoint. There are many questions that evolution has not answered, as far as I'm aware. Examples include: How does new, purposeful genetic information come into existence? Has it ever been observed, or just assumed? How did life originate on earth? I'm pretty sure no one can answer that, but life spontaneously coming to be is key for evolution, is it not? There are many more questions I have, but those will suffice as examples. 3. Educate yourself heavily on your opposition. I highly recommend you read Dr. Ashton's book, because he makes many great points based on logic and scientific research. Also, I would love to hear your response to the book, because I believe the only way we can come to the proper conclusion is via respectful discussion with open minds and a common goal of finding truth. Although I am only finding this discussion over a year after it has taken place, I am hopeful you will take time to respond, for this is still a relevant topic.
MrJamesBecca (1 year ago)
LOL! Dizzy from rotating earth. Yes, had a discussion with someone at work over radio dating. Apparently from her point of view the only type that exists is carbon dating, She also believed that it appears in rocks, which I guess it might, but that form of dating is more for things that used to be alive. I used the term radio dating rather than carbon dating and she didn't know what the heck I was talking about. Let alone getting into geology and dating things that are millions of years old, and not just thousands of years old...
Yago Too (2 years ago)
Logical APE Thanks again, I will look around. I am also studying how Christianity "borrowed" from many earlier religions-like the Flood being based on common prior flood- myth, like Gilgamesh for example-fascinating stuff...
Logical APE (2 years ago)
+Yago Too You are welcome. I have not done a lot of research based on acceptance of Evolution and one’s political affiliation, my research was primarily focused on acceptance of Evolution based on its correlation with education. However, I do recall seeing data on acceptance of Evolution based on one’s political affiliation. I believe it was either the Gallup poll of 2014 or the Pew Research Center’s research of 2009. You should be able to find it if you google it. Let me know if you can’t      I know there is quite a bit of data on education levels, crime, poverty etc. based on blue and red states. Here are some of my notes from some research I had done for a discussion I was having with someone. These studies should give you some of the information you are looking for. Sorry my note are choppy and not in any order but still a good starting point in my opinion.      The relevant data to assess this would be exit polls from the last National election i.e. 2012 Obama vs. Romney Presidential election Age: If you are above 45 you are more likely voting R, below D   PEW RESEARCH CENTER Highly educated adults – particularly those who have attended graduate school – are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values. And these differences have increased over the past two decades. By contrast, among the majority of adults who do not have a college degree (72% of the public in 2015), far fewer express liberal opinions More highly educated adults have consistently liberal views   Forbes Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue? Politicalfact.com http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/29/facebook-posts/are-97-nations-100-poorest-counties-red-states/ "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states. Tell me again how does the Republican philosophy help economic growth? nine out of the 10 poorest states are red states Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes   The Tax Foundation According to a study by The Tax Foundation, the seven states who take in the most federal tax dollars all, had one thing in common. They all voted Republican in the presidential 2012 election   A 2010 study by the Fourth Branch found, The states that use the most federal aid are the same states who vote Republican in presidential elections. A 2010 study by the Fourth Branch found, “There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).” Red states also use the most food stamps. Red states are the base of the Republican Party. The majority of individuals living in these states continue to vote for Republican candidates who want to shrink the size of the federal government and eliminate entitlement programs. The states who are pushing this platform the hardest are also the ones who are taking the most federal tax dollars from blue states. Quote from Vaso’s article   Education. Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men. So if we look at only post-graduate degree holders (many of whom work in higher education, which may be a bigger indicator) we see a large disparity in party affiliation. For those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience we see a rather narrow gap. Overall, I don't think that you can say simply that Democrats are more educated than their Republican counterparts. I think we can say there is a trend for people with higher levels of degree achievement to either be Democrats or vote Democratic. Does that mean that somebody who chooses to spend their years at an institution of higher learning is more educated? Maybe or maybe not Summary of the actual study “Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation.” Highly-educated people increasingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. About a third (34%) of those with a college degree or more education identify as Democrats, compared with 24% who identify as Republicans; 39% are independents. In 1992, Republicans held a seven-point lead among those with at least a college degree (34% to 27%), while 37% were independents. Democrats now hold a 12-point lead (52% to 40%) in leaned party identification among those with at least a college degree, up from just a four-point difference as recently as 2010 (48% to 44%). There has been less change since 2010 in the partisan leanings of those with less education. Currently, those who have attended college but have not received a degree lean Democratic 47% to 42%; Democrats hold a 10-point lead in leaned party identification among those with no more than a high school education (47% to 37%). The Democrats’ wide lead in partisan identification among highly-educated adults is largely the result of a growing advantage among those with any post-graduate experience. A majority (56%) of those who have attended graduate school identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 36% who align with or lean toward the GOP. Among those who have received a college degree but have no post-graduate experience, 48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican.
James King (2 years ago)
no YEC's believe the earth is 5-6,years old. bias ppl who don't know the teachings. say that. we believe be its @ 10 to 15,000...but here a question for you...if carbon 14 only lives a life span of 5,000 years, assuming it's decay and life span is consistent never hindered by out side entities. how can then the earth be billions of years? remember you don't know the consistency's of how it started. how can't one micro transformation happen, as it's been disproven ..fervently disprove. it doesn't matter if the earth is thousands or billions of years.it still doesn't disprove God.only your own lack of understanding him.
James King (2 years ago)
I don't know about but if Satan had rebelled and god hadn't gave me a tip or heads up....that's not a friend who doesn't lwtcsomeone know some has it in for you and its one that will change humanity...something that big ...that's not a friend ..why does it not say anything about it in scripture? it didn't exist
James King (2 years ago)
+Repo Life for god to say it's very good....his perfection would mean he's. a liar. angelic rebellion going on ...he knows the devils our to get Adam...trick him..sin before death...about things that contridict scripture or and gap theory
James King (2 years ago)
+Repo Life um you do know what progressive creation is? I think you misunderstood the state and the video. the video isn't just about Adam and eve by the way. it attacks the integrity. of the gospel . ppl say youth earth creationist believe in 15 thousand years as the age of the earth.not millions of years..thathasmore to do with Adam and eve and the integrity of of the bible then you realize...if Yom wasn't. literal solar days as the word Yom usually means then it means Adam and eve weren't real and for that Jesus wasn't. foragap theory to be true do you realize that would require catastrophic events after each event
Repo Life (2 years ago)
Does that 10-15 thousand have anything to do with the the accounts in the book of Adam and eve by any chance? There is a passage that would we to suggest that the earth was already 6 or 7 thousand years old when they were kicked from the "garden". Then god said Adam and his seed had to stay here on earth as punishment for another 5500 years.
nahshon (2 years ago)
The reason that potassium argon cannot be used to date things so recent is because they give an old date. So if you date lava of known age and the radiometric date is old it is obviously wrong. If the date of an unknown volcano is old then the radiometric dating is correct. What that means is that there is too much argon in fresh lava. In other words in those cases where the date is known, as in a young date, the P-Ar date is wrong. There is excess argon in fresh lava if the date is known but when the date is unknown then there was never excess argon and the date is accepted. How does uranium get into coal beds? Coal beds are supposedly the result of millions of years of bog growth. All vegetation. How does that uranium get in there? And, from what I have read, all coal beds are carbon datable.
Horace Ball (2 years ago)
I get it! Radiometric dating is very accurate EXCEPT when you can test it like at Mt St Helens.......then of course it is misused and inaccurate.......great science!
nahshon (2 years ago)
+Horace Ball The Grand Canyon is proof of a young earth. The layers, supposedly laid down over millions of years, show no erosion between layers. Did it not rain for that time? There is a mile of missing sediment from on top of the Kaibab. Where is it? Did the Colorado river remove that sediment too? You can see the layers that are missing in the Grand Staircase within the Zion and Bryce canyon Natl. Parks. Those layers would add another mile of sediment. All gone. Where did it go?
Horace Ball (2 years ago)
+nahshon Hello my new friend. It not only sounds a little funny, it sounds pitiful. "We know it it snot accurate for young dates, but trust us, we be the scientists...it is accurate for old dates!" Erosion would have destroyed any 200 million year old rock....Granite erodes on the average 1 foot every 6 thousand years (source US Geological Survey). There supposed 200 million year old rocks would need magic powers to not erode for 200 million years.....
nahshon (2 years ago)
+Horace Ball The reason that potassium argon cannot be used to date things so recent is because they give off the wrong date. So if you date a known age and the radiometric date is old it is obviously wrong. If the date of an unknown volcano is old then the radiometric dating is correct. What that means is that there is too much argon in fresh lava. In other words in those cases where the date is known, as in a young date, the P-Ar date is wrong. There is excess argon in fresh lava if the date is known but when the date is unknown then there was never excess argon and the date is accepted. Sounds a little funny to me.
Horace Ball (2 years ago)
+Zack Yes it does....but primarily from the top down.....but the erosion of 230 millions years of nature would expose and destroy that old fossil.
Z (2 years ago)
+Horace Ball does erosion happen underground? Erosion happens in the presence of viscous substances on the surface...
funkyplasmaman (2 years ago)
we have studied these elements for 100 years and now know how they have behaved for the last billion years......really?
kekistani bear (28 days ago)
My question is how do you know how much of a certain isotope is present to begin with?
Remy (2 years ago)
why would you make the assumption they would change do you have a reason
ojideagu (2 years ago)
instead we should believe an ancient book?
platano214 (2 years ago)
I thought it was closer to being 4.6 billion years old? Oh well no worries.
George Monical (2 years ago)
Hard to watch a video that generalizes about the emotions of all scientists. Most scientists I know don't "hate" God.
Fallen Loki (4 months ago)
George Monical No atheist hates God. You cannot hate something you don't believe in.
TheLastKnight (2 years ago)
Is there an educational video on carbon dating that sticks to the facts rather than being divisive?
none of your business (2 years ago)
+James King "it's only debunked depending on the source you getting it from" Try literally every scientific source, for a start... Every single biologist will tell you the necessary evidence in biodiversity, genetic variation, drowned animals or animal migration is not there and there is no way to keep those animals alive through their specific dietary needs. Do you really think 2 of every single species could walk 12,000 miles to the ark without deaths or leaving a single trace, and afterwards walk 12,000 miles back through a world completely devoid of any other life or food? Well of course you do, because fvck reality, right? Are you aware that "popular" creationists try to explain this by claiming animals were _launched by fvcking 1200°C volcanoes?!_ youtu _dot_ be/4mjmGbfyPPU?t=103 Every single geologist will tell you the necessary evidence of world wide floods is not there. And no, a 40 day flash flood does not put down hundreds of layers of solid rock, with the animals neatly sorted throughout them in the exact order evolution predicts. Every single meteorologist will tell you it is literally impossible for the described amount of water to fall in the given time, and not even because _less than a third of the required amount of water even exists on the planet_. Every single ship builder will tell you it is simply impossible for a ship of the described size to float, let alone be built without modern materials. The titanic was 9.5x the size of your ark but still held only 3547 passengers and food for no more than 2-3 weeks... where your ark was supposed to hold tens of millions of species and food for a year? Yeah right. YOU are claiming an event happened, therefore YOU would have to have been there to be sure. We weren't there, therefore we aren't claiming it happened. If you can't be sure something happened, isn't the honest position to *not* claim that it happened anyway, the exact opposite of what you're doing now? Burden of proof's a bitch if you got none, isn't it? "my book it's chalked full of many proofs" Again, a storybook does not qualify as proof. The lord of the rings books are not proof that Frodo actually lived, you genius. Are you aware that muslims believe in flying horses just because the quran mentions it? The bible is the only reason you even know of the flood _story_, which makes it the _original claim_. The bible also claims non-striped goats can only get striped offspring when they look at striped sticks, and that leprosy is cured with a sprinkle of bird blood; good luck arguing that's true for no other reason than "muh bible sed it". And your ark has been debunked on even more grounds than those clearly false claims. "But there are cultures all around the world they say it did happen" They say _floods_ happened. Because floods do happen, yet not a single one was world-wide... Do you really refuse to acknowledge that half of your bible was ripped off from older mythology? bibliotecapleyades _dot_ net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm ashraf62.wordpress _dot_ com/2012/08/19/hebrew-bible-plagiarized-mythology-and-defaced-monotheism/ gphhawkinsrationalistsociety.weebly _dot_ com/is-the-bible-plagiarized.html danielmiessler _dot_ com/blog/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence/ "Faith tells me" And there we are, the core of your argument. It's true because you have faith that it's true, AKA you believe it because you believe it. Well hello there most circular argument of the circular arguments. Your "faith" also tells flat-earthers that the world is flat, coincidentally also based on biblical texts. They are clearly wrong, but you couldn't possibly be wrong about the exact same bible-argument, right? It's painfully obvious that the only people that believe your flood crap are the ones that have clearly already decided to _blindly believe everything_ their preacher tells them is in their particular bible... Like the US South defended slavery for generations, by quoting the bible where it tells people to have slaves and how to treat/beat them. I know why you are so desperate do defend your obviously nonsensical idea of your genocide&incest flood story. If you religious fundamentalists with quite literally no idea how reality actually works (remember that scientific experts, that _know_ what is evident or even possible, unanimously reject your flood story) admitted to even a single part not being literally true, you might realise that the other stuff makes no sense either. And do you know why that is? Might it be the *fact* that the bible is a heavily modified copy of a translation of a heavily modified copy of a translation of a heavily modified copy of ancient mythology written and redacted by bronze-age sheep herders? youtube _dot_ com/watch?v=5UsFnWScv7w You know the scripture of all other religions is simply fiction, and all other religions know yours are fiction. Only the non-religious are unbiased enough to see that all these religions are exactly the same. But of course no amount of evidence or reason will change your mind about the flood or anything else, because you have already demonstrated that you'll believe it no matter what. Even if you read it in a literal fairytale full of witches, giants and magic, when there's no evidence at all, and when every single relevant field of science already provided conclusive proof against it. Just like flat-earthers, and early all flat-earthers are part of the 10-20% minority of people that believe your flood story. No one could ever be wrong when agreeing with flat-earthers and disagreeing with all (scientific) experts, right? Oh wait...
James King (2 years ago)
You wasn't there either. So your not in place to say it didn't happen. ( Noah's flood). But there are cultures all around the world they say it did happen long before Christ....and for that. Your not in any place to say the scriptures arent the word if God. funny part is when archaeology digs up think in the Bible. They find it where the Bible said it was. Not so with other texts not being the Bible. So like I said.ni can't take you seriously. You've offered no proofs. Just not picking like a chick. A bitter person. Rants and raves. The very words you use to downcast Christianity.your guilty of. But shows how's how blind you really r. I'm done with this. I don't take you serious .Lord bless you
James King (2 years ago)
Faith tells me. But you wasn't either so you can't say that it didn't happen so how could you make claims? You should look at you self. And as far as you and Zach goes. You haven't anything sensible..I question you type of reality that it borders pathetically. How ever first we must ask . Do you believe in absolutes? And if not how can you say anything for sure? What your purpose? If life has no purpose...then there's no purpose if you fight what some chooses to believe...if your life has no meaning then that mean your words what ever they r doesn't matter! Your debris .. pollution. Your words have no meaning . So why say them? What does it matter what someone believes that you do believe? It serves no reason.
James King (2 years ago)
+Peter Scheen this coming come from the guy who's guilty of the same he's pointing the finger at. Like I said get my book it's chalked full of many proofs. Or watch my films here. . As far as taking someone serious I haven't took anything you said serious from start til now it's obvious you don't know as much as you think you do...so when you point the finger 3 more are point back . You don't need evidence. You know there a God. If there isn't you wouldn't be fighting and purposeless battle.
Peter Scheen (2 years ago)
+James King You make some claims, do not back it up with evidence or reasoning. You are incomprehensible. I can not take this serious. So far you have not said one thing that I can see as an answer to any of my questions. And where you there when the flood occured? Then how can you make claims about it.
Eric D (3 years ago)
Many of these assumptions mentioned in this video did not withstand the challenges made against them. It is not widely accepted that it is possible to use ratios of lead isotopes found in moon rocks to determine initial quantities of samples found on earth. It is irresponsible to post data implying that scientists universally accept it as true when that is not the case.Radiometric dating is problematic. Sure, there has been some refinement over the years but nagging questions still remain for which there is no satisfactory answer. Lets take the U-Pb pair as an example. Uranium does decay into lead at a predictable rate, right now there are no serious challenges to that claim. However, other isotopes are created during the decay process including Thorium, Radium, Radon, etc. The presence of radium is a problem, since if the earth were billions of years old, all the radium (Ra 226) would be gone since it's half life only a few thousand years. Yet that's not what they are finding in samples. And if it is suggested that radium is introduced into the sample via fractionation, then the entire method would have to be deemed too inaccurate to be useful, since what is to say that uranium or lead weren't also affected this way.And furthermore, when considering alpha decay (where a helium nucleus is emitted) and measuring the amount of helium in the sample, the sample age is closer to 6,000 years. Granted, assumptions have to be made using this method as well, but even with the most generous assumptions, there is no possible way the earth could be billions of years old. However, this method is rejected because it doesn't conform to the results obtained through other methods. But is that a valid reason to reject the findings of helium dating outright? What if helium dating is correct and U-Pb is wrong?Then that becomes a problem for atheists. Because if the world really is 6,000  years old then God must have created it.
Justwantahover (3 months ago)
+Eric D Creationists rewrite genetics (and claim it's not rewritten). So... What is functioning genetics based on, secular science or creation science?
Waffle Basket (3 months ago)
Lmao despite the fact of you trying to throw mud around and try to correlate totally different things, I only feel the need to correct you on the last sentence. Because the previous statements can be fixed with you doing some more research. 'If the world really is 6k years old then god mustve created it'. If the world is infact 6k years old it means science was wrong and they will correct it. This does not mean however that god created it. Look science was wrong, therefore god! Get yo head out of yo ass you logical flawed homo-sapien.
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
METEOR STRIKES PROVE OLD EARTH The meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs left a huge crater, and along with it is a thing called the "iridium ring". (And it is embedded into the crater wall.) The iridium ring is unquestionable proof of old earth cos it’s hard evidence of a colossal strike (that can be sampled and tested). It would take millions of years for the earth to fully recover from such a strike...so the strikes obviously happened at least millions of years ago (disproving young earth)! No record of any huge strikes (like that) happening during human's lifetime, and many more meteor strikes are proven by the iridium ring and some even larger than the 180 km diam crater (the strike that killed the dinosaurs). With up to a million cubic km of soil and rock excavated in about one second (in the largest strike) it's obvious we wouldn't be here now if the world was only 6,000 years old (and according to your "young earth" all strikes must have "occurred" within that 6,000 year period). lol So creationists will always maintain that the meteor strikes are "NOT" strikes (but the iridium ring chemically proves it). That's cos it's in a ring and it's an integral part of the crater rim (simply a layer in the wall) that must contain chemicals that were in the meteor, cos of over concentrated rare metals contained in the iridium ring. You can even see the iridium ring (on YouTube) as a 2ft deep dark layer around the rim. And creationists can test the iridium rings of various craters for the presence of concentrated rare metals (like mostly iridium). And being an integral part of the crater rim, the iridium ring was obviously formed along with the crater (formed by ejecta that was originally in the meteor). Let me explain...High powered bullets disintegrate when fired into sand and meteors travel many times faster than bullets and so it's reasonable to say the meteors also disintegrated on impact. No meteor has been found in its original state (for strikes over a certain size). But the bullets disintegrating is good evidence of the meteors breaking up and its contents forming the iridium rings (what else could form them)? And it's a known fact that many asteroids in space also contain similar such rare metals. If they are not strikes how did the iridium rings get there? You can get a sample of the iridium ring and test it yourself for rare metals (if you know how and if you get to visit a large impact crater). Or you can obtain a sample and get it analysed by a professional (and don't tell them why you want to know what's in it). You would need like less than a pea size sample.
The Berean (3 years ago)
Thank you for posting, liked the attack on religion at the end!!
Azay Dee (2 years ago)
You like the attack on religion?  That mans that we need to throw out the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the USA because they are based on religious principles.  And if you are like most people, you wear clothes.  Why don't you wear that too.  Since you wear clothes because YHWH  taught us to when we sinned and had shame but since you are irreligious, you need to take off all that clothes and walk naked.  And why do you limit yourself to sleeping with certain women?  Why not sleep with your sister, your mother, your auntie?  Religion taught us morality but hey...who needs morality if we don't need religion?  Didn't the wise religion of the Beatles teach the Western world that we don't need religion?  And as you can see the U.K. and USA are doing very well morally and socially.  And why is murder wrong?  Says who?  Don't we kill animals?  Why can't I kill another human being?  Those are religious philosophies.  I should be able to kill whoever and whomever I want.
Lexicon Capacitor (3 years ago)
What's MORE.... radiometric dating DOES NOT WORK on things that WE KNOW THE AGE OF....so WHY OH WHY would it work for things we DON"T know the age of... IDIOTIC BULLSHIT.
Noah Buzulak (3 years ago)
Potassium - 40 dating (just an example of one stupid method): 1. As much as 80% of potassium can be removed (out of an iron meteorite) by distilled water IN 4.5 HOURS. Question: how can you trust any dates you get out of that? 2. The dates obtained from this method MUST line up w/ the GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE. (so why waste our time???) 3. KBS tuff-another embarrassment. First dated by KA-r dating to 212-230 million years old...until a human skull was found underneath!!! Haaa...then the TAP DANCING starts! 4. Basalt from Mt. Etna tested gave these results: 250 thous. years old. BUT it only erupted 2k years ago!!! 5. Lava from Hawaiian volcano-1.6 million years old. But it erupted in 1801. Oops. Right? 6. Basalt tested on Mt. Kilauea-8.5 million y/o. But it erupted in 1959. 7. Basalt tested on Mt. Etna (again)-700,000 y/o. It erupted in 1964!! 8. Basalt tested on Mt. Etna (again)-350,000 y/o. It erupted in 1972!! 9. 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption dated at - 5 different numbers from the 5 different ways it was tested. 350,000 years - 2.8 billion!!! Are 5 different and WRONg. Rocks of KNOWN age-radioisotope dating does not work! Rocks of UNKNOWN age - ASSUMED to work. How's that again? You're trusting your soul to this????^^^^
C Brown (2 years ago)
+Noah Buzulak They have not a answer for that lol . Great post . They deny that evidence because they have a commitment to Materialism . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/lewontin.html
David Buzulak (3 years ago)
That was my post not Noah's...so send me your hate mail!
Confucius Say (3 years ago)
your video is not very easy to understand its like a lecture i fall to sleep
Hassan Toukan (3 years ago)
I usually don't get into creationist vs science debates, but sometimes i feel people who are knowledgeable about science complicate things a bit its very simple, if earth and the universe is less that 10,000 years old that means when you look up in the sky all you can see is a 10,000 light year radius that is only 10% of our galaxy, in other words the sky will by much darker than it is now.
Dylan Dixon (14 days ago)
+Robert Ewy Really? Please give me an example of his "terrible writings?" And an explanation of HOW it could have been done better....
Robert Ewy (14 days ago)
+Dylan Dixon God wrote the bible. If he did, he is a terrible author. Almost anyone could have done a better job.
Justwantahover (4 months ago)
+Dylan Where did you get your "information? From a creationist site? I noticed that you ACCEPT the DNA molecule as "fact". But you have never seen it, how do you know when you don't trust geneticists and don't agree with what geneticists say about DNA? You are cherry picking secular genetics. But you can't bolster one thing and deny another when it's all the same fucking science! You reckon the DNA molecule is real (for you ID) but deny stuff about it (for creation science). If what they say about genetics is "wrong" how do you know the DNA molecule is "real" and not just another evolutionary "lie"?
Dylan Dixon (4 months ago)
Justwantahover..... God does NOT have a magic wand stupid! We are talking "reality" NOT Harry Potter! EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! For example…. A simple single celled bacterium has thousands of different proteins… Francis Crick won the Nobel prize for co discovering the structure of DNA. He calculated what the odds would be of getting one protein by chance in the acient ocean. They are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 and if you want to know how big of a number that is you couldn’t fit that many electrons in the known universe…. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica… "A simple one celled bacterium “coli” containd DNA information units that are the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica.” Mathematicians say that anything with odds greater than 1 in 10 to the power of 50 is impossible… So it would be impossible to get even one protein by chance, let alone the thousands a single cell would need. And lets think about this…. For the first cell ever to exist "that suposidly created itself” on the earth before it died in the span of one lifetime would have had to develop and profect the process of cellular reproduction because if it didn’t then their never would have been a second cell to continue…… And Darwins evolutionary process would have stopped right there! And athiests beleive that not only did this first coli somehow write 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica worth of DNA code to create itself somehow BEFORE they came into existance…. But they also believe the entire universe and all life in it suposidly did the same thing, i.e. came from nothing WITHOUT A MASTER DESIGNER! Someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics. That someone was God! Now, prove me wrong!
Mark16:15 (3 years ago)
I have a couple of simple questions that question the credibility of those mainstream scientists that swear by radiometric dating (such as the author of the vid, assuming he is a scientist).  Why won’t any of them test for C14 in dinosaur bones?  What are they afraid of? It has already been established that dinosaur bones have soft tissue in them like mammoth and giant sloth bones?  (For decades mainstream scientists were wrong about that one, but that’s another story.)  So why won’t they test the dinosaur bones like they routinely test those ancient mammal bones?  Only YECs are C14 testing the dinosaur bones, and they consistently find the dates to be 40,000 years or less.  So why won’t mainstream scientists (universities, museums, research facilities, etc.) test the bones themselves for C14 and publish their results, if only to prove the YECs are the nutcases they purport them to be? Here’s why.  They know the YECs are right.  Even though YECs don’t believe C14 is foolproof, they do believe even a broken scale can be used to determine if two things weigh about the same.  A 40,000 year old dinosaur bone immediately destroys the theory of evolution, not because the bone is 40,000 years old, but because that shows that dinosaurs and man coexisted, which evolutionists have for over a hundred years called an impossibility, and derided anyone who thought otherwise.  And if it can be shown that the test that showed dinosaurs to be 65 million-year old have been inaccurate, then the whole house of radiometric cards comes crashing down.  As soon as they test those bones for C14, they know their credibility will be even more shattered than it is already by not testing them.  So they are not going to test them and simply leave it to the blind following the blind like the author of this video to ignore such questions, and hopefully distract others from even thinking about them.
Michael Medlock (3 years ago)
+Mark16:15 No.  Even if you did find "soft tissue" (which they never have, that was a falsehood presented by a poorly written science magazine and then propagated by conventional news sites who had no idea what they were writing about), you could not carbon 14 date it.  There would not be enough carbon 14 left in the sample to get a meaningful measurement.  Again, all of this was explained in the video. You are not being skeptical, you are being dogmatic. 
Mark16:15 (3 years ago)
+Michael Medlock God bless you MM (1Pet 3:9).  FYI, dino bones often have organic soft tissue in them.  C14 tests are used to date organic matter.  Mainstream scientists will C14 date the organic matter in all types of bones except if they learn that the bones are dino bones.  If they are as old as they claim, the tests should corroborate that by showing no C14 in them to test.  They will do every test on dino bones to show confirm that they are millions of years old and thus can't be less than 100,000 years old--except for that one test.  Unlike you, I'm skeptical of any scientist that refuses to do a cheap $250 test for any reason.
Michael Medlock (3 years ago)
+Mark16:15 You can't carbon date dinosaur bones, carbon dating is only accurate to about 50k years. This was explained in the video. Did you actually watch it? Or did you come here simply to post your inane blabber?
George Bond (3 years ago)
Ohh come on stop spreading lies.....there are many assumptions involved with radiometric dating i have detailed 3 below. Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like. It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means. So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be? Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks. For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions 2 and 3). Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.  For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years. Assumption 2: No Contamination The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks. Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it. Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years! Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”! New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past. For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! The assumptions on which the radioactive dating is based are not only unprovable but plagued with problems. As this article has illustrated, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations. Or inflowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rocks. In addition, the radioactive decay rates have not been constant. So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years.
MasterRobinHood (2 years ago)
+George Bond Its not the fused chromosome that makes the physical differences between chimps and humans, there are other gene differences responsible for that. It's simply the vestigial marker that makes complete sense if humans and chimps share common ancestor.  I fully expect you can fuse chromosomes with no noticeable difference, all the same genetic information is still there.
Michael Medlock (2 years ago)
+George Bond Lol nevermind.  I decided to actually read your pile of bull, and not one of your "points" is accurate in any way shape or form.  Did you just make all of that up on the fly?
Michael Medlock (2 years ago)
+George Bond  Citation or GTFO.
WildwoodClaire1 (2 years ago)
+George Bond Who knew that the world's most brilliant biologist and geneticist would grant us the privilege of his rants on YouTube?! Quick man, publish your research! You've a Nobel Prize waiting.
George Bond (2 years ago)
+Michael Medlock something else for you to ponder on Michael A man in China was found to have 44 chromosomes instead of the 46 that normal humans have, this was shown through the fusion of the 14 and 15 chromosomes. A woman in Turkey was found to have 44 also but with the 13 and 14 chromosomes fused. Both of them were perfectly normal human beings, they don't look any different. If we supposedly evolved from an ancestor of the chimpanzee why do we look so different from the chimpanzee with 48 chromosomes but these two individuals with the 44 chromosomes look no different to us. 1. In order for a mutation to result in a step forward in the evolutionary process of a species, the mutation must provide some sort of advantage to the organism. However, the evidence does not support this theory because the 44-chromosome man is, “perfectly normal in every measurable way.” Because he is no different than normal, the fact that his chromosomes have fused does not support evolution. 2. The evidence points to some of the genetic information being lost (not created) as a result of the mutation and the fusion has resulted in some missing genes. 3. Gene fusion does not support evolutionary theory in order for it to work, the mutated population must survive while the non-mutated population would need to die out. The evidence does not support this theory in the case of the 44-chromosome man, because the likelihood of viable offspring has been greatly reduced. Evolutionists have used this as an argument to support their theory. However, because of the lack of physical differences in the man with the genetic mutation, the loss of genetic material, and the reduction of the probability of viable offspring, it provides more evidence against the theory of evolution than it does to support it. Sooooo...if a human can be a human and get by like everyone else with only 44 chromosomes, why would we need to borrow 2 chromosomes from apes? Further, medical studies show about 1 in 1,000 people have an additional fused chromosome. So, what animal does that show they evolved from? No one is touching that topic, but if their additional fusion didn't come from apes et al, why should we just assume that chromosome 2 did? Human 46 Reeves's muntjac 46 Sable antelope 46 Dolphin 44 Moon jellyfish 44  Eurasian badger 44 European rabbit 44 For my brothers and sisters, we are nothing if we don't have faith, hope and love, they abide and the greatest of these is love. Other animals with 44 chromosomes Dolphin, Moon Jellyfish, European Rabbit, Eurasian badger. Do the humans with 44 chromosomes look anything like these animals., do any of these animals look alike? Now this is a closer match in chromosomal count than chimps and humans.
George Bond (3 years ago)
I heard a number of assumption but using dendrochronology to determine the age of trees by counting rings? Come on thats been proven inaccurate. Now who is calling who a liar? Dishonesty is easy to expose. Scientific fact is Observable, Measurable, Repeatable. Are the radiometric methods to determine the age Observable - No Measurable - possibly but with huge variation Repeatable - ABSOLUTELY NOT A DIFFERENT ANSWER IS ARRIVED AT Hence Radiometric dating methods cant be relied on to give a scientific fact. Q.E.D
Soleil Bleu (3 years ago)
Interesting, really. Just a fact missing : the Bible never says that the Earth is only 6 000 old..
sponge head (1 month ago)
DeFreshS10 Fictional my ass! Who told you anything in the Bible was suppose to be taken as fictional? The story of exodus has been proven! Look up Ron Wyatt! You need eyes and ears!
Grant Knott (3 months ago)
That's assuming that "day" mentioned in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day, which it's not
Grant Knott (3 months ago)
You're so right. It does say, however, that man (after quite a bit of mathematics and long study) has been on earth for around 6000
Christian James (3 years ago)
I would like to know how one would determine that someone is certainly bankrupt in regards to morality apart from the Christian God?
Christian James (2 years ago)
+NotAkira No worries my friend :) - I'm pretty busy with Christ, family, and work so take your time catch up on your studies. Honestly you don't need to respond to everything (though I appreciate when you do as I appreciate that respect as I hope can see in my long responses I respect you :) ).  Like I said we might either agree to finish up the convo or shorten our responses as I know everyone including Jeffrey is pretty busy with life, etc. And I think we understand at least more where we stand regarding worldview.  Grace and peace to you. I pray your studies go well. And I'm both anxious and looking forward to hearing from you in the near future. God bless you Luke :) (I mean that).
NotAkira (2 years ago)
And yes I do accept that there have been 'greenhouse Earth' periods when the planet was much warmer :) I remember a uni class mentioned that there was one in the Pennsylvanian, and another in the (I think) late Cretaceous. The former, the Pennsylvanian, is the second half of the Carboniferous period: named as such because heaps of carbon was produced (modern coal deposits) by an era of proliferating plants that produced massive amounts of biomass. Periods when it was so warm that there was no ice at the poles :) It's pretty awesome - with no water stored in ice at the poles, the ocean level was 200-300m higher, and we can find fossilized beaches way up that high.
Jeffrey Russell Jr (2 years ago)
+NotAkira Good luck Luke.
NotAkira (2 years ago)
I'm a week and a half behind in my studies, trying to power through my material. I'm definitely looking forward to coming back to this thread in a few days though, reading and responding to everything. <3 I also haven't forgotten that I still need to read and address the end of that message, on inductive reasoning Christian :) I wont be long
Jeffrey Russell Jr (2 years ago)
Hey Luke, do you hold that the earth was once tropical?
SpecialCrunch (3 years ago)
Why exactly is that every time they carbon dated dinosaurs, they only were only about 29,000-36,000 years old? Isn't that a little odd?
SpecialCrunch (2 years ago)
+Philip Frikov Plus that guy studies UFOs so he has nothing to do with this.
SpecialCrunch (2 years ago)
+Philip Frikov If you're talking to me read the conversation above.
Philip Frikov (2 years ago)
Read some fucking Richard M. Dolan will you.. #HejaSverige
SpecialCrunch (3 years ago)
You're an idiot. You clearly haven't read all of the comments above cause if you did you would have noticed that I recalled what I said here. Did you even read the LAST comment I sent to you? This time actually READ the comments above if you really think that I never said "Oh yeah I've already dis proven that comment, (refering to the main comment) I just forgot about it."
d muir (3 years ago)
brief quantum fluctuations investigating other brief quantum fluctuations and then arguing about the results, fuck off and do some dmt
UreNat BEATS (3 years ago)
Sounds like there's a lot of smart people and young ones to But I still wonder why then do we allow this ting to be taught In schools put a stop to it let's unite people. Swag by check out my beats dunno
Keith Diaz (3 years ago)
So there's problems w/dating system. And they do work if all the star are aligned. What?
Rosanna Miller (18 days ago)
Ikr?!?
dareal575 (3 years ago)
HAHA THE IDIOT WHO MADE THIS VIDEO, so stupid he doesnt know the philosophy of the crap this video is saying, like in the end, what? religious dogmatic and theocratic? ermm hello? wanna make moral judgements about dark ages? hang on Mr Psuedo-scientist, WHICH MORAL STANDARD are you using to judge the right and wrongs of these religious people? where is your reference point by which you use to decide what anyone does if its good or evil? Dark ages? lol, are you joking? your as religious as the people you are calling dogmatic, your even worse because your fish to man Darwnist religion requires more faith than those religious people, idiots brainwashed atheist with zero science background in their education are the only ones that fall for this brainwashing  evolution nonsense. and to you sleeping morons who jump to reply things you have no understanding off, DO NOT REPLY ME BEFORE YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO WHY WE HAVE POLICE IN OUR SOCIETIES AND WHY WE HAVE LAW COURTS,when you know then answer to that then reply me giving me reason why you believe in this evolution nonsense crap, and give me a coherent answer
NotAkira (3 years ago)
+dareal575 *"WHY WE HAVE POLICE IN OUR SOCIETIES AND WHY WE HAVE LAW COURTS"* --- Civilized societies have them to attempt to enforce the laws that society has agreed on. *" then reply me giving me reason why you believe in this evolution nonsense"* --- Evidence, I'm passingly familiar with DNA being independently incredibly powerful evidence for evolution, but I've put far more research into the fossil record. It's awesome, and it shows us the evolution of basically every kind of animal. Typically thousands of transitional forms for every kind of animal with a skeleton - not so good for soft bodied things. *"WHICH MORAL STANDARD are you using to judge the right and wrongs of these religious people?* --- I use my own moral values, and the standard is in the definition, in what I mean when I call something immoral. I use it as a synonym of 'cruel'. The standard is if someone willingly harms another. That's what I'm describing about an action when I say it's immoral. (I'm not saying it's against some group's rules, like the laws of a country. I'm describing the physical and psychological things going on.)
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+dareal575 "if i am the one who has the upper hand and doing the kidnapping and killing why should i care what the victims think?" -YOU specifically wouldn't but that SOCIETY does have a problem with it. Just because murders happen, doesnt mean the people endorse it. That is like i said "just because some christians are bigots and racists doesnt mean other christians are content with it". "THE ONES WHO ARE KIDNAPPED, whose standard are they using to judge the wrong doing? " -Society as a whole.  "where in the bible does it say you can be a bigot and a racist" -Oh my god where should i begin? how about women are propety? how about *non-hebrew* people are less than hebrews, how about slavery being ok? have you ever read the bible? do you know that the bible was used to condone slavery in the american south? " would jesus the one Christians follow allow racism and bigotry" -Considering jesus is god, and god wrote the bible, and slavery is in the bible, and god allows racism and created racism...then yes, jesus allows it.  " if one is being racist or a bigot, its got nothing to do with Christianity" -Tell that to the KKK who are super religious and very racist/bigoted... "if evolution is true, what is wrong with racism and bigotry?" -lol "were"? you mean "IS" and secondly, just like i said before, our society see's nothing wrong with being racist or bigoted...you casnbelieve what you want, it is only when people ACT on those beliefs do we see a problem with it. "why should anyone care about anyone feelings if all we are is time plus chance plus matter" -Because we are put on this earth to keep the survival of our species and to live happy healthy lives.. that doesnt happen when one color of people is killing another just out of hate.  "when you look around does it look like people care" -Yea it does. There are plenty of secular organizations that do good for this world WITHOUT a religion.  "ts idiots like you that go around saying we dont need Einstein to tell me e=mc2," -When have i ever said that? or are you generalizing all atheists into one catagory now?
dareal575 (3 years ago)
+DeFreshS10 are you dumb? see the inconsistency of the crap coming from you, if i am the one who has the upper hand and doing the kidnapping and killing why should i care what the victims think? if im right in my eyes, why should i care especially if i can do it with impunity? CAN YOU ANSWER ME THIS THEN, THE ONES WHO ARE KIDNAPPED, whose standard are they using to judge the wrong doing? and about the bigotry or racism of a christian??looool, you are so thick its unreal, your argument confirms the truthfulness of Christianity lol, ill explain why, 1ST explain what a christian is? a follower of christ and the bible, where in the bible does it say you can be a bigot and a racist? 2nd, would jesus the one Christians follow allow racism and bigotry? if the answer is no to both questions that means if one is being racist or a bigot, its got nothing to do with Christianity, wake up moron, use your brain, you cant judge a philosophy by its abuse, 3RD, if evolution is true, what is wrong with racism and bigotry? why should anyone care about anyone feelings if all we are is time plus chance plus matter? when you look around does it look like people care ? educate yourself, its idiots like you that go around saying we dont need Einstein to tell me e=mc2, well of course you dont need him to tell you that now, cause he told your predecessors what it was  so now you know and you claim his unneeded , what a joke
dareal575 (3 years ago)
are you dumb? see the inconsistency of the crap coming from you, if i am the one who has the upper hand and doing the kidnapping and killing why should i care what the victims think? if im right in my eyes, why should i care especially if i can do it with impunity? CAN YOU ANSWER ME THIS THEN, THE ONES WHO ARE KIDNAPPED, whose standard are they using to judge the wrong doing? and about the bigotry or racism of a christian??looool, you are so thick its unreal, your arguement confirms the truthfulness of christianity lol, ill explain why, 1ST explain what a christian? a follower of christ and the bible, where in the bible does it say you can be a bigot and a racist? 2nd, would jesus the one christians follow allow racism and bigotry? if the answer is no to both questions that means if one is being racist or a bigot, its got nothing to do with christianity, wake up moron, use your brain, you cant judge a philosophy by its abuse, 3RD, if evolution is true, what is wrong with racism and bigotry? why should anyone care about anyones feelings if all we are is time plus chance plus matter? when you look around does it look like people care ? educate yourself, its idiots like you that go around saying we dont need Einstein to tell me e=mc2, well of course you dont need him to tell you that now, cause he told your predecessors what it was  so now you know and you claim his unneeded , what a joke
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+dareal575 "in papua new gunie their societies will kidnap and kill neighboring village tribes, so they agree and thats their morali" -Do you really think the people who are getting kidnapped and killed are ok with this happening? no, moron, then it is not OK. just like it is ok for most christians to be bigots and racists, doesnt mean every American is. 
not use (3 years ago)
Carbon dating ia very inaccurate laws of science still show a young earrh its not 1% inaccurate they dont know at the contate rate its been at so tho it is flawed big time
NotAkira (3 years ago)
+servant of Christ Carbon dating does work, it's very accurate and they do know the decay rate. They have checked it against things of known age, many many times. Historically recorded and dated events within the last 3000 years prove carbon dating is very accurate within that range, just for starters. Then there are tree rings, etc.
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+servant of Christ Can you call jesus christ and pray for him to give you a better understanding of how grammar works? Also we dont carbon date the earth
Bradley Long (3 years ago)
Did you not just watch the video?😂
bluekron77 (3 years ago)
Dogmatic rule? Seriously... Believing everything came from nothing takes more faith.
DeFreshS10 (28 days ago)
Also, "people who agree that Evolution is a sound theory" do not say anything about *Where life came from, or where Anything came from* So try again.
DeFreshS10 (28 days ago)
That is not an actual word.
kekistani bear (28 days ago)
+DeFreshS10 evolutionist
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+bluekron77 Who said anything about "something coming from nothing"???
Part-Time Vegan (3 years ago)
Clever But do you really think can prove certain elements were equally dispersed throughout the solar system with a few rocks...lol  Do you realize how many reactions and repulsions that could take place if all the matter known in the universe just suddenly exploded from an infinitesimal dot? lol Man if you can convince yourself  that this really happened you might as well believe in God, because this "theoretical science" takes some major faith!
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+almost atheist Good luck to ya
Part-Time Vegan (3 years ago)
Unfortunately the conversation ends here....I'm just not sure I have the time to look up information for you, though once I start making videos again I will cite my sources, though at least now you know in what direction to look. Just for 30 minutes pretend you are a creationist looking to debunk carbon 14 dating, in fact just type in radio metric dating debunked...I hope you truly are searching for the truth and perhaps once you see the flaws in dating methods ill explain how the other "evidence" for evolution stands on shaky grounds at best. Until then I wish you the best rather you choose to search or not.
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+almost atheist dude i looked for it, but couln't find what you were referencing. I'm not asking to be spoon fed, i am asking to give me something to read because i cannot find in on google. 
Part-Time Vegan (3 years ago)
I am not about to spoon feed you evidence, this is a repetitive attribute I noticed in atheists, they're too lazy to venture into contrary evidence which explicitly unfair being all the time I spent researching opposing evidence; though it's not just for the accolades of knowledge it's for the pursuit for the truth, if you value such matters then delve into such views and see for yourself. Then ill discuss this topic with you.
DeFreshS10 (3 years ago)
+almost atheist Couldn't find anything on google. How about you point me to where i need to read and i will read it. 
MegaRoo (3 years ago)
This pseudoscience nut defines carbon dating as measuring the amount of Carbon in a rock or fossil. No scientist has EVER carbon dated a rock or fossil, because neither contain carbon In the first place. Rocks are inorganic and fossils are minerals who have settled in the space left by the bone of a living animal or plane. You can't carbon date either of these things.
Dave Von Saunder (6 months ago)
He’s referring to radiometric dating via the use of other elements.
The Engineer (6 months ago)
Megan Hess False! They drilled Carbon Dating Fossils into my head in Geology and Biology. The name of the chapter was called "Carbon Dating Fossils"
Dave Von Saunder (8 months ago)
He never said you can date a rock using carbon 14 or other isotopes of carbon.
gamesbok (3 years ago)
+I'm a Christian, Deal with it Nobody dates fossils with Carbon 14.
God Exists (3 years ago)
Terrible ending. The dark ages were not because of true Christians. Catholics and other orthodox killed and persecuted true Christians and others. The Amish fled such persecution. Those who want us back into dark ages are false Christians, pagans and Satanists. And they still engage the world in dark ages wars today.
Belz Weis (16 days ago)
Oh yes true Christians i bet you know all about that being one *cough *cough. 😂
Justwantahover (3 months ago)
+DeF Taking something that was supposedly evil and making it something else.
Nicholas Pereiro (5 months ago)
Miguelitoλτ You’re using that fallacy wrong buddy you can’t just be a Christian if you say you are
Lexicon Capacitor (9 months ago)
The Amish are no more true Christians than the Muslims are Orthodox Christianity is the only true Christianity and Catholicism was just a breach for power that's only the Orthodox that have kept the faith consistent through the centuries

Would you like to comment?

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