HomeРазвлеченияRelated VideosMore From: Viced Rhino

Re - Radiometric Dating Debunked in 3 Minutes

1841 ratings | 49835 views
Genesis Apologetics decided that they can debunk all of radiometric dating in 3 minutes...except they only touch on one of the more than 40 methods, and they get almost everything about it wrong. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/vicedrhino Twitter: https://twitter.com/VicedRhino Minds: https://www.minds.com/VicedRhino Sources: Mt. St. Helen's Dating information: http://bit.ly/2rOh1E3 Radioactive decay fluctuations: http://bit.ly/2tKGwm7 Excess argon in K-Ar and Ar-Ar geochronology: http://bit.ly/2snmYqa Reliability of Geologic Dating: http://bit.ly/2sT3gny Backgrounds by: https://vimeo.com/beeple Music: Thor's Hammer by Ethan Meixsell Original Video: http://bit.ly/2sKCmtE Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use” and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching, and parody.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (581)
Viced Rhino (1 year ago)
Apparently I've been forgetting to put my sources in the description box recently. That has been corrected for this video.
Yonatan Beer (5 months ago)
ResidentMilf Trump is a great president, I don't get why people don't like him
Marilyn Newman (6 months ago)
bob dylon please post sober.
ResidentMilf (1 year ago)
Donald Kronos You know, if every single person who voted for one to keep the other out had just voted third party... we'd probably still have Trump in office because the USA is a representative democracy, not a "pure" democracy, BUT then either the libertarian party or the green party (possibly both) would have become a legit option in future elections, preventing this shit from happening again. Maybe. But probably not because people are fucking stupid.
Nowi Green (1 year ago)
ugh they didn't even have comments enable those spineless swine.
Donald Kronos (1 year ago)
Viced Rhino — Actually at 10:30 what you state would not have happened if the people were better informed about climate change, would likely have happened anyway. There is a larger problem involved in that the people were presented with the two most unwanted and feared candidates in history and told that the only way to prevent either of them from winning was to vote for the other… and way too many people fell for it, which makes perfect sense for each individual that did fall for it because that individual not falling for it would not have changed the outcome since so many OTHERS fell for it. We really need the option to vote DIRECTLY AGAINST A CANDIDATE in such cases, so that the voter's dissent can be properly counted against the candidate they want to prevent getting elected rather than for the candidate they probably don't want but are convinced is the only one who can beat the one they're most against.
zipjay (4 days ago)
goo to me and you by way of the zoo? XD i gotta hand it to em that's hilarious
don emerson (16 days ago)
Hey VR, Just wondering if, you believe the Universe is expanding?
Gift of God (19 days ago)
Eric Hovind uses redtube!
Rose Black (23 days ago)
Direct from AiG, it was potassium argon dating. Spent nearly an hour researching this topic, led to something about lead gasses being trapped in magma interfering with uranium dating. I had to stop because I got lost and wanted to ask my geology professor. Thought better of placing a long distance unsolicited call.
WolfoftheWest (1 month ago)
Fluck you too
Thomas Heydrick (1 month ago)
Well fluc you too!
A quick note: observing an object 13 billion lightyears away does not mean that the universe must be at least 13 billion years old due to expansion, although that alone puts the age of the universe well past thousands of years anyway. I heard a similar point on another video, and chalked it off as an easy mistake (because it _is_ an easy mistake to make), but now it bothered me to hear it again. Anyways, good stuff, and keep it precise!
Ken Christiansen (1 month ago)
The bible talks about koalas? Citation please.
Griexxt (20 days ago)
The story of Noah's ark. All "kinds" of animals, presumably including Koalas, were on the ark.
Ken Walter (1 month ago)
People think that volcanos create rocks that are the same "age" as the eruption? Like a born on date from Budweiser? Wow!
John Smith (1 month ago)
Got a creationist ad on this video
aggese (1 month ago)
All of the rocks he says is young is vulcanic and he likely give the age after solidification but likely the long dating is basically the age of the magma or something like that
Ethan Wanamaker (1 month ago)
I like how he mentions viewing galaxies with a telescope. I view m81 and m82 all the time and they are over 11 million light years away. There was even a supernova event a few years ago that you could see; which means the supernova actually happened over 11 million years ago but we only could view it now because the light has been traveling that amount of time in a vacuum. RIP young earth P.s. You can see Andromeda with the naked eye if you're at a dark enough spot and know what your looking for!
Wyatt Duncan (1 month ago)
You mentioned the Iliad. Have you ever considered that the Bible was written in a similar fashion or for a similar reason? Or that the Bible was just meant to be poetic or something of the sorts? And that then a religion grew from it? Just a thought experiment. Not really a belief but I think it's cool to think about.
Ernest (1 month ago)
"debunked in 3 minutes" *video 15 minutes long*
S Thompson (1 month ago)
Well i was there checkmate genesis apologetics. Were you there no? Guess you gotta believe me. Love your videos rhino
Eric Doan (1 month ago)
Please keep making videos, creationists put up a billboard in our city. It says "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." It's already been vandalised 😂
Gift of God (19 days ago)
If it was in the Bible belt, I guarantee officials would search for whoever vandalized it. If an atheist billboard got vandalized, though, no one would bat an eye or believe God himself did it.
thismaineliving (1 month ago)
HAHAHA you just proved God to me. Lol HAHA I was thinking that you really should put in out takes when you flub lines or start swearing cause you have to re-read a part over again, and wahlah GOD put an outtake at the end of this video !!!! So happy right now lol
Gift of God (19 days ago)
It's just not the God of the Bible.
Rapppid X (1 month ago)
“My money’s on the one supported with a shit ton of evidence” (1:55 min) That’s such a stupid argument! Who needs evidence and solid proof when we have a buy-bull which tells us that the thing with no evidence is the most trustworthy thing in existence and is in need of no evidence to prove itself! Can’t believe that you’re so blind. I thought rhinos 🦏 were smarter than that.
OriginalSparkstar (1 month ago)
My question to Genesis Apologetics would be (and sorry if you dont allow this) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Fh5NGXDPw
Markus Rochin (2 months ago)
I’ve never really been a fan of dating. I am more into arranged marriages.
Alcyon Eldara (2 months ago)
Math and physics teacher here. I had to teach the method in a few of my classes. Radiometric formula is simple : number of atoms left = number of atoms at t=0 * 2^(-time passed/half-life time). When the time is 1/1000th of the half-life, you are checking if 0.07% of the material has decayed. But that's not the whole story, we can do a precise measure, but let's look at the Potassium-Argon method. We cannot count the number of atoms in a sample. We'd need to look at an atomic level. So we measure the activity of a sample and compare to a "new" sample. The activity is proportionnal to the number of radioactive atoms, in this case Potassium 40. And in a sample of "new" Potassium, there is 0.0117% of Potassium 40. So we are rougly talking about a difference in activity of less than 0.00001%. 1 part in 100 millions. This is within the marging of error, we when a retarded creationnist says "few million years old dur dur doesn't work dur dur" a TRUE scientist will say "between 0 and several million years old". So not only are they doing something stupid, but they are lying. That's like trying to measure a cell with a ruler. Or the distance between 2 cities. Of course you'll get a stupid answer.
Innocent Gamer (2 months ago)
Following this creationist's general line of thinking, we can assume that the best course of action would be to toss forensic science out the window.
John Goldberg (2 months ago)
Yeah, Donald has many flaws. Oh well.
mobinblack (2 months ago)
Can you debunk Jason Lials explanation on the distant starlight problem?
Griexxt (2 months ago)
I'm guessing they would be all over radiometric dating like a cheap Italian suit if a piece of wood proclaimed to be the cross that Jesus died on was tested and found to be 2000 years old.
Querty Uiop (2 months ago)
I got a religious advert before this. The irony is making me die inside.
wakcedout (2 months ago)
Many of the important discoveries were made in an attempt to prove creation despite inevitably disproving it....sooo they kinda get that point on their side sorta maybe
jpm5243 (2 months ago)
Uniformitarianism is a faith-based belief.
ab davey (2 months ago)
Argh,.. 32 hrs without sleep, was wondering why the rhino was doing a video about dating.. (romance)
Adam C. (2 months ago)
Science can fly us to the moon...religion can fly us into buildings in NYC.
larsthegunslinger (3 months ago)
if another stupid motherfucker tries to use mount St. Helen.......ima slap a bitch.
Tletna (3 months ago)
Despite hating the hate spewed by anti-theists (and disguise it as you may, it is hatred), I like certain aspects to their videos. I used to watch them just because I was argumentative and wanted to argue. I still am argumentative, but I am wise enough now to actually pay attention to the videos and comments to try to gain wisdom from them. Generally, as with some of your videos sadly, the videos and comments made by the anti-theists are simply straw man arguments (yes, picking on delusional or scientifically illiterate young earthers is mean and constitutes a straw man). However, on occasion, I learn useful information. And, whether the video maker/comment maker is right or wrong, I gain insight into the minds of atheists and anti-theists alike. And, while I am "Christian" in a sense and do believe in the teachings of Jeshua/Jesus whatever name you want to give him and I do wish to be a servant of God, I also recognize the corruption rampant within the church. It existed in the time of Jesus and it exists now. This is why I view some of these videos because I believe the church and many of its followers are blind to this corruption whereas critics of the church are not only not blind to it but they will even make up some where it doesn't actually exist.
Tletna (3 months ago)
This video assumes the science at many points. And, while scientific methods are *mostly* reliable, they are fallible. Also, I had to watch your whole video to make sure, but both your video and the video it critiques *grossly* oversimplifies and misrepresents radiometric dating. Everyone seems to do this. At least you are intellectually honest enough to admit that it can have problems though and at least you explain the possible causes unlike the person in the video you critique. So, props for that much at least.
The common cold virus (3 months ago)
The only way I can see a rock dropped being launched into orbit is through the GTAV physics engine.
Robert Lachance (3 months ago)
Yay! ^^ more creationists lying thier butts off
Mister Itchy (3 months ago)
Fluc u too buddy! Great video!
Lisa For Truth (3 months ago)
LOL. I troll Kent; but I don't give a damn about Kent. I'm trying to reach some of his followers
Timmo Napier (3 months ago)
Outstanding debunk except......... No Alex Kingston....That's far more upsetting than that theistic drivel you had to correct!
B Jack (3 months ago)
See Dick drink, see Dick drive, see Dick die, don't be a Dick!
Green Eyed Villain (3 months ago)
If everything we see today was the result of a spinning dot billions of years ago,l, keeping in mind the conservation of angular momentum, explain to me how do two of our planets rotate backwards? And how are they so perfectly aligned with each other?
Marilyn Newman (3 months ago)
Tonight at 11:00 June 21st 2018 l saw a moon l had never seen before. A 3/8th moon.
craig frascone (4 months ago)
So why is the moon dust 0.04 inches .So your tell me it took 4.5 billion years to put 0.04 inch of dust on the moon you'er dumb as shit your theory is flawed
Griexxt (2 months ago)
Here's what the Institute for Creation Research says: "Using a figure published in 1960 of 14,300,000 tons per year as the meteoritic dust influx rate to the earth, creationists have argued that the thin dust layer on the moon’s surface indicates that the moon, and therefore the earth and solar system, are young. Furthermore, it is also often claimed that before the moon landings there was considerable fear that astronauts would sink into a very thick dust layer, but subsequently scientists have remained silent as to why the anticipated dust wasn’t there. An attempt is made here to thoroughly examine these arguments, and the counter arguments made by detractors, in the light of a sizable cross-section of the available literature on the subject. Of the techniques that have been used to measure the meteoritic dust influx rate, chemical analyses (of deep sea sediments and dust in polar ice), and satellite-borne detector measurements appear to be the most reliable. However, upon close examination the dust particles range in size from fractions of a micron in diameter and fractions of a microgram in mass up to millimeters and grams, whence they become part of the size and mass range of meteorites. Thus the different measurement techniques cover different size and mass ranges of particles, so that to obtain the most reliable estimate requires an integration of results from different techniques over the full range of particle masses and sizes. When this is done, most current estimates of the meteoritic dust influx rate to the earth fall in the range of 10,000–20,000 tons per year, although some suggest this rate could still be as much as up to 100,000 tons per year. Apart from the same satellite measurements, with a focusing factor of two applied so as to take into account differences in size and gravity between the earth and moon, two main techniques for estimating the lunar meteoritic dust influx have been trace element analyses of lunar soils, and the measuring and counting of microcraters produced by impacting micrometeorites on rock surfaces exposed on the lunar surface. Both these techniques rely on uniformitarian assumptions and dating techniques. Furthermore, there are serious discrepancies between the microcrater data and the satellite data that remain unexplained, and that require the meteoritic dust influx rate to be higher today than in the past. But the crater-saturated lunar highlands are evidence of a higher meteorite and meteoritic dust influx in the past. Nevertheless, the estimates of the current meteoritic dust influx rate to the moon’s surface group around a figure of about 10,000 tons per year. Prior to direct investigations, there was much debate amongst scientists about the thickness of dust on the moon. Some speculated that there would be very thick dust into which astronauts and their spacecraft might “disappear," while the majority of scientists believed that there was minimal dust cover. Then NASA sent up rockets and satellites and used earth-bound radar to make measurements of the meteoritic dust influx, results suggesting there was only sufficient dust for a thin layer on the moon. In mid-1966 the Americans successively soft-landed five Surveyor spacecraft on the lunar surface, and so three years before the Apollo astronauts set foot on the moon NASA knew that they would only find a thin dust layer on the lunar surface into which neither the astronauts nor their spacecraft would “disappear.” This was confirmed by the Apollo astronauts, who only found up to a few inches of loose dust. The Apollo investigations revealed a regolith at least several meters thick beneath the loose dust on the lunar surface. This regolith consists of lunar rock debris produced by impacting meteorites mixed with dust, some of which is of meteoritic origin. Apart from impacting meteorites and micrometeorites it is likely that there are no other lunar surface processes capable of both producing more dust and transporting it. It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
craig frascone (4 months ago)
you dont no shit haha
"from goo to me and you" is wrong, you and me is the correct usage.
justin Mccurry (4 months ago)
7:20 mark. Haha diamonds baby. Don’t break, really old and rise in the magma vents
Benjamin Kimberlin (4 months ago)
Dr. Steve Austin 3:16 says I just whipped Evolution's ass!
Thomas Thornhill (4 months ago)
Rocks blown out of a volcano were not necessarily created at the time the volcano erupted.
Israel Vazquez (4 months ago)
no method is the correct method. is all a con. wake up people
Morgana Sundelin (4 months ago)
3,5% dislike ratio, nice job!
Terence Clark (4 months ago)
No, man. Fluck you. Kidding, of course. Great vid!
Peter Smafield (4 months ago)
Genesis Apologetics blatantly lie in order to support their false religions. All Christian apologists ignore facts that are supported with rational data and make up and use fake shit and pretend that it’s some kind of science. Never trust a Christian apologists.
Robert de Bath (5 months ago)
I thought I'd heard it before: https://www.amazon.com/Goo-You-Way-Zoo/dp/0800751744 it's an old hater book from the '70s or '80s
Eta pro (5 months ago)
@Viced Rhino have you cone out as a atheist with your family yet, I'm finding it really hard to find the right way and I'm wonder if I even should , if apprecate advice thanks
olearris (5 months ago)
Dominic Mahoney (5 months ago)
Hi, love your videos. I can believe anything though. Its like a have conditioned my imagination to overule logical thought. It has advantages, and disadvantages. But Im not special, anyone can condition their own imagination with years of practice...Although there is little benefit :-)
TheReaverOfDarkness (5 months ago)
*"Are you aware of a study where the radiometric age of a rock agreed with the known age of the rock?"* Yes. https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating "When we know the age of a sample through archaeology or historical sources, the C-14 method (as corrected by bristlecone pines) agrees with the age within the known margin of error. For instance, Egyptian artifacts can be dated both historically and by radiocarbon, and the results agree. At first, archaeologists used to complain that the C-14 method must be wrong, because it conflicted with well-established archaeological dates; but, as Renfrew has detailed, the archaeological dates were often based on false assumptions. One such assumption was that the megalith builders of western Europe learned the idea of megaliths from the Near-Eastern civilizations. As a result, archaeologists believed that the Western megalith-building cultures had to be younger than the Near Eastern civilizations. Many archaeologists were skeptical when Ferguson's calibration with bristlecone pines was first published, because, according to his method, radiocarbon dates of the Western megaliths showed them to be much older than their Near-Eastern counterparts. However, as Renfrew demonstrated, the similarities between these Eastern and Western cultures are so superficial that - page 29 - the megalith builders of western Europe invented the idea of megaliths independently of the Near East. So, in the end, external evidence reconciles with and often confirms even controversial C-14 dates. One of the most striking examples of different dating methods confirming each other is Stonehenge. C-14 dates show that Stonehenge was gradually built over the period from 1900 BC to 1500 BC, long before the Druids, who claimed Stonehenge as their creation, came to England. Astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon (for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer). Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C-14 dates."
José Hunter (5 months ago)
The Andromeda Galaxy is visible with the naked eye under semi-ideal conditions.
José Hunter (5 months ago)
I respect that you don't want to engage in virtual pan-handling.
Professor Games (5 months ago)
Hi Rihno. Ok in regards to the climate change denyle thing. I'm going to put my place on that simply. I don't refute that the climate changes, but I do have reason to suspect that there are factors that obscure weather it's humans that are causing it. Do I think we've had no effect? No, but I do want to stress while Science is a great method, it can be twisted and cherry picked by more than just the religious. I know I'm gonna get some heat for this but please take what I say with constructive criticism. I'm not denying climate change, natural or synthetic, but I do think which is contributing more too our climate changing is blurred. I speak as no expert in this regard, and I don't wish to straw man anything. I understand if this is harder than the usual debunk of creationist nonsense, but I do think it merits some form of discussion with another advocate of science if you decide to read and reply to this Thank you and many other channels like yourself for helping to keep critical thought alive
SuperZ Animations (5 months ago)
God used humans to write the books of the Bible
Magolomaniac (5 months ago)
Hey Rhino, It is not for me to say but I will say it anyway. No need to say "I am not a scientist". In my opinion (and I am a scientist) all you need to be a scientist is the right state of mind - it is how you think, not the job you do. Your take-downs of these guys are elegant, cogent and articulate - exactly what a scientist would do (and we have all put the decimal point in the wrong place on occasion!). Keep up the beautiful destructions....you are truly a scientist,
Gift of God (19 days ago)
Does that come with a good salary?
Viced Rhino (5 months ago)
Thanks, I appreciate that 😁
Niklas Brütting (6 months ago)
Actually the Universe should be much older. These Stars didn't pop into existence where we see them now.
Israel Vazquez (6 months ago)
Im calling you out. You are wrong and Radiometric dating is not reliable science
Keith Whitehead (6 months ago)
How do Christians reconcile their grossly misleading videos with "thou shalt not bear false witness" ?
Marilyn Newman (6 months ago)
WildwoodClaire1 is a geologist. She asked a creationist why the gas and oil companies don't go to them for their great knowledge instead of geologists. LOL
MegaMichael122 (6 months ago)
My biology professor talked like the christian in this video. What a bunch of time wasting that class turned out to be
Jeannette E (6 months ago)
You gave the guy credit for his goo to me and you comment... that’s the title of a book published in 1984. He ripped that off... “From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo” by Harold Hill, Mary Elizabeth Rogers, and Irene Burk Harrell. It’s critical of evolution, which is probably why I have heard the title before... I was one of those people.
AAA X (6 months ago)
Crap! You failed to debunk a 3 min. debunk video, and you took over 15 min. to do it.
kweassa (7 months ago)
the typical crapshit "observational science vs. historical science" bullshit creation zombies use... *sigh*
fedos (7 months ago)
This video is worth watching just for that tweet replying to Eric Hovind.
Noob Saibot (7 months ago)
WOW! listen to yourself between 8-9 mins. Unfortunately not even one of the commonly used dating methods has been shown to give the correct date for a rock of known age. Your answer to this is contamination? really? just the young rocks though right? You described science as believing in something then looking for the evidence to credit it. Look all you want, but when you find no evidence, you are left with a hypothesis, or belief. NB - You do choose your beliefs. You are not living in a simulation. If you can't find any information, you should do some reading. There are numerous scientific papers written on dating recently formed rock. Believe it or not; they're not all creationists and they use independent accredited laboratories for the analyses.
daniel cruize (7 months ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIZo4o77kRI - GOOD LUCK
Jim Fortune (7 months ago)
Fluck U2
Lady D (7 months ago)
If it hasn't already been done, I think someone should do the following experiment: Gather the sort of rocks that volcanoes produce (the word for which my brain is refusing to retrieve at the moment). Test their age. Heat til molten. Cool. Retest. Compare before and after ages.
def Py 3.6 (7 months ago)
Am I the only one that wants a creationist to argue with viced rhino in the comment section
Brad Miller (7 months ago)
I really enjoy your videos. I’ve noticed on several occasions you compare climate change ‘deniers’ to other crazy people in your videos. Any thoughts on making a video explaining this very simple subject that clearly anyone should be able to understand if they had just been properly exposed to science? From the sounds of your confidence in its simplicity, it should only take a couple minutes.
Brad Miller (7 months ago)
I respectfully disagree. I’ve spent some time on NASAs site as well as others and they seem very light on raw data and heavy on doomsday outcomes. There are reasonable questions regarding certain climate change claims, that continue to be left unanswered. It would be nice to have someone who answers questions as concisely as you do answer some of the issues that climate deniers bring up. 🙂👍 Plus, consider this: The U.S. is being told to fork over $80 Billion a year to a world organization that appears completely unaccountable for what outcomes that money will have. You might imagine how it’s easy to grow skeptical.
Viced Rhino (7 months ago)
There's plenty of real evidence out there, and it is super easy to find. I suggest a basic google search for the words "climate change evidence" The NASA site on climate change will definitely be in the top results, I suggest you start there.
Brad Miller (7 months ago)
That’s actually some of the best evidence I’ve heard.
Viced Rhino (7 months ago)
God creates natural disasters where there is sexual immorality. Penguins are sexual freaks, so god is warming up the earth to ruin their habitat. Boom. Climate change.
David Parry (7 months ago)
_Religious Logic 101_ Rocks cannot be dated with 100% accuracy... *therefore a jewish zombie was the result of a magic rape-ghost fucking a poor carpenter's young wife and women were made from a mud-man's rib by a magic gardener sometime around the time the Chinese were inventing money and accountancy.*
TPG (7 months ago)
I'll gladly go to Hell if it will keep those spiritually snooty and scientifically stunted Christians away from me.
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
always uses the wrong dating method 😢 #ForeverAlone
April Kester (7 months ago)
It's also very illegal to date young samples.
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
April Kester ^ 5 !
Dark Razor (7 months ago)
I mean if you research there is historical scientific evidence of Jesus and his rebirth in the shroud of Turan which told us reactions of the body and knowledge of the crucification process that people didn't even know but when researched by someone unfamiliar with these things they came to the same findings it's actually changed completely the understanding of crucification but sadly since its something that is god related it's not real. Taught about as much despite it being proven via the scientific method
Dark Razor (7 months ago)
Not to be that guy but it does kind of seem you are taking a lot of this on faith too scientific faith instead of spiritual though
mr_kruchten (7 months ago)
And more proof that earth is older than 6,000 years is that there is evidence of the first human civilization 12,000 years ago
Aaron Venia (8 months ago)
I drop-kicked a rock into orbit. Were you there? Prove me wrong, bitch! Lol :)
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
Aaron Venia calls the wrestler / actor .... he is not in orbit. But he would like you to try to kick him into orbit 😊
Stephen Housman (8 months ago)
My favorite questions for those not believing in evolution and only the bible. So if Adam and Eve were the only humans and had 2 sons Cane and Able where did everyone else came from? Did God make more humans outside the garden? If not did Cane have sex with his mom?
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
Stephen Housman incest is popular in the bible 😊 Adam & Eve ('s children), Noah ('s grandchildren; first cousins), Lot and his daughters ...... 🎶 we are family
Ernoskij (8 months ago)
HAHAHAHA That is the best twitter trolling I have seen Viced Rhino, Hilarious XD
Mam Amheus (8 months ago)
Have you noticed how frequently creatards say "you weren't there" regarding past events for which scientific answers are available? And how they never say they were in Eden, on the Ark or watching the crucifixion? I haven't heard anyone on the rationalist side (which includes rational religious people) throw it back at them. Someone may have but I haven't heard anyone do it.
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
Mam Amheus it's been used as a reply but WE moved on (they didn't).
julia skidel (8 months ago)
Gift of God (19 days ago)
Patriot @ heart (8 months ago)
Or #4 Man is "arrogant" and couldn't fathom how "God" actually works!
KillTyrant (8 months ago)
Trump wasn't voted in because he is a climate denier but rather Clinton was an unpalletable pill to swallow.
Gift of God (19 days ago)
Adrian crow (8 months ago)
The only responce that I have for creationists is: Fuck off you ignorant mother fuckers!!! I'm so sick and tired of these ridiculous and fallacious ideas from these sorry ass excuses for human beings trying desperately to discretid logical facts with irrational and moronic stone age fairy tales. Assholes!! These fucking deuche bags have been inhibiting scientific and medical progress for thousands of years. It's shameful that society not only allows but still gives these nitwits the opportunity to spread their garbage without containment.
Debilinside (8 months ago)
This fucking argument: I didn't see so it so it didn't happen. Its elementary school level of reasoning...
Debilinside (7 months ago)
Also they accept the bible as a legit thing. Hypocrisy at its finest :D
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
Debilinside funny how that argument is not accepted by them when it comes to adultery 😈
Helmut Christian Tomas (8 months ago)
The objects that seem to be more than 6022 years old (6022 light years away) do not exist. God is constantly creating the light as it comes into the telescopes and other instruments to confuse us. Therefore he is always too busy to answer prayers or prevent all disasters and every sort of disease.
Ad Lockhorst (7 months ago)
Helmut Christian Tomas don't forget his constant masturbating 😆 He sees all (we are all live amateur porn stars to God).
andy stokes (9 months ago)
Sorry but I have my pedantic head on this morning. You say that the most distant object observed by the Hubble telescope is 13.4 billion light years away which must mean that the universe must be at least 13.4 billion years old. That's not strictly true. I'm not a scientist or a mathematician so excuse my sloppy phraseology BUT it may well be that this object is currently 13.4 billion light years away but we also know that the universe is expanding. It must follow that this object is getting further away from us and has always been getting further away. That being the case it follows that billions of years ago it was closer to us, less than the 13.4 billion light years that it currently is, so we cannot say that the universe is 13.4 billion light years away because it might be less .......... but certainly billions of years older than 6000 years.
andy stokes (7 months ago)
Yes, you are right, I have just reread my own post, I got it back to front. You are correct, the object that we see as being 13.4 billion light years away was that distance away away when the light coming from it started it's journey - that was 13.4 billion light years ago. Where that object is now is another question; if the universe is still expanding it's fair to assume that this object is now further away from us than it was 13.4 billion years ago.
Merciless Mode (7 months ago)
andy stokes Actually the observable universe hasnt changed which means the farthest observable object at 13.4 billion light years wouldve been 13.4 billion lightyears away 13.4 BILLION YEARS AGO therefor the univers is OBSERVABLY far older than that due to the fact it is expanding
pd4165 (8 months ago)
Ah, you're using Newtonian logic when you really need Einsteinian. What might really bake your noodle is that we are receding from that galaxy at more than the speed of light. I shit ye not. Even better - when the photons arrive they do not have a date of birth attached to them; you need to 'look at their teeth' (like a horse) and work it out by their 'red shift'. I'm not a cosmologist so this might be expressed badly - even though we are moving apart at more than the speed of light photons can still catch up with us by travelling through space that isn't! It all sounds bonkers AF - if creationists struggle with Big Bang then this should have them taking to the bottle/their knees because laws are being broken all over the place. This is when theories jump into telephone boxes and put their underwear over their strides...most laws mean nothing in the wild west of the universe.
Lance Zimmerman (9 months ago)
Oh nice. "Be careful! This site may be harmful. The site you are trying to visit (www.minds.com) may include malware, phishing attempts, or disturbing content."
otrame1 (9 months ago)
A long time before radiometric dating was developed, scientists were estimating the age of the earth in millions of years.  Lord Kelvin, assuming that the earth cooled at a steady rate, estimated that it was about 40 million years old (IIRC).  He died roughly 50 years before Carbon 14 dating was developed.
True is God (9 months ago)
research flat earth. there is no way to prove stars are thousands of years away .
random guy (6 months ago)
Yes there is. Also, there is no way to prove Earth is flat.
Deja Prescott (9 months ago)
Isn't a light year a measure of distance and not time? So one light year does not mean that we take one year to see it the light but that the light has traveled a distance of 6 trillion miles for us to see it.
pd4165 (8 months ago)
Not if we are receding from the source at more than the speed of light. Apparently we can theoretically see out to >46 billion light years even though the light is <14 billion years old. As long as this chap is right, it's a proper eye opener https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67412/what-is-the-theoretical-limit-for-farthest-we-can-see-back-in-time-and-distance
Viced Rhino (9 months ago)
+Deja Prescott Yes it is distance, it is the distance that light travels in one year, so light leaving a star that is one light year away arrives at earth one year later, so it took one year for us to see the light.
J Allen (10 months ago)
"Can you trust the same science that is used for medicine or putting man on the moon?" Yes.... yes we can! 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😭😭☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻 And I always wondered with the radiometric dating on the mt St. Helens sample if it was possible for very old rocks to be mixed in with the other material and that the age is correct.
pd4165 (8 months ago)
If the rock has melted then its 'clock' is reset to when it solidifies. So yes - you could have material that solidified a long time ago blasted a big distance and mixed with fresh and not re-melt properly. To date an eruption it looks like you need to date the youngest material.

Would you like to comment?

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