1. "Physics (Chapter 2): Carbon Dating: (How) Does It Work?"
The Cassiopeia Project is an effort to make high quality science videos available to everyone. If you can visualize it, then understanding is not far behind.
2. "The Age of Our World Made Easy (for schools)"
Methods of dating easily explained, that clearly prove the age of the Earth and our universe. Part of the "Made Easy" series that explains science in clear and simple terms. A must for people who think the world is just 6,000 years old. Potholer's channel is dedicated to explaining science in a way that most intelligent people can understand. He hates seeing science manipulated and cherry-picked to support religious and ideological beliefs, usually by people with little scientific training or understanding.
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
Carbon is a critical ingredient for life on Earth. All living things are made up of about 25% carbon. The carbon atom is unique because it can bind to other carbon atoms to form long chains and rings and these in turn serve as the backbone of the complex molecules that make life possible.
The nucleus of a typical carbon atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons. But about one carbon atom out of every 100 has one extra neutron. This has very little effect on the properties of the carbon, other than making it slightly heavier. Chemically, it acts just like any other carbon atom. It is called Carbon-13.
And there is an even rarer type of carbon. It is formed high in the atmosphere when cosmic rays strike atoms of nitrogen converting them into Carbon -14. Carbon-14 is also chemically identical to regular carbon.
But the nucleus of carbon-14 is unstable. After some amount of time, which could range from a few days to many thousands of years, carbon-14 decays back into nitrogen. But since carbon-14 is formed at a steady rate, there is a constant level of it in the environment. Out of every trillion carbon atoms in your body, only one dozen of them are carbon-14.
As long as an organism is alive and eating, it maintains a constant ratio of carbon-14 to regular carbon. But once an organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 in its body begins to decrease. After 5000 years about half of the original number of carbon-14 atoms will have decayed. Using this fact, scientists can tell how long ago an organism died.
how can they say that the ratio of 14-c and other carbons is constant as long as the organism is alive and eating, when there are thousand and thousands of variables out there that may affect the result, this is a pretty baseless opinion, I can't believe how carbon 14 dating got accepted in today's science when it's results are nowhere close to accurate
Why is it that the only skeptics are those that have no education or knowledge in the subject they are denying? Example almost all climate change deniers won't know the mesosphere from the stratosphere, they most certainly will not have any degree in environmental sciences. So why does anyone even spend a minute debating with them? I definitely wouldn't argue my medical health care with a plumber. So if my pizza delivery guy, or a minister says that carbon dating doesn't work, I reply "that's nice and can you show me how to bounce this red rubber ball too?"
Do you think it's possible to date a rock of a known age (say 20 - 80yrs old) ? Surprisiingly, the answer is no.
If you're not sure, look it up. There's many scientific papers published on comparing all the various dating methods used to day. Excluding carbon dating methods, the dates vary from 2 million years to nearly 100 million years old. These are the facts. Would you believe the rock millions of years old, if you know for a fact that it came from an eruption only decades ago?
Have you seen the Nodosaur discovered recently? like many other fossils, it has soft carbon tissues, yet has been dated to 110 million years old,. this is impossible due to natural decay rate of carbon. i.e. even with immaculate preservation, the carbon should've decayed completely. Therefore, the date specified is wrong and the fossil cannot be older than several thousand years.
At some point people have to acknowledge actual science flying in the face their world view and what they're told.
New news: It seems Jurasic Park is dead.
"Pioneering new research has debunked the theory that the asteroid that is thought to have led to the extinction of dinosaurs also caused vast global firestorms that ravaged planet Earth.
A team of researchers from the University of Exeter, University of Edinburgh and Imperial College London recreated the immense energy released from an extra-terrestrial collision with Earth that occurred around the time that dinosaurs became extinct. They found that the intense but short-lived heat near the impact site could not have ignited live plants, challenging the idea that the impact led to global firestorms.
These firestorms have previously been considered a major contender in the puzzle to find out what caused the mass extinction of life on Earth 65 million years ago."
"It can decompose in a few days or over thousands of years. Every 5,000 years c14 decomposes to half." Umm that sounds like nonsense already. It's not accurate so it shouldn't be used as confident as it is. Man selfishly erasing history again....
a creationist friend of mine said that the levels of the carbon-14 in the air changed over time so that made dating objects impossible. I'm not sure if thats true but can someone here perhaps fill me in on what he's talking about?
solar variance, radioactivity [from A-bombs] can constrain or increase the amounts of carbon 14 in the air. By a small amount. This 'contaminates' samples and may lead to minor errors. it doesn't discount the results, however.
Seems like a lot of guess work. I can physically create any scale I want to determine anything I want. And my friend would get the same result I did if he performed the same test on the same thing at the same time with the same method. This guy's arrogance is astounding, considering he seems 100% sure of his findings, using a method designed by someone less than 150 years old, using samples that could be anything from 20 000 to 1 billion years old. So "Scientific". I would think, considering his arrogance, he would have a little more evidence than a bracket of 1 billion years...
Why do some people choose to believe a story told by one person or group that can not be verified, rather than believe a story that can be verified by anyone who takes the time to do so? life is confusing... I guess i'm going to hell for it...
I saw this video of a Christian preacher saying carbon dating doesn't work. that when used on fossils, it can't tell you when the dinosaur died. He used an analogy of a candle. he used a picture of a candle that was put next to a ruler. it was seven inches tall. the candle was lit. So hypothetically as the candle burned it would diminish in size. The preacher then asked, when was the candle lit? So can someone explain this? cuz I don't know anything about carbon dating. Or religion.
So what's the deal with C-14 being found in ancient fossils and rocks? Why is it that we find C-14 in things that are supposed to be billions of years old? We shouldn't be able to see any if it's older than 100,000.
+Iron Osiris Like coal, found at all different levels, with specific measures taken to prevent contamination and found far from uranium veins.
It seems you can't really find ANY coal that doesn't contain measurable amounts of C-14.
if the c14 disipates half in 5000 years so the rest would disapate in 10000 years ish how can you say this dino is 50mil years old?...
do you think we are all sheep and just accept what you say?
then you say we meaning people like me who does beleave in god we all lieing? when your dating metherds can be tricked and proved bogus so easly? we will just accept you got it right this time when for decades you been telling us that carbon dating is fact....do you taje us as fools?
p.s. i know my spelling and grammer is bad but when you have a letning disability its life so go on tell me how thick i an if it makes you sleep at night lol
LordBritOne You misunderstand what half-life means. If the half-life is 5000 years, then after 5000 years about half the original quantity remains unchanged: we can't predict exactly what fraction or, for each atom, whether or not it will have decayed since it's a probabilistic thing. But after 5000 years about half remains, so after another 5000 years about half of that quantity remains--so by now about 1/4 of the original quantity remains and 3/4 has decayed and so on... And that's the tricky part: as long as we still have enough of the original material left about half the present quantity will still be left 5000 years from now.
So the sequence of fractions of the original quantity for each 5000-year epoch is: Time 0 yr: 1 (it's all there), Time 5000 yr: 1/2 (half's still left), Time 10000 yr: 1/4 (just one quarter is now left), Time 15000 yr: 1/8 (so one-eighth is still left); Time 20000: 1/16; etc., so 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, ... till eventually none is left in its original state.
But short of it all having decayed, there will not be enough for the statistics to be accurate any more, since they're based on having a large enough number of atoms for the probability of decay to be accurate. Think of starting with just one atom: after 5000 years it has a 50% chance of being still there; after 1000 years it may still be there with a probability of 25%, etc. So we can't say for any particular atom exactly when it will decay, or if it ever will--but as time progresses the probability of each atom's decaying increases.
And atoms decay at unpredictable times, so it's not as though half wait for 5000 years then all of a sudden decay--so if we measure the ratio of undecayed to decayed at some time after your previous measurement, say 1000 years, then about 1000/5000 of the half that would decay by 5000 years (so 1/5 x 1/2 = 1/10 of the original amount) will already have decayed. By measuring the quantities of each at any time and calculating the ratio, we can calculate about how long it has been since it was all the original material. The usual period for which such measurements and calculations remain valid for C14 is for about 50,000 years--so about 10 half-lives, by which time less than 1/1000th of the original material remains (about 1/1024).
tread27 is actually a hell of a lot more easier than calculating sustances here on earth. Since stars are in a vacune they are constantly emitting radiation without any problem. Science doesn't give a fuck about scale since the effets that are seem in the microscopic level also work the exact same way at the galactic level. Laws work everywhere at once if that weren't the case the universe wouldn't exist since it would have no need to conserve energy and thus has no need for gravity or force.
how is it they know we have had a constant ratio of c14/c13over thousands/millions of years?
and dont tell me its by looking at rocks.
also wouldnt the amount of radiation that the earth receives have to be constant to use radioactive half lives?
how do we know that the amount of radiation the earth receives has been constant throughout earths history? i just dont think that proving a is true because b is true, and b is true because a is true makes much sense.
+tread27 Firstly, Radiocarbon dating only works up to 50,000 years ago. And we don't have a constant rate, that is why calibration exists, and why there are margins of error. They calculated margins of error against dendrochronology (tree rings) which are very reliable. The amount of radiation the Earth receives from the Sun is RELATIVELY constant and consistent. It definitely fluctuates but again see above.
+Jeff Deal "i hope you studied the part where all of that theoretical constant math doesn't always equate to real world results."
Lol dude you're an idiot, how the fuck do you think they land shit on other planets? How the fuck do you think they keep the ISS constantly in space? This universe is Math, Math is god.
+GlennBen You can look at how Carbon-14 decays over just 100 years, or 1 year, or anything else to figure out its half life. (Although the longer period you use, the more accurate it'll be.)
Let's pretend you have 100 C-14 atoms. You know that in one half life - however long that is - you will cut the number in half.
Equation form: 100 * 1/2. Let's say that the half life is just "x".
If 3 half-lives occur, it'll be 100 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. Right? So if we wanted to shorten that, we could say it's 100*(1/2)^3.
A more general equation would be 100*(1/2)^x. We multiply the original amount (100) by one half, for however many half-lives happen (x).
Here's where your answer comes in. Let's say you left alone your sample for 750 years. You have no idea what the half life is. But now you look at it, and see that there's, say, only 90 of them now, when you started with 100. You can plug that in to the equation we have from before.
100*(1/2)^x = 90. The original amount, 100, went through some number of half-lives (x) to give us the final amount, 90. You can solve for x, which will tell you how many half-lives you went through. This time, it would say that you went through 0.15 half-lives. So now you know that 750 years is 0.15 of C-14's half-life. Do a little math = 750 divided by 0.15 = and get 5,000 as the full half-life.
Hope that helps! I'm studying to be a chemistry teacher. :)
+the one I'm not really good with numbers and formulas so when I saw that site with the equations, my brain froze lol
But the Quora site was informative, also links to a wikipedia article which I'm yet to read.
Most sites that say radiocarbon dating is inaccurate are, as far as I'm concerned, religious sites that try to disprove these dating methods cos it contradicts their presupposed beliefs, and they use the seal dating as the main example which came out inaccurate, but there is an explanation for why it came out inaccurate.
Yeah, there's a reason why so many of those ancient creatures were 10 times the size of their modernday counterparts.
The atmosphere was obviously radically different than today.
A full size sauropod whose nostrils are the same size as a modern day horse could not live in todays' environment.
It would suffocate to death.
Dragon flies had a 3 foot wingspan, and simply could not lift off in todays' environment.
So, science makes the huge assumption things have always been as they are today.
+Andrew McMahon Actually, 'science' does not assume anything, as that would be contrary to scientific method. It's an acknowledged fact that the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere was higher in the past, which lead to over-sized insects, like you mentioned above. The ratio of gases in the atmosphere was dependent upon existing plant life and microbial decomposition during that particular era in Earth's history. I read the article linking the dragonfly size and controlled lab conditions where additional oxygen was introduced.
I am seriously trying to understand this
If dinosaur bones have no carbon left to be dated then how are dinosaur bones dated ?
Also how do when know the rate of carbon 14 decay is constant? I was under the impression that the rate of decay changed with temperature, like animals preserved in the Arctic Circle
+DanielPrime94 scientific advancements. fusion,atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, nuclear subs, diesel, gasoline, all kinds of plastic and their chemicals, and dont forget about all that medical science that can cure your restless legs but give you cancer, heart disease and death. take your scientific advancements on an advanced rocket and blast off to another planet (through the van allen belts) and leave us backwards humans alone here on earth. hmmm i wonder if that would make the earth happier. think pagan my friend.
+tread27 I really don't want to start an argument, but false false false false. Science is not a religion in any sense of the word. Science is studying and observing the physical and natural world through experiment and EVIDENCE. Yes, sometimes it's wrong, but here is the difference!! Science can admit when it's wrong. Religion can't. The scientific community has always, been changing views and throwing out theories. Science is faith based because of evidence. Religion is faith based because of LACK of evidence. And of course science has caused harm. Not nearly as much harm as religion. Your forgetting all the good things science has done. Penicillin, theory of germs, prosthetic lims, cures for millions of diseases, air conditioners, knowledge of what foods are good for you and what aren't, transportation. Evolution. Knowledge of the cosmos. SUNSCREEN! Can you imagine were we would be right now if religion didn't get in the way of all of this!?!?
1. you know what they say about assuming things.
2. organized crime er.. organized religion is just another tool like fire and guns that can hurt or help. on one hand, if it gives you peace then who am i to say what you want to believe.( just dont tell me what i have to believe) on the other hand it can be used to control people. but fuck its written by men anyway right?
3. science, in my view, is dangerously becoming (or has become) a religion. complete with faith and diocese.
4. if by 'human race advancing' you mean fusion, nuclear power, trans-humanism, creation of a.i., convincing people that starving the earth of carbon dioxide is a good idea, etc then you can take your ass and blast off onto another planet and take your advanced humanity with you and leave us backwards humans here alone in peace.
hope that clears it up for ya bro.
Can only be used dating the upper most layers of the Earth? But can't be used to date early forms of Volcanic Rock? Sounds fishy to me. The fact that so many varying results have come back from Carbon Dating should raise a red flag for anyone with an intelligence at all.
"yes until its updated(corrected)".
dude, we are SO one on this topic! :)
which, of course, NEVER happens in the bible [or any other religious text]. No, of course not. (sarcasm). Last time they did that, was throwing all those "forgery" versions of Paul's and the heretical Books in the 2nd and 3rd century AD. right?! It's ok to attack research, to 'get the facts straight', but it's NOT ok, to discount the bible / Quran or whatever. bzzt! Catch 22!
+batmandeltaforce That's not how it works. Probability does not magically change. The likelihood of a Carbon atom being Carbon 14 depends on inherent details of the element, and those details do not change. There's also such an incomprehensibly large number of carbon atoms in every animal's body that the slight variations will have little to no effect on the numbers.
I came here to learn about carbon dating and how it is done but i now have more questions. How fast does c14 decay? and how do they know it is about 5000years for half of the c14 to decay? i need more answers
+tread27 wow man. Such hostility. Do I really warrant so much of your attention? I am not going to lash out at you. But whatever floats your boat I guess. C14 is reliable math and if you have a different idea on the subject, please publish it.
+Doubleplus Ungood 1. you are obviously an idiot.
2. i dont care what you think.
3. the light in the fridge? fuck you really are an idiot.
4. do you understand what science is?
5. you can be an insignificant fuck, thats fine with me.
6. you are boring, this i believe
7. get a life, find a woman.
Ok so to test this you need a known age rock to sample and you then compare the test result against the known age. Who the fuck is around at the creation of the rock? How would one determine the known age except those to witnessed the creation?
But without carbon dating, how can you substantiate any age observed from the column? Does the column only show an order? And isn't that order only accurate provided the column is unaffected by extreme techtonic movement?
I can't stand all the Christians arguing that science has huge gaps and errors. Everyone knows science can have errors or gaps, and can't explain everything. I'm an atheist - I'm not a scientist. Our god, contrary to popular belief, is not science. The problem with Christians is that they apply the Gods of the Gaps fallacy. Just because science does something wrong, or can't explain something, doesn't mean the automatic answer is GOD EXISTS. Science has errors. Science has gaps. But just because science gets something wrong doesn't equate to: God is real. Your bible is full of contradictions and errors too, but do you ever go, "Oh, the bible has gaps and errors. That means the big bang theory and evolution is definitely right!" -- NO, you don't, because that's bad logic. People need to use their head.
+Mike Vizioz did i say i was christian, or were you assuming more shit. you can make assumptions all day for all i care. you know what they say about assuming things. please let me know if you were a formula fed baby because if you were you were most likely malnourished and therefor brain damaged and i would feel bad about insulting a retard (and not in a christian-judeo sense feel bad more of a sarcastic i couldnt give two shits about you kind of way.) please tell me more about reality professor youtube. (and i dont mean the kardashians dipshit)
So, if for every 100 carbon-12 atoms there is 1 carbon-13 atom (@ 0:43), and if carbon-14 atoms are even rarer (@ 0:56), wouldn't that make the search for carbon-14 atoms in certain molecules much like looking for a needle in a haystack? What's more is the incorrect representation of C-14/C-12 proportions in the tree branch example.....there should be like only one orange dot (C-14) compared to many, many blue dots (C-12). Yet, some scientists were able to successfully date objects of known age using carbon-14 methods in '49!! Thought provoking!
So the sun has an effect on carbon 14 well anything that touched sunlight would give a false reading, not to mention that it depends on sun flares, or if it was covered with rocks, lack of sun. I wouldn't rule out the effect of sound on any material. thanx I thought I was crazy,.
Let's clear up some misconceptions: First 14-C is formed in the upper atmosphere. It is the daughter isotope of O-17 and, it's absorption of a slow neutron causing an alpha decay. So 17-O+Neutron=14-C+alpha particle. This happens at a constant rate as long as the sun burns and, the chemicals are in the sky. So we have a constant 14-C to 12-C ratio in living things that are taking in atmospheric carbon which is pretty much everything. Furthermore, one does not need to have "been there" to know the decay rate of a given amount of a nuclide since it can be calculated in disintegrations per second or minute or year. Half life is a constant rate. As long as the right stuff is tested you will get a fairly accurate result within a few decades. The information is there for the taking and, you don't have to be a nuclear physicist to grasp it. I wish that people would use their minds instead of wasting time with bronze age fairy tales.
@PaulTooker I don't know why I'm commenting to you... Your statement appears to be trolling. But everything you just said can be said about a god fearing man as well. You are a coward so you worship a non existent creature to feel better. You are too stupid to look outside your own religion. My religion will do anything it can to disprove atheism... Someone in these comments actually said it best, science is about discovery. Creationism does everything in its power to ret con science into religion, so who is really making things up? The one who finds the information? Or the one who try's to fit that "false" information into their belief system?
You didn't even try to argue anything. How are atheists trying to disprove God? You(i assume) look at god as a simple fact. I look at god as something that is not fact. Neither of us can prove or disprove the other. So why bother? Perhaps science is just another form of religion. I believe science has a better chance of explaining our existence then one God up in heaven. I am an atheist, I believe every person is responsible and accountable for their own actions. We behave in certain ways because we are social creatures and as such, society will act as a guiding hand for our behavior.
+David Magill It's quite the contrary. Athiests are trying to use science to disprove God (God created science.). And they have been trying for thousands of years but can never prove anything. They may as well be chasing the wind. This is the essence of human nature. Trying to disprove God so that no one can hold them accountable. And if there is no one to hold man accountable, man can do what ever he pleases without consequence. Just because a foreigner doesnt accept or uphold the law of the land he lives in doesnt mean he wont be held responsible by the law of that land.
What if the amount of cosmic rays differ or the amount of nitrogen differs, which it does, and you get periods of high and low C14 production dispersed into the environment and thus in the organisms? Twelve in a trillion sure sounds like a mega-rounded number. What if a sample has 36 per trillion instead? Would the answer also be off by 3X? Any thoughts anybody?
In the laboratory, samples must be processed and cleaned so that there is no material on them that might throw off the age reading. Then the sample is burned and passes through a completely sterile vacuum system as Carbon dioxide gas. The gas is then subjected to more purifying procedures. Afterward the gas is stored in a tube insulated by Mercury and Lead, so as to minimize the chances of the sample being affected by radiations from the atmosphere. When a Carbon-14 atom disintegrates fine instruments detect the action, a light flashes on a control panel, and a counter records the number of decaying atoms. By this method the scientist can keep track of how many atoms are decomposing per minute and per second. (Poole)
How do scientists know the age of the fossils they find? And If its determined by the layers it's found under, how do they know the age of the layers??? Does this mean there are serious flaws in fossil and rock dating? Could it also be that the so called fossils of our "ape ancestors" are flawed? And with radiocarbon dating, carbon 14 is unstable and declines over time so how can scientist be sure about the age of fossils?
The bullshit you just said only confirms what I had already deduced, that you are delusional. Christianity is a religion, believing in Christ is a religious stance by every dictionary definition. You are a liar and a bullshitter, but you can only fool yourself, as you're the only one here stupid and ignorant enough to believe your own lies. You're a liar for Jesus, and a dumb, deluded moron if you believe you can fool anyone else with your absurd denial. Now you can fuck off, you oxygen-stealing waste of space.
"Evolutionist" LOL. You should have realised by now that religious retards don't understand science, that's why they always try but always fail to debunk it. Science has the facts, but religious imbeciles only has an ancient myth complete with unicorns and talking snakes. No contest. You lose and will always lose. As if any of you mentally inadequate bigoted hypocritical cretins is even capable of understanding anything outside you childish fable. Please note I have not resorted to using insults. You literally are morons, idiots, cretins, pathetic lifelong losers who are profoundly stupid and ignorant about reality, that's why you seek refuge in bronze-age mythology.
+astrophonix Well, thanks for proving my point! People like you are simply disgusting, if that's how you talk about other people's beliefs, then you don't even deserve respect.
So, hopefully that rotten mentality in which you drown gets better, otherwise you are nothing more then human trash.
+astrophonix I truly feel sad for your form of insulting other people like that, all see you do is name calling and being rude to other people, you don't deserve respect, don't even ask for it. I'm not even a young earth creationist, but you surpass the level of hate you spew and can't even have a decent debate with them. Truly feel sad for you, I hope your rotten mentality gets better.
Don't mind me I'm just going to ask a few questions.
you mentioned that potassium argon dating cannot be done on rock that is less than 100,000 years old because of the decay rate. what if I don't believe any rock is more than 100,000 years old how can you prove to me that, that dating method works? if the earth is less than 100,000 years old you cannot date any rock accurately.
has it not already been found out that you cannot carbon date an organism older than 250,000 because the C14 is no longer measurable? And is it not a fact that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has increased in the past 50 - 60 years? so you cannot accurately date a fossil to the amount of carbon14 in today's atmosphere because it is not accurate to how much there would have been millions of years ago.
and the theory of millions of years was already established before carbon dating and such; even Darwin suggested the process of evolution needed millions of years. so the theory of the old earth was around before the dating methods were and are assumed to work only on the basis that the theory is assumed to be true.
Check this out for the level of carbon 14, and there are multiple ways to check such as ice cores and others which can then be cross-checked...
Carbon dating only works for about 50000 years, as the video states. There are other conditions which I will not repeat as they are all in the video. Heres another video that explains it...
Acherly hes talking of the molecular structure of blood flesh and bones, cellular plant life and bacteria - less the water within the outer skin or that is contained within the cell. In other words the dry solids.
Humans aren't made of 80% water first off. They are about 60% water. Also note that he said 'all living things', which means that the 25% given is the average of a large sample of living things tested.
As mentioned living organisms can absorb atmospheric C14 at different rates, which is why it's better to use carbon dating on plants (more accurate) and not aquatic life (not directly tied to the atmosphere).
The chemistry of an element depends only on its electrons. An element is defined its number of protons. Since c14 has the same number of electrons and protons as c12, it behaves like c12 in chemical reactions. So basing any beliefs on such 'what if?' questions isn't useful.
also, this carbon that's made high in the atmosphere... how can we be sure that it's not decaying or being affected by something differently from space? I just can't see how this carbon is identical if it's not in the same conditions as the other carbon. Seems that logically the carbon up high in the atmosphere would be different some way from the carbon in a living thing. I dk, like I said before.. I'm not a scientist and I don't know as much as all of you. I don't want to argue I just want someone who actually knows how to answer my question so I can eliminate my doubts, gain some insight or just see another point of view.
I have an open mind. I think it's essential for knowledge. I am not a scientist.
How can you be sure that carbon dating can accurately record past a certain number of years? Has anyone observed carbon for 500 years or 100,000 years to see the rate of decay? I watched a video recently (not on youtube) of scientist from nasa and other scientific organizations that claiming that carbon dating really isn't as accurate as some people like to believe. I wish I could remember more about the video and had a link, but I don't :(
when they say it isn't as accurate as they say they don't intend off by thousands of years but by centuries. so they point out that it will not give you a specific year but a range within which the date can be true. As an example carbon dating may indicate an object to be 10000 years old give or take a few centuries but not a few millennia.
its remarkable how upset the religious right becomes over this subject. fret not, my friend. In another 40 years this group will be the minority. Its simple evolution. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-god-dying/
John 19:29-30 + Mark 15:23 - Did Jesus accept the drink while he was crucified?
James 1:13 + Exodus 17:2 - Can God be tempted?
Genesis 1:25-26 + Genesis 2:18-19 - What did God create first... Beasts or man?
Isaiah 14:21 + Deuteronomy 24:16 - Should men be held accountable for the sins of their Fathers?
Exodus 6:3 + 1 Timothy 6:16/1 John 4:12 - Can you see God?
I know you're a troll. But I'm posting this for others to see.
cont:living 80yrs and you can be punished by burning for eternity in hell if ya leave faith and not follow rules in bible?Is that justice,is that merciful,is that the marality you teach ya children?Or the wonderful verse in the bible where laak gets to be visited by angels and suggests to rape he's daughters instead?Man who lay together should be killed for it,anothr beautiful verse written by such a peaceful loving god.You think it is moral when ya daughter is raped she has to marry the rapist?
cont:says if you buy a hebrew servant he or she will go free in the 7th year.ok for you??exodus 21:7-8 when a man sells he's daughter she is not to go free as male servants do...ok for you ?exodus 21:20-21 anybody who beats their male or female slave can beat the the slave as long he/she doesnt die from it as a direct result.Koran teaches young children not to eat pork cause mohamed changed evil people into pigs,that all pigs on earth are humans.good science he to teach ya children?...
cont:immoral,irrational cosmic Osama bin laden.Cause they see the danger and the consequences what it will do to the tinking process and look on morality,reasoning,rationality when you mentally abuse you're children from a very young age by lying,deceiving,withholding them from knowledge. In The bible there is vers that says:when ya wife in unfaithful you can punish her by torturing her,but she cant die within the first 3 days.Is that the morals you wanna teach ya children?exodus 21:2-3..
Argue all you want about religion but in the end scientific fact is scientific fact. Anybody arguing against scientific FACT is a deluded individual. You wouldn't be sitting here watching this video if it was otherwise. The audacity of some people, to hold onto such ancient and outdated beliefs is nonsense.
We are ambassadors of Christ. Our job is to spread his message. Maybe they will see the love I convey and wonder how it is I can have so much. Maybe my words are being wasted. "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it going. So it is with everyone born of the spirit." (John 3:8). I don't know where the Holy Spirit will be. All I can do is spread the love I have and hope it plants a seed in someone's heart.
I understand what DNA is. I'm a math major physics minor. Not a stranger to science. However it does not explain my existence. Nor do the neurons firing in my brain. Both of the things you just described explain why my body functions. However there is not and there never will be a conclusive scientific explanation for why I am. You say I'm not thinking for myself but that's certainly a cultural bias. However, God chose me from the beginning, not because of my merit but because of His great love.
Science can't explain lots of things, yet. That doesn't mean that god is the explanation. If you choose to answer with god at every question you can't answer that means that you're to lazy to think for yourself. To answer your questions: 1. souls don't exist, they are just patterns in your brain that developed as a result of cause-effect actions in order to assure your survival. 2. read about evolution and DNA. you are unique because you have a unique DNA( at least until you are cloned)
There is evidence of God. Science can't explain the creation of matter. It can't explain a continued existence or explicit beginning. Science cannot explain why our souls exist. Our bodies could be empty without our consciousness inside of them.
God created us in His image. Giving us the ability to chose Him or reject Him. If you can explain to me using science why I exist as a unique consciousness then do it. God has given me these answers. I know that they are true just as I know He is true.
I am not gnostic. Faith is 1. believing without seeing or 2. complete trust or confidence in something or someone. I know that there is but one God and I know the only way to salvation is through Jesus. I have faith 2 that God will keep his promise to me. I have lapses in faith at times about God's plan for me and about his goodness. But that is because I am imperfect and not completely focused on my Heavenly Fathers promised salvation. I know the bible to be the perfect word of God.
You believe in the Christian God, and his son Jesus, yes? You are a Christian.
Do you have any shred of doubt? You are agnostic.
Would you kill your own son if a disembodied voice asked you to? Are you willing to be executed on the spot for affirming your Christianity? Do you not feel any doubt at this very moment, even though there are hundreds of other GODs that conflict with your own, as well as thousands of contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible? You are gnostic.
Atheism is the rejection of all theistic claims. I reject the assertions and claims put forth by religion.
I do not, however, make the claim, "there is no god". In that I am agnostic.
I do not know for a fact that there is no "god". I lack the knowledge to make that claim.
But after examining the mounds of evidence for the Christian, Mormon, and Muslim, "God". I can safely say that I reject and dismiss their claims of theism.... making me an atheist.
The definition of faith is believing in something without having evidence to believe in it. Therefore you are basing a belief in something you don't have acute knowledge of. If you take that at face value, you are an agnostic christian. You believe in the stories, but you don't know that they're true, and you have faith.
Some claim to have experienced jesus through revelation, and are convinced in his steadfast existence.Those people are gnostic christians.if you have any doubt you are agnostic
you'd have to be willing to learn for that to happen.
"all matter comes from then?"
the big bang. the singularity was too dense for matter to exist so it was comprised intirely of energy. where that energy came from is the next thing scientists are trying to figure out.
on a side note you seem to have conflated evolution and the big bang.
"Think about waldo, their theory has everything created by something or someone."
1) not a theory
2) special pleading
"your theory has everything coming from nothing"
no, it doesn't. way to prove you don't know the science.
creatard? cmon man you sound like your your in middle school. im coing to assume that your talking about creationists and I have to tell you that you just make yourself sound stupid when you say stupid shit like that. Think about waldo, their theory has everything created by something or someone. your theory has everything coming from nothing.. all the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere.
Ok. Fair enough. Thanks for the info. Although I'm not sure being an agnostic Christian makes sense because then you really don't have faith. I'm certainly not saying one should stop searching. Do you believe in a higher power then? Or how do you explain our unique persona existences?
"What!? no I wasn't."
ya, actually, you were. perhaps you were quoting some creatard website but that's where it comes from.
"why the fuk would they test your bullshit theory on something they know you guys will say "we already know it doesn't work on those".
because they already knew it was going to do that, the point of the experiment was to understand WHY that happened. they actually did a marvelous job.
actually, ice cores from around the world (the poles most notably) allow us to look back at carbon levels in the atmosphere before recorded history.
beyond 60,000 years they use other elemental altogether which have their own calibration methods.
there would still be c14 in 10k years. at ~6k only 1/2 decays. in another 6k half of THAT will decay. and so on.
that behavior stops being useful after ~60k years due to various issues both practical and theoretical.
I'm going to discover ways to have more sex. My cousin has begun dating a ten mainly because 8 weeks ago he signed up to a website called Master Attraction (Google it if you want to learn how.) I'm jealous since I would like to fall madly in love as well. I'm going to take a look at this Jake Ayres man's stuff. Odd thing is, he used to have Zero joy with women. How could you transform that rapidly? His girl's like a model.
Also, those who believe in a higher power, but no "deity of religion", are deemed deist.
I made the mistake in high school by claiming I was agnostic (not really a category), when I was actually a deist at the time.
Just want to chime in here. Agnosticism and Atheism aren't in the same category.
One addresses belief (theism/atheism), and the other addresses knowledge (Gnosticism/agnosticism).
If you are an Atheist, you BELIEVE there is no god.
At same time, most atheists are agnostic, for they do not KNOW there isn't a god.
I am an agnostic atheist. I know many agnostic Christians as well as gnostic christians. To be a gnostic atheist though, is just as ridiculous as being a gnostic christian.
1. I'm a math major and physics minor. My Lord Jesus died for me and through His Holy Spirit I find salvation in the Father.
2. Are you an atheist (believing that there no deities) or an agnostic (having no definitive belief or disbelief)?
Why I become an atheist:
1) I do not personally believe there is a god
2) I don't like to take sides honestly so I try to not believe in any and stay out of the stupid bullshit creationists throw at each other.
3) I see creationists constantly hitting on carbon dating but they can't explain the stars nor the age of the world.
You creationists need to understand that Science is like math. If you don't believe in Science then you are just as stupid as not believing in math.
Ok. I am so envious of my cousin right this moment. He's actually been alone constantly. Having said that he mind-fucked a part-time model to tell him she loves him in under a month. Just how is that achievable? He laughed and said he tried the Cupid Love System (Google it!) I wish someone lovely told me that... I've not before seen him so fulfilled. Sort of makes me sick.
About the math being flawed: No, it isn't flawed. It is actually quite simple and has been proven to work. You use something called geometric progression, the kind of stuff you learn on high school. Clearly, you were taking a nap on that class. Am I right?
This shows how ignorant you are when it comes to carbon dating. Carbon dating has a limitation of about 60,000 years, or about ten half-lives. You get a sample of 1 million years old, take it to a laboratory to be carbon dated, and guess what? The scientists won't be able to squeeze an age out of that fossil, because there won't be any appreciable amount of carbon in it. And you need your sample to have carbon if you want to perform carbon dating.
They used this method on specific animals that we ALREADY KNOW won't work. Carbon dating a seal, whale, dolphin, penguin, coral and other water feeding animals is going to give them a false reading. We already know that, and we don't use carbon dating on this animals. This is called the reservoir effect. Look it up.
Ok. I'm totally envious of my brother's best friend these days. He has been single forever. By a cheat, he has got a model to love him in weeks. How can that be actually thinkable? He mentioned he used the Cupid Love System (Google it!) I wish someone gorgeous told me they loved me... I do not remember ever before seeing him so content. Kind of makes me frustrated.
I love this edgy look! I was so excited that her hair, even as short as it is now, was still able to be put into the fun and trendy dutch pigtail braids! Instead of braiding to the ends, I ended them in close together pigtails at the nape of her neck. After I finished braiding, I tugged on the outsides of the braid gently to loosen them and make them a little messy and fun! Since she doesn’t have enough hair to tie around the elastics, I made sure to use elastics that matched her hair so they blend in as much as possible. You could also cover them with clips or bows! A view from the back of her Dutch pigtail braids! A great braid for short hair is a micro accent braid! My biggest tip for braiding short hair would be to add in small slices of hair rather than big ones. I did a small (micro) braid along a slightly curved deep part for anther cute and edgy look! You could also do another one next to it if you wanted a little more to the look, but I really liked how simple this one was. You can see how the part curves a little better from this view of the back. I ended the braid close to the head with an elastic that matched her hair. For our fourth style, we did a 3/4 french braid! Super simple but also super cute! You could do any type braid! It would also look cute using a Dutch braid or a fishtail braid! I loved the side view of this braid! I will for sure be doing this one next time she goes to gymnastics or swimming, whichever comes first! Our last braid is two four dutch lace braids into two loops in the back. Start off by parting the hair down the middle. On each side of the part, do a dutch lace braid, adding hair in from only the section closest to the part as you braid. Tie the braids together in the back with a small elastic and before you pull the hair all the way through to make a ponytail, leave it in a cute little loop! If the hair is a little bit longer, you could do a tiny bun. Repeat this directly under the braid you just did so you have two rows and two loops.
We will have to be coming up with lots more short hair braids in the future, so be sure to give us a follow over at our newly redesigned blog Abella’s Braids to see more as we do them!
Thanks for reading! See you again this time next month!
love these ideas! My daughter recently cut about 8 inches off her hair and is loving her shorter hair, but I’ve mostly been at a loss of what to do with it! Thanks!
Abella has been begging me for at least a year, probably closer to two years, to cut her hair. I posted a photo on Instagram with a question in the caption. “Abella has been begging me to cut her hair short, do you think I should let her do it?” Almost everyone said “YES!” So thanks to all of the good advice from my followers, we did it…and we haven’t regretted it for a second! I think she looks so cute and it really fits her personality! It’s for sure a lot harder to come up with braids but it’s pushed me to step out of my comfort zone! We wanted to show you that even if you have short hair, there are lots of cute braids you can still do!
This first braid (above) is three ladder braids. Start out with a part deep to one side. On the side with less hair, start out by doing a waterfall braid along the part. Under that one, do another waterfall braid, but incorporate the waterfall pieces from the one above it as you braid. Under that one, do a french braid. Incorporate the waterfall pieces from the second braid as you go. We braided each one to the ends and used elastics that matched her hair to tie them off.