Scientist Reacts to "Debunking Radiometric Dating" Video | Reacteria
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- Forrest Valkai, an evolutionary biologist who teaches science on the internet, embarks on a quest to endure videos from people who claim everything he studied in college is wrong. Will he be convinced by creationist claims? Or will he remain steadfast in his study of science? Let's find out!
Subscribe at / renegadescienceteacher
Need more science in your life? Follow Forrest!
RenegadeScienceTeacher.com
TikTok - TikTok.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher
Instagram - RenegadeScienceTeacher
Twitter - ProfForrest
Don't miss Forrest's terrible weekly podcast "I'm Not Comfortable with This" on UA-cam, Spotify, Breaker, Google Podcasts, Radio Public, and Pocketcasts!
/ imnotcomfortablewiththis
Want to send Forrest something? Send your letters, artwork, science kits, or other surprises to
P.O. Box 1810
Broken Arrow, OK
74013
Want to help fund more shows like this?
Become a patron at Patreon.com/RenegadeScienceTeacher
or
Donate with Venmo - @ProfForrest
CashApp - $ProfForrest
PayPal.me/YourScienceTeacher
Have an awesome day and never stop learning!
"It sure seems that they're putting a lot of faith in something that they can't actually test through direct observation" - A totally not projecting christian.
...Shouldnt we Forrest-Valkai-Fans (aka 'Forrest-Dweller', aka Elfs) not
comment under these dumb videos and quote the Explanations
that Valkai gives?
@@nenmaster5218 what
@@TylerMarkRichardson yeah lol, like what,
I think what they're going for is some kind of equivocation argument, something like "they say our religion is based so heavily on faith and noth on empirical information, so we'll just show them that their 'religion' requires just as much faith, thus giving our claims more legitimacy by comparison." And so they stretch and bend every bit of info they think most people understand little enough to make these claims sound legitimate.
@@nenmaster5218 Bold of you to assume they haven't got their comments turned off
"They dated a rock to several million years old, but the fossils inside were only 34,000 years old! Aha! That proves the Earth is 6,000 years old!"
- Actual creationist argument
The funny thing is that they themselves said it was via. Carbon dating they found the 34kya date and then later mentioned that carbon-14 can't be detected after 114k years so like maybe this is why the carbon dating didn't give the 160 mya date. You literally just have to connect the dots.
They don't understand the 'Principal of Faunal Succession' or the basics of the sedimentary process
Not a creationist argument, Bible-ist argument. Creationism includes alien ant farm, simulation theory, and much more.
@@snap-off5383 Are you saying "Bible-ists" are not Creationists?
@@karlkalina3022 All bibleists are creationist, not all creationists are bibleists. need a Euler diagram?
I feel like the whole “getting sweatier and more frustrated” thing makes it even better. Like watching you slowly lose your mind at their claims
Plot twist: that's the reason he's sweaty. The ac is fine.
I love when creationists try to use science to debunk science.
Gets me every time.
What else should someone use to debunk science?
@@mrjoehimself Actual science.
@@2l84me8 What was the non-actual-science in this video?
@@mrjoehimself Creationists don’t use science properly.
@@2l84me8 Well I'm all ears, please teach me what proper science is in this case.
If only they were this suspicious of their own education.
Seriously, if they questioned their own religion the way they questioned evolution, theyd be like "wait.. do we seriously believe this?!?!"
@@ahetzel9054 honestly, its fascinating how they use the oposite of the scientific method
Please react to Kent Hovind!!
Or maybe a Politican?
Amen!! Lol
@@nenmaster5218 Hovind gets waaay more attention than he deserves (Except from the Police, he deserves to get more attention from them).
I was homeschooled by hardcore creationists and now I'm unlearning a lot of stuff. These videos are genuinely really helpful and I'd love it if you'd keep doing them
That must be really hard brother, I hope you succeed and I have a huge respect for your courage! :*
Star Curtis, I was an evolutionist until my mid-60's when I observed data that falsified evolution.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Ok boomer
@@BibleResearchTools I didn't ask, you're not going to convince me, fuck off and don't try to proselytize to me.
Star Curtis wrote, "@Bible Research Tools I didn't ask, you're not going to convince me, fuck off and don't try to proselytize to me."
No one asked you either, foul mouth, so why are you proselytizing your evolutionism religion?
Dan
They're no longer considered "apologists" but professional "projectionists".
I was trained in the church as an apologist. Lots of the training towards kids is exactly like this. It isn't till deep into their version of college that the "real" apologetics are taught.
But again, that's only taught to older people. With kids, it's literally all about this kind of shallow manipulation.
It is so funny that theybuse the word "apologetics" for themselves. The word literally means "regretfully acknowledging or excusing a failure."
The fact they have to have an entire branch of people just to explain(very badly, I might add) all the illogical stuff should give them major pause
I think it's telling how Jane is obviously the smarter one, but the script has John explain everything to her. I have a feeling Jane will come to our side at some point.
I noticed that. I think it's just plain old mysoginy. If you look at old tv adverts for washing powder - it was always a man (in a lab coat) informing a housewife about how soapshitX gets her whites whiter than white. It's hilarious how we've been allowed to pump that bullshit for so long.
Ikr? The mansplaining is painful
lore
@livliveart it's appealing to the christian audience
@@filipe.sm31 Sadly 😔
"Because it's a science textbook and what you're talking about isn't real science." It's responses like this that keep me coming back to Reacteria.
@@jeremy9876543 did you mean for your comment to be a reply to me?
me to.
Yup, thats where I hit subscribe
I didn't lol at that point. Nope, not me. 🤣
I just can't believe these two morons want to say evolution doesn't fit the data, while never comparing creationisism to the same data.
Cause creationism doesn't even come close to even qualifying as a potential answer. Evolution and creation are nowhere near equal.
the fact that they basically only cite creationist sources is HILARIOUS
Do they really have a choice?
@@henrim9348 true
I am not sure they qualify as "sources" for anything but utter bollocks ...
And predictable:
1. They don’t trust actual science.
2. If they did use other sources, it would destroy their claims
@@henrim9348 sure they do. Creationists cite proper sources all the time... I mean they don't cite them accurately or anything but they at least name real papers they think agree with them. Since their viewers won't read the papers ir works pretty well.
"Putting a lot of faith into something that they can't actually test through direct observation."
I thought this couple was doing a science debunking lesson, not an irony lesson.
I love how they keep over-emphasizing "theory" in evolutionary theory. Really illustrates their fundamental misunderstanding of the term and how it's used
Also, there are trees around 5000 years old... odd that they survived a global flood... 🤔
The trees were good swimmers.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
@undrwatropium3724 yes. Did you misunderstand my point?
@@sorenjensen3863 I had to look up what exactly a scientific theory was so I just assumed other people didn't know either. Not you. Just other people reading this.
the global flood happened in 3000 bc. the trees could have been planted after.
I always love the 'Science is based on assumptions, meanwhile the Bible..........' argument they try to put forward with a straight face.
They are fine with the logic, they just do that to trick "science worshippers" into thinking they're the same so their claims seem more legitimate and it just becomes a matter of conversion. They just aim for topics they hope most people don't fully understand well enough to say "see, it's just baseless faith for both of us! Now let me tell you how *my* baseless faith will punish you with an eternity of suffering just because you [didn't check the correct box on the census because God is such an insecure bitch that after the adult-children he made live near an unguarded source of knowledge that he didn't want them to have but they ate it anyway despite that he knew they would so he has had cosmic trust issues against all of humanity ever since.]"
@@LathosZan They try to paint science as a religion, to discredit it, and then claim that Christianity isn't a religion, but a "relationship with Jesus", as if that makes their personal BS beliefs real.
@@LathosZan Ouch, that's a lot of built up angst. Release my friend! You sound like a Christian with all that zealotry. ;)
@@GrimSleepy To be fair
God is kinda a bitch.
@@trotskyboi8830 Okay. That would explain why she's such a wicked one, right?
"That's a bad message. *Please* drink water."
lol definitely not what I expected out of this episode!
"That's a bad message. Please drink water." , sounds like something I would expect Dr. Mike to say, and boy would he go on a rant about proper hydration and health.
It´s hot today so make sure you drink water! ... also Watch for Waspes!!!
@@MrBorgthor yeah especially here in Texas where we got a fuck ton of those wasps, we even got the RED wasps
Weirdest part about that exchange is the exact way you cut water weight before a fight is by drinking a ton for a few days, then holding way back for a couple days. (along with sauna/hot bath usually)
@@Mark_Agamotto1313_Smith yes... proper hydrations and chest compressions... all the way...
As a high school science teacher thank you for doing these. It helps me know where my students get their unexpected anti science ideas and how to talk to them about it. More John and Jane please !
Funny thing is my mom went to Duquesne University and her biology teacher was a nun who would probably smack those two creationists upside the head for their stupidity lol
Is it just me or are Forest's videos breaking down the bad science of J&J absolutely fun and informative?
Really makes you think.
"This isn't magic, it's just algebra"
I'm not sure creationists can distinguish between the two.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236 only creationists say that. If you talk to actual evolutionary biologists, the discussion will be far more nuanced and interesting. As a side-note, the origin of the universe has nothing to do with biological evolution.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236 😂Says the person that doesn't know how to use colons.
Assuming you hold the opposing creationist position, you shouldn't throw stones in your glass house. Your book doesn't even provide an explanation, it simply says it "happened". Where's your explanatory value? Oh, right, you don't have any. If left to your approach, we'd still be chanting incantations for a toothache and appendicitis. Stop announcing your ignorance, please.🤣
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236
I thought that's what you guys believe.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236 evolutionism isn’t a religion
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236 evolutionist isn't a term dumbass
So let me get this straight. Using a real world method that's been proven reliable somehow ISNT reliable but believing in an ancient book written by people with absolutely no understanding of science somehow is reliable!?!? That is the most backwards thinking ever!
Don't bring up science they don't care about science bring up something really silly from there instead. Other wise good job
14:37
"R.I.P. John's dreams of them cheeks"
Thanks I spit all over my keyboard.
My favorite approach to "too many patrons for the screen" was Josh Strife Hays
He said "I'm just going to make the text smaller and smaller because it's funny" and when he asked his oatrons if they were ok with that they agreed that it was hilarious.
Congrats on the channel growth! Well deserved
I find it interesting that they'll say there's a lot of assumptions and "you weren't there" for science, and then immediately segue into the bible. Because apparently there are absolutely no assumptions about things they weren't there for in the bible.
Yep. "God left a written record", and you can prove that this was written by God how exactly?
@@thallesregis
Recommend him. I mean Forrest.
@Platypus No, someone said that someone said that God said.
@Platypus Circular arguments are my favourite too
@@thallesregis to quote the ever-brilliant Tim Minchin, "I know the Good Book's good because the Good Book says it's good. I know the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would!"
This is like saying, "But how does my doctor know if I'm allergic to anything she gives me?" while filling out the form where you list your allergies. Their objections are the most basic of basic logistic considerations, yet they think the scientists never had the same ideas, or worse, covered them up to preserve a "world view." They're literally students trying to instruct the people who inform the teachers on what to teach. Creationist ego drives me up the wall.
The ego part to me is very explitic when they (and similar folks) take a leap of either "I don't understand, therefore there is no explanation" or "this seems ridiculous to me, therefore it's clearly ridiculous." This focus on their own limitations and projecting those limitations outward rather than working to move past them is just....very tragic.
@@natahliazaring5291 Tragic not only for them, but for everyone else gullible enough to succumb to that kind of stupidity and ignorance, thereby perpetuating the spread of misinformation and lies. *sighs*
I mean teachers are not always right about things, it seems more like this problem is also created by teachers not explaining questions like this well.
Edit: less on the teachers but more on the school system with outdated teaching methods and apparently some anti evidence curricula in some places
@ObviusRetard
Yes, there are some teachers who are not as knowledgeable as they should be, but remember, the parents and the churches get the kids long before the teachers do. There are many parents who home school or put their kids into private Christian schools specifically so they will NOT learn things that their religion opposes, and there are others who will "do a Karen" on the teacher or the school board if their little darlings learn actual science that goes against their chosen mythology.
@Ysabel Love hahahahaha
It's weird how geologists came up with ancient Earth models to support evolution long before Darwin came up with evolution.
Must’ve been aliens
They're both recycling the same arguments I've seen but John's delivery really gets under my skin
15:46 I love how "None of us were there to verify the assumptions" is immediately followed by "but God has provided a written account of history". Did they verify God writing anything?
He came down to earth and told us so.
@@johnhess3886 were you there?
Or you just relaying on hearsay?
Hey, the Bible is true because the Bible tells you so. Sort of like a self-licking ice cream cone
@@davidlanger3295 You could read up on the history of the apostle Paul who wrote several of the books of the new testament. Do you think he would lie?
When you have to rely on "well maybe the laws of physics changed" to criticize radiometric dating you've already lost
Weird how that never applies to the bible either.
They can truthfully say that the laws of the physics _have_ changed. Mind you, that happened about 10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang and they would probably leave out that caveat.
@@nicholashylton6857 creationists don’t believe in the Big Bang theory though
@@morganwhaley9119 Exactly. They'd cherry pick. Heck. Young Earth Creationists might even mention the possibility of vacuum decay which may rewrite the laws of physics yet again. Conveniently leaving out that if even such ridiculously improbable event can occur, it may happen at a time nearly infinitely in the future.
A lot of YEC's claim this.
One of my favorite things Forrest does is quote himself from just shortly in the video, followed by a "I knew it" yep. It's efficient and humorous.
“Relative dating”? That explains John and Jane’s intellectual shortcomings! 😂
"So, evolution REALLY depends on radiometric dating, right?"
That is sooooooooooooooo intellectually dishonest.
Right? Like these fossils of creatures that slowly change throughout the layers were found by radiometric dating. So were all the studies of existing animals that clearly got divided and branched off from each other. Of course Darwin was also studying radiometric dating when he published his work.
That's the only evidence we have. 😂
Guess all these scientists better give up now that these 2 think they debunked it. 😅😆😂
@@jeremyblade7561 of course it's debunked! Satan made the fossil record to fool us!!! Haha
@@jimmyshrimbe9361 Oh no. Someone get science on the phone right now. We have to tell them they are wasting their time. 😂
What's the number again? I think it's 42. But it could be 420. Who knows what these guys are smoking.
@@jeremyblade7561 I thought radiometric dating wasn't developed until the early-to-mid twentieth century.
@@zemorph42 You would be correct. That comment was a string of blatant lies for the sake of comedy. Radiometric dating is not really proof of evolution, it just confirmed what we already knew. That being that the earth is really old. It is far from the only way we know that either.
"If they are wrong about dating rocks, then the entire evolutionary theory crumbles to pieces." This feels like a similar argument I've heard from flat earthers that's like 'If they are wrong about gravity, the earth must be flat." What about the huge number of fossils, ice, gas, man made objects, etc. that age well over 6,000 years old using many methods of dating? All that is wrong because in this book it says God did it? Makes sense.
They are YEC, in their mind it does make sense. And as you have seen in this video they will only refer to "studies" done by YEC.
I think there’s something to be said for Old Earth Creationism, that’s the view I hold. I do agree that the earth is clearly older than 6000 years, but this is vastly different from the level of stupid that is flat earth crap, there honestly not even worth being put in the same category, flat earth is clearly more stupid, because you can actually witness it and still deny lines of evidence.
@@lukemoisant3917 As long as you aquire an A-level understanding of biology, physics or astronomy you should be able to determin that earth exceeds 5 digits. There is a slight difference, but not that much.
And ultimately the source material for christian YEC has several parts that would strongly hint at a flat earth as well. (foundation, firmament, all the kingdoms visible from a mountaintop, ...)
@@lukemoisant3917, something to be said? Please provide positive evidence that supports old earth creationism.
I’m a Christian, old earth creationism and young earth creationism are pseudoscience nonsense . Evolution is a fact , the old universe is a fact and the old earth is a fact.
"None of us were there to verify the assumptions"
How do you know I wasn't there?
As a geology student I am amazed and really sad at the same time by this
Then you'll be particularly saddened by the name that appeared on one of those 'research' papers at 13:58, Andrew Snelling. He's an Australian geologist who by day successfully uses his extensive knowledge of petrogeology to find likely spots around the Earth where oil companies should drill, but by night he abandons all that knowledge in favour of his Young Earth Creationist belief and writes utter shite for Answers Research Journal and the other pseudoscience publications produced by various groups of liars for Jesus. Pass the sick bucket.
Okay we need to make this guy a top UA-camr than those click baiters, The quality is just over the top, this guy is a future top science youtuber and that's a fact.
Agreed
I also agree. Let's blow up the comments, share with friends, and don't forget to like every video. If anyone deserves the algorithms favor, it's channels like this!
Yes
at least make sure he's successful enough to fix his air conditioning
ABSOLUTELY
"let me see your ring"
"You mean my PURITY ring 💍"
*John cries because Jesus*
Little did he know the ring was just a farce.
They don’t call Jimmy “The Python” for nothing ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@raymond4218 Ring of purity is a serious deterent, but last time she wore a sad curtain dress, which further decrees the chance of a successful encounter by 50% ;)
@Nick Or John cries because he just got friend-zoned. 😂
The purity ring part really did upset me. Purity rings are horrible, just as hijabs, they're tools of taking away women's rights...
@@amurape5497 do they later trade it for a red ruby ring meaning "I'm ready"?
Creation is simple to understand. Take one simple earthen brick, and strike your head with it repeatedly until the blackness comes.
I love how they're like, "scientists use all these assumptions" so believe or story about a magic being. Dafuq?!
John logic: ‘because I don’t understand radiometric dating, it can’t really be a thing and therefore it’s questionable’
Jane logic: ‘I know, right? It’s totally a conspiracy’
Also, you need to make a ‘Shut up John!’ T-Shirt. That was brilliant. 😆
The root if their problems is that purity ring. A man can't think straight if he hasn't unloaded in more than three days
@@stevec6427 what about post nut clarity
Don't kids have a basic idea of how it works by the end of high school?
My vote: keep this series going. The stuff in this series is exactly the stuff I was taught growing up, and I believed it through like half of college, because I didn't have a better educational foundation for the flaws in these arguments (and Alabama public schools tend to do their best to not contradict Young Earth Creationism and basically skip evolution and the age of the Earth altogether). I know from context and the facts I *do* know that it's all bunk now, but it's still very educational for me to see you debunk these arguments piece by piece. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
This really scares me. What is happening with the US? I mean, I'm from a emerging country and I studied evolution and the geological history of Earth since I was 9. I've seen this stuff at school so many times, wrote so many essays, that it is kinda of an alien concept not to study this things. We creationism once and it was to debunk it. Bear in mind I studied at Catholic school.
@@minez5628 The American South is dominated by Evangelical Christians, who are (largely) a Fundamentalist group that practices 1) Biblical literalism and 2) Biblical inerrancy. Exactly *how* literally the Bible is taken varies, but by and large this means that this subset of Christians believe the world was literally made in 7 days, Adam and Eve were the first two humans specially made by God's hand who lived in a paradise garden until being kicked out upon first sinning, and that a comprehensive timeline of Earth's history can be constructed from the Bible (since it starts with creation and ostensibly goes from there). Using only the Bible and no outside sources, this comes out to an age of the Earth of ~6000-10000 years. These religious convictions are deeply held and are held by a large percentage of the population here. And if there's one thing I've learned growing up in the Southern United States it's that regulations and educational standards mean nothing if the local people in a community refuse to follow them (unless you'd like to bring the military into it, as was done for "desegregation" though ultimately even that failed - we still have segregated schools in parts of the South). Federal mask mandates for Covid don't work if the local people who are supposed to be enforcing them refuse to, and federal education requirements mean nothing if the local educators refuse to conform to them. And that's essentialy what happens here with teaching certain aspects of science that contradict the firmly held beliefs of the vast majority of the population.
So most educators aren't willing to teach it because they themselves don't believe it, because they were also taught strawmen versions of these things growing up and since then have become so emotionally invested in these sciences *not* being true that no amount of evidence could sway them. And on top of that, even the minority of teachers who *do* understand these sciences and want to teach them can't, because if they do students will inevitably go home and talk to their parents about it, and those parents will call and complain, and there *will* be enough Young Earth Creationists up the chain of power that that teacher will be disciplined or even fired for it. With 80%+ of the population believing this stuff so staunchly, it's not just a risk- it's a near guarantee. It's a complex and very difficult to challenge cycle of ignorance- sometimes, but not usually, willful ignorance- that perpetuates itself through generations because of the religious and political ideas of the region. And outside intervention has little effect because short of exchanging almost all staff from public schools with people who didn't grow up exposed to this kind of ignorance, the older generations will continually stifle the younger generation's learning until they too are too invested in those beliefs to change them.
@@minez5628 fundamentalism capitalist greed has corrupted the republican party...even more than it already was. (And we're not forgetting about you, corporate and so called moderate democrats!)
Basically a very small percentage of people stirring up identity politics
And all sorts of other distractions to keep folks from realizing that the "elites" that they so blindly follow create/influence policies that continue to make the devoted followers' lives worse.
It got really amped up since Trump and is more noticeable, but it's been an obvious cancer since Ronald Regan was president.
There's actually some decent "based on real events " docudrama on hulu and prime... the one that relates to this issue is on hulu 'Mrs (...? I can't remember her last name) but is about a female senator from illinois played by cate Blanchett.
I grew up in a very conservative family... fortunately I always asked too many questions and didn't blindly follow, so I was shamed and made to feel like an outsider... I had to go through some dark, lonely and confusing times..
But my eyes are finally open and I'm allowing myself to slowly untangle all of the brainwashing, trauma and abuse, so that I don't pass any of this toxic conditioning/brainwashing on to my boys.
Right wing politicians and media companies make billions off of the fear propaganda.... it's been proven they don't stand behind the narratives they spin.
And unfortunately, not enough of our population cares to see through the bs.
Avoiding uncomfortable conversations, topics and scientific proof is also a staple here.
Pindex (I think? UA-cam channel narrated Stephen fry) just put out a new video 2 or 3 days ago that discusses the whole distraction strategy more.
Second thought also produces excellent content. There's more, I just can't think of them right now.
Sorry to ramble on, but as someone that was actually alive during the Regan presidency... I vaguely remover the shifting..
And have continues to see it become more crazed and ridiculous.
They actually crashed school board meetings so kids don't wear masks. It's absolutely insane and infuriating.
Much love, safety, new knowledge and adventure to you.
I can relate to a lot of this.. but never fully believed (which made me feel too much shame, like there was something wrong with me).
I was also dealing with undiagnosed adhd,aspergers/ autism, the beginnings of complex ptsd... so I definitely did fit the typical "seen but not heard with perfect obedience " like the rest in my family.
And today I am so thankful for that! Even though it was so painful to go through, it helped me deconstruct and acknowledge some very uncomfortable reality, much more easily.
Sending love, I know what a tangled web it is to untangle.
I'm so sorry, do they still do this?
I found this guy a couple days ago and I was immediately hooked. It would be cool to see him collab with Aron Ra in an all-out battle to defeat Genesis Apologetics
Aron is another favorite of mine, plus he's got a great sense of humor 🙂
Unfortunately you can't 'defeat' these type of people, nor flat earthers, nor anti-vexers, nor sovereign citizens. You just have to wait for them all to die, while stopping them getting too many followers.
Battle? How the heck would it even be difficult?
Aaron ra is wayyyy to into himself
@@scottchaisson6311say his name correctly, it's Aron not Aaron and no he isn't, he just knows what he's talking about. Aron has degrees in both bio anthropology and palaeontology, what expertise do you have in any scientific field?
Proof of evolution: watch Forrest turn from a human to a glazed doughnut in the time span of 20 minutes.
Geologist here: there are some small issues that I would like to expand upon/give some small corrections: depending on the system that we look at, "contamination" (e.g. by diffusion above the closing temperature of a mineral) can happen quite easily. That's why we use isochrone-dating or compare isotopes with each other. Let's use e.g. the U-Th decay chain. U and Th decay to ²⁰⁸Pb, ²⁰⁷Pb and ²⁰⁶Pb. Furthermore, we have ²⁰⁴Pb, which is primordial. There is no significant variation of decay rates of the decay chains that we know of. Therefore, if we plot the ratio of e.g. ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁴Pb against ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb, we get a characteristic curvature, because the different mother isotopes have different decay rates. That means: if the Pb-Isotopes of a sample plot outside the curve, the system has been modified since the formation.
Secondly: I don't really know why they used ¹⁴C to date a Calcite (!) fossil of the cretaceous. Now, how does ¹⁴C work? Solar radiation leads to the decay of ¹⁴N to ¹⁴C, which gets incorporated into plants and animals. Organism dies, gets isolated from atmosphere, ¹⁴C decays, we dig fossil out and determine the age by measuring ¹⁴C. However; ¹⁴C has a half-life of ca. 5730 years. Meaning: at ca. 50000 years one cannot use the system anymore for dating, because then the measured data fall within the blank range of the instrument (this is one reason why you can seemingly get ¹⁴C in diamonds). Our system of a Cretaceous ammonite is much older and additionally, it's a marine organism. Meaning ¹⁴C probably (I don't know, this is an assumption) gets fractionated between first atmosphere and marine water and secondly between the sea water and the shell of the ammonite, which could incorporate the ¹⁴C in the CO3-Ions of the Carbonate. Now, how did they measure any ¹⁴C then? Without reading the paper, I have two theories: 1) they measured a blank-value 2) groundwater (meteoric water) circulated in the deposits and lead to dissolution and precipitation of Calcite rich in ¹⁴C, leading to an apparent age.
Please note however that I am neither strictly an isotope geologist, nor a sedimentologist. So please take my words with caution.
I agree with what you say but this isn’t a “small correction” this is 2 paragraphs.
@@MasterOfTwisted Yeah, that's fair enough. I got carried away.
I appreciate you going into detail on that, its a common question and unfortunately not one with a super simple explanation. But I hope Forrest pins your comment
Creationists reading this: 🤯
Thank you for this wonderful explanation. It was fairly easy to follow, even if I don’t fully understand, but you’ve encouraged me to look into it more so I can gain a better understanding. Thanks again.
As someone who was unfortunately brought up in a creationist education, I am really enjoying these videos. Keep them coming! Channel should grow easily because this content is needed more and more.
I love how people that obviously have no idea how the science works are going to "debunk" the science.
"...they don't understand..."
No it's:
They don't want to understand.
Definitely keep doing from this series. They lay a decent foundation. They take wild leaps from the foundations, but the foundation itself is interesting and leads to good lessons from you.
Agreed.
Ramen!
Yes please! let's entirely subvert the intentions of their videos by using them as a vehicle to help teach the actual details behind the proof of evolutionary theory.
Bow-Tied Engineer wrote, "Yes please! let's entirely subvert the intentions of their videos by using them as a vehicle to help teach the actual details behind the proof of evolutionary theory."
I would like to see some of that proof of evolutionary theory. Do you know of any?
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools say you didn’t watch the video without saying you didn’t watch the video
The speed at which he debunks their arguments by just checking their sources 😂
The skit about wrestling was also cringe because two wrestling terms were used incorrectly (I’m a former HS wrestler). It’s not a “wrestling match” it’s a “wrestling meet”. It’s not a “weight division” it’s a “weight class”.
It’s just very “hello fellow kids”
The main problem with this kind of content is that they mix real information and analogies with fake information, then they cause people to doubt and sometimes believe all the bullsht
Why would a school give misinformation in the first place. Idiocracy
My boyfriend is sleeping and I’m watching this all quiet till I see “RIP john’s dreams of them cheeks” and I screamed laughed so now I’ve gotta show my boo the whole video
I love how creationist videos are actually a way you can quickly learn how science really works. Definitely continue this series Forrest!
The problem is that you have to be the one who is reacting/responding to the Creationist video...or else find someone who has already responded. In which case if it wasn't for the creationist then the responder could have spent their time explicitly teaching the content.
There is a channel called "how creation taught me real science." Its a great and criminally under subscribbed channel.
You asked so I’ll answer…more in this series would be entertaining and useful imo. 🖖
Edit* seeing the words “of them cheeks” produced alongside such solid science is one of the things that motivated me back to college. My utmost gratitude sir, my utmost.
I love Gutsick Gibbons point on radiometric dating. If it is messed up then why does the petroleum industry rely on it so heavily?
His face when he showed the researches were published by creationists killed me 😂
15:26?
“Trunkful of Skulls” is a great band name.
I could have had a band?
It'd make a good business in the Ryanverse. Right next door to Sandwich with a Pretty Big Pickle on It.
ua-cam.com/channels/h9IfI45mmk59eDvSWtuuhQ.html
(Sucks that you can't tag people on youtube anymore)
I have a good one from crystallography: "Total extinction".
"The Great Dying" would be a great paleontology band name
Just to add an additional point that I don't think you mentioned about radiometric dating, and that's called the isochron method. This works even if the source rocks formed containing some initial amount of daughter element (greater than zero), because the isochron is used to determine the amount of initial daughter element, which is then accounted for (subtracted) to determine how long for the parent element to produce the rest of the daughter element by radioactive decay. It's actually much more sophisticated than what I've briefly stated here, but this is the gist of it.
"You weren't there" is the argument makes me so mad. I wasn't born, I was made with magic. You weren't there, you can't say otherwise
It's especially maddening when literally the next point they make is "But my book says...". Sure, but you weren't there when it was written. You wanna tell me Star Wars isn't real? Well it took placea long long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You weren't there, you can't tell me it didn't happen.
A book is not evidence.
10:00 When he starts talking about contamination of the rocks I remember that I read some time that zircon crystals are essentially "immune" to this problem, because when they form they basically throw out any lead in the crystal, leaving only Uranium atoms. So when scientists check the rate of the isotopes in the crystal they can assume that every bit of lead in that sample came from radioactive decay. Also these crystals are very durable and resist erosion, so it's more difficult to say that they were contaminated.
“While I haven’t actually seen your faces, I’m sure you have kind eyes”. Bro that is literally the sweetest compliment I’ve ever heard. 🥺 I’m gonna cry I stg.
... Ukuleles have eyes?
@@tapiocaweasel -- They need to be k'eye'd before you can play them, so I assume they're _somewhere_ on the head.
@@TlalocTemporal i c wut u did thar
14:45 press F in the chat…
Great series as always, you deserve 10x the amount of subscribers you do
I was homeschooled in a Christian home, so when I started college it felt strange being knowledgeable in most scientific areas while not knowing a single thing about evolution or prehistory. I would impress people with my grades in the sciences and then look stupid the moment anyone asked me a question about fossils, dinosaurs, or evolution.
"I don't understand evolution, therefore evolution doesn't exists"
That's how you know if someone never attended biology on high school.
To be fair, my Christian high school biology class didn’t teach about evolution at all. This wasn’t the teacher’s fault, he’s an excellent guy who actually knows his stuff about science (including evolution) but the school’s curriculum didn’t include it. It’s a shame this sort of thing isn’t taught in Christian schools. Kids should know how the science works and make their own conclusions about it, rather than parrot a view that isn’t subject to question or change.
@@raymond4218 I’m going to a Christian high school, I get all of my information on evolution from these videos and the internet. Most of my friends don’t believe in evolution. Honestly it’s depressing how much of their education has been robbed from them.
@@Limepopsicle07 I feel the same way! A lot of my friends believe in evolution, since we have similar worldviews. But most, if not all the other students at my old high school probably won’t even consider the possibility that evolution could be real.
Me who goes to middle school and knows how evolution works:
@@raymond4218 I went to a nominal Christian highschool in the 60-ties in the Netherlands and although it wasn't a controversial topic I can't even remember evolution was a part of the biology class. I even think the non-Christian highschools payed much attention to it, as the end exams were the same for every nomination of highschool. i remember our bright teacher had already enough trouble to get the mechanisms of the cell in our dunger thick skulls. It was the old school system still and biology was not as important a subject as mathematics, chemistry and physics, those were the necessairy basics for the academic study of biology.
And even there they did not start with evolution as curicullum in the first year, but with plant anatomy, physiology, biochemics and genetics. The last one was pretty boring as it was before the breakthrough of DNA sequencing. Maybe it was part of the study in later years, but that would be after I dropped out of it failing after the maths tests 7 time in a row and went working in a nursery home.
Oh shit. PLEASE KEEP DEBUNKING THESE! These are hilarious. Of course, they're hilarious to me now at age 33 after spending decades reading about science, philosophy, and many of the world's religions. Of course, when I watched videos like these (possibly even THESE videos, considering the quality) as a boy, the son of two pastors in the Salvation Army (yes, it's a church, too), I found them incredibly persuasive. I remember being indoctrinated to think "you weren't there", meaning how could you know. Of course, understanding the tools of science allowed us to understand these things. Videos like these crippled me early in life. I consider it a public service to debunk them all. Honestly, I would prefer to see a more thorough debunking, with evidence, as opposed to a merely react video.
As a 13-year-old Christian, if those videos convinced you that evolution was a fraud the world was imposing as opposed to an explanation, you really _did_ get indoctrinated. I think the proper view (if you're a Christian) is old-Earth creationism, since it is demonstrable that Earth is more than 6000 years old.
Creationist: "But you weren't there to observe it happening!"
Us: "And I wasn't there to see you born either, but I know you were!"
Bad analogy, good point.
I absolutely love Reacteria. I'm going to re-watch the playlist right NOW
Technically, there are no *untested* assumptions in radiometric dating. There are assumptions used in every idea anyone has. Good assumptions can be tested, and in radiometric dating, they are.
Hbomberguy is a nice Channel to inform yourself about countless
things.
He just made an epic video about the final Answer to 'Do Vaccines cause Autism?'.
As an Autist, i say: That video is Autistapproved alright!!
@@slevinchannel7589 Thank you, my sister needs someone more intellectually clever than myself with this subject. Her son, my nephew, was diagnosed as a wielder of the superpower called Asperger's. His diagnosis, and the fact that for his entire life I would brag about the boy being just like his uncle... I believe I may be on the ASD spectrum. I took a version of the test and the results it provided would seem to enforce that perception.
@@GrimSleepy I have to say, there are WIIIILD Misconceptions and Fake-Facts flying around the Globe about Autism,
so i would love to recommend some stuff to your Family!
May I?
@@GrimSleepy I mean,
not just warm Channels with warm topics, like the Autistic UA-camr 'Paige Layle',
but also serious Matters and Misconception's about Autism that need to be faced directly,
like the Videos about 'Autism Speaks' by the UA-camr 'Illuminaughtii',
who always does great Research.
@@GrimSleepy I could recommend Autistic UA-camrs,
but one doesnt have to be that to make Epic Videos about the Topic/s,
as Hbomberguy and Illuminaughtii prove, who are both not autistic.
On the other side, directly 'for' your Nephew, i can of course recommend cool Nature-Docus and Science-Essays and such UA-camrs who 'teach with Fun about the world',
which is a growing Thing on UA-cam.
So I once had a world history teacher in high school (this particular high school had a yearly average graduating class size of 53 students to keep that in mind) who asserted that he "believes in aliens but aliens are actually demons created by Satan" (guess he likes Warhammer?) but also he asserted that Genesis was the accurate account of the origin of humanity (which he established he still taught what was in the book because it was his job, even if he didn't agree with it) and his wordt take was that "Adam and Eve were white, and the origin of races are the children of Ham (Asian people) and Cain (African people). The Mark of Cain is what changes their skin colour."
...
Setting aside the *terrifying* outright racism that this public school "teacher" was "teaching" to his students, I wonder if he thinks Noah was descended from Cain, otherwise... how did the supposed "marked races of man" come about during what is basically Genesis II: Revengenace?
At least you gotta respect that he teaches the actual material even if his personal views are rhe polar opposite.
There's your problem, you're trying to apply logic to religion. I have nothing against religion, but faith is the opposite of logic.
Ham was one of Noah's sons. The curse was placed onto Canaan, though. That one makes sense, but the Mark of Cain is weird. Did he treat people of color differently, or was pretty much the entire school white?
@@RobertMcBride-is-cool there were 3 latino students and 1 black student. I don't think I ever saw any of them in his class. The school was predominantly white, althoigh rather small. The graduating class was only like 35 students. And for the record, it was a miserable school and the teachers were rather dumb. Only one of the maths teachers and the literature teacher were very smart. I don't miss it.
@@LathosZan where was it? The south?
I hope Forrest knows that his goals of teaching people things is working. I’m learning so much watching his videos, and I’m having an absolute blast doing it! He explains things in a way that even an idiot like me can understand.
you're no idiot! You understand that Forrest tries to teach the truth about science and you're learning from it. Great job, @TheOnionQueen 🙂
@@iansquian thank you very much! 😊
It’s like listening to people desperately trying to prove that Game of Thrones is totally historical 🤮
You have to love how they debunk themselves in their own video.
Jane: None of us were there to verify the assumptions...
Cuts to Genesis 1:1 In the beginning....
Er, Jane, none of us were there, remember? You just said it seconds ago.
I also like "See this rock is said to be millions of years old, this fossil inside is 30 thousand years old, which proves that the earth is 6000 years old". That's quite an interesting approach to math.
@@EskChan19 tbf they were homeschooled
@@ussinussinongawd516 Hey, leave us homeschooled folk outta this!! I know much better than that, and also; I do believe that Evolution is Real, the Earth is Billions (Or was it Trillions? I've lost track of the time! XD) old, and that these two are dingbats.
@@ussinussinongawd516 I dunno how bad they failed home school but they seem to not have an education other than their stupid zealot school
It's really difficult to address these people without just making fun of them, and I know you make some jokes along the way, but your videos are genuinely informative. I'm glad this kind of content exists. Well done.
Yeah it's actually really respectful on how he addresses the argument based off the arguments and not the clear motivations they have for making the argument. He treats the sentences they are saying in good faith and within a rhetorical vacuum.
I think John & Jane will stop making videos. He was only ever in it to try to get some good times with Jane but now she's told him about the purity ring he know's he's wasting his time.
As has been said by many great scholars "A man can't think straight if he doesn't empty his dirty water regularly" and there's the explaination for this video
Insulting the person you'd like to bring to your point of view, is rarely the more effective method. Which is my only argument against most anti-Christian individuals, you're not helping the species by alienating over 30% of it (the population of people claiming a Christian-based faith).
Since 'Atheists' tend to only target Christianity, I'm more and more convinced 'Anti-Christian' is what people mean when they claim 'Atheism'. They don't tend to argue against Shiva Vishnu or Brahma, they rarely bring up Odin, and I don't think I've ever heard mention of Quetzalcoatl, it would seem they're only ever decrying the Christian God.
I personally attempt (I'm sure with a tact that leaves something desired) to lead a religious person I'm debating into a corner, where their options are: Accept that you agree with science, or admit you don't truly believe the theism you're manipulated into blindly following.
@@GrimSleepy to be fair you can know that science is true while also believing in a faith. The belief of a higher power(s) is at the moment unobservable which means that science cannot prove or disprove that any exist. It is one theory that could explain creation as a whole but it is not the only one. Not trying to say that somehow disproving science will prove a creator, just saying that a creator does not disprove the scientific method and the fact that it works to explain how they universe works.
@@A2forty Precisely! One does not denounce the other.
If your science denounces higher entities, you should question your science. Likewise, if your faith denounces science, you should question your faith.
I love how excited you are to watch this, and also you don't seem to get as agitated as I would expect. I think you are the best kind of person to teach. Someone who has lots of enthusiasm for a topic who can connect to other people well! Keep up the great vids!
John: "Pretty Epic, eh?"
Forrest: "Shut up, John".
I don't know why but that got me 😂
I love this guy, just got a notification and came right over
Ditto
Such a cool name too. F. Griffin Valkai 😎
I just love how creationists talk about evidence then cite the bible as if it's evidence.
Because the bible was written by God so it can't be wrong 🙄 🤦♂️
Edit /s
@@thecraftycreeper3167 The bible was written by men who made up a god.
@Julian sarcastic I know that it was an interpretation just being sarcastic
@@thecraftycreeper3167 prove the Bible without using the Bible as proof for the Bible being true then
Edit: I now realize you were being sarcastic
@@phoenix0166 2 for 2 lol
I've probably rewatched this video 3 times just for the title card and the Jimmy the Python jokes
Like Anime?
Then i have a bad News-Flash for ya: ANIME-IS-EVIIIIIL.
At least famous l00ney Matt Powell JUST said that in a video.
Something tells me that John isn’t as afraid of Jimmys python as they lead us to believe…
"Thats right, none of us were true to verify the assumptions.... BUT THE BIBLE SAYS"
Please react to Kent Hovind!!
Or maybe a Politican?
@@nenmaster5218 i mean Aron Ra already has Hovind covered, and not sure politicians even try their hand at science or "science", too busy trying to deceive in other ways
@@christophermonteith2774
...Unfortunately...
Is so strange what these people think is controversial. It really shows how out of touch with reality they are. "Its a heated debate!" Yeah, no, there's zero debate about radiometric dating.
The only people debating it are creationists.
@@tjhudkins *creatards
@@yuvanraj2271 Let's not base insults on ableist slurs.
@@tjhudkins "Its a heated debate!"
"No it's not."
"It is *now*!"
@@yuvanraj2271 there's no need for nasty language. "Creationist" has its own bad connotations anyway.
Your videos make me so happy, your enthusiasm for learning and science is completely contagious
This is my favorite one. I laughed out loud MULTIPLE times during this video.
Do more of these. I'm tired of religious types telling me how good their "science" videos are.
Boiled and pooped still makes more sense than "jealous vengeful loving sky man did it"
Sky daddy
@@Palguim he isnt a daddy he has no children except his rape baby who he killed so idk
I am getting ready for a debate on dating methods and this video will be very helpful. Thanks Mr. Science
good luck on the debate, hoping the video of the debate pops up on my feed
Gl on your debate date! Hopefully you get a gf!
this series is super soothing for insomniac me, cheers for the content! (also for the reminder of how much i did enjoy science class one million years ago)
Is that 6 children per person? or 6 children per couple??
Also I would watch Reacteria every week. Please make more of these.
6 per person
Well, he uses 8 in the exponential formula, and there were 4 families. So probably per person. But around 12 kids per family was actually pretty common until one or two generations back. It's just that it was common because they were NOT actually immortals.
@@nagranoth_ I think if you go back past the mid 1800’s it might be 12 per family but it’s only like, 5 per woman. Even with divorce the average marriage length is longer now by quite a bit. I think it was something like 7 years on average because of how many women died in childbirth and men died in farming accidents.
@@dansmith7009 as far as I know you are underestimating how recently it was normal to have 12 children. Both my parents families had around that number for example. That's of course anecdotal, and it was getting big-ish for a family at the time, but it certainly was not uncommon and there were bigger families around as well. Probably half the families were still that big, but likely fewer in cities. Up until the 1st world war would be more accurate for most families being that big. The death rate you're talking about on the other hand _is_ from longer ago.
That being said, it obviously would depend which country you're talking about anyway.
@@nagranoth_ The death rate of children in the US before 1800 was 50% (children dying before they were 5 years old).
Would you be interested in addressing Netflix's Unnatural Selection?
Hi, I'm a physics student and last semester I had to work on a radiocarbon dating project. During that project I've learned that radiocarbon dating can only be used to (accurately) date things that are younger than 50'000 years. This is about 10 times the 14C half-life time. All 14C measurements are subject to some contamination (maybe the tools you used to prepare the sample were not 100% sterile and had some organic matter with contemporary carbon on their surface; every room contains dust which itself can contain contemporary carbon, therefore getting dust on your sample contaminates it too). After these 50'000 years, there are only so few 14C atoms left in your sample, that the 14C atoms from the contamination start to overwhelm the remaining 14C atoms from the sample. Therefore older samples cannot be dated properly with radiocarbon dating and if you try it anyway, you will get an apparent/wrong age of something around 50'000 years. And it is very plausible that a millions of years old sample gets carbon dated to 36'000 years ago (the sample probably had a slightly higher than average contamination, therefore we se 36'000 years instead of the 50'000 years expected).
Additionally radiocarbon dating should only be used on organic matter/substances/samples anyway. The ammonite in the rock has fossilized. During fossilization there are processes mineralization and (mineral/matter) replacement. The matter making up the ammonite can therefore change over time and the fossilized ammonite might not be considered "organic material" anymore, which makes its radiocarbon age a meaningless quantity anywhay.
Demn, I'll look into that topic right away, So how do you think we got 4.6Bil years readings?
@@animezia This 50'000 year limit only applies to radiocarbon dating, a dating method that is based on the 14C carbon isotope. There are other dating methods based on other elements and isotopes. There is a dating method based on uranium and lead isotopes with much longer half-life times than 14C. With these isotopes/this dating method it is possible to date the age of rocks/meteorites accurately and therefore to determin the age of the earth.
@@Noel201199 Thanks for the info (￣y▽,￣)╭
@@animezia And the other methods. There is decay of one Uranium isotope into another; Potassium-Argon, fission track, etc. these go back at least 100's of millions of years and some much further back. As as the OP says, their dates agree. You can easily google what these are and how they work.
I personally think both camps are biased and trying to prove an agenda rather than verifying models, both need to digest Feynman on the relationship between science and mathematics. Feynman says we can never prove a theory is complete, only that it doesn't explain all the data.
We know radiometric dating can go terribly wrong and be peer reviewed and published as fact, just review the SHROUD OF TURIN CASE (regardless of what you believe about the image itself) "Evolutionary" geologists are also applying these same arguments against radiometric dating in certain cases when their models have to be reformed, for example the canyons cut out in the north west corner of the US (can't remember the name) which were supposed to be formed by slow erosion over time given the radiometric dating, but they were too anomalous, now they say it was flash flooding from from water trapped in a glacial lake in Montana that burst, it's almost identical to global flood arguments except it's local.
Each camp has defined for us what we have at stake, the evolutionist requires we agree to billions of years and the young earth creationists require we accept how they interpret the Bible and both sides try to overwhelm the discussion of any other models.
I don't trust this guy any more than the people he is trying to debunk.
Aren't cosmologists using Webb to try to understand how galaxies, solar systems and planets are formed? The FACT that we don't know from the science is a scientific fact we must acknowledge and I for one don't want to pay people to push their agenda and call it science.
I am learning a lot from you by watching you debunk other people. This really helps when my Christian friends try to question me. THANKS!!! Also, it helps me understand science more, in general!! I love your attitude. I can't just laugh at lies people tell, though, without getting angry about it. I am glad you are able to go past the anger to a fun attitude. THANKS!
One thing I rarely see addressed in the videos about creationists assuming that decay rates can vary over time, is that in order to condense billions of years of radioactive decay in a mere 6000 years, radiation isn't even the main problem, heat is : Earth wouldn't just be molten, it would be vaporized.
Also there'd be way fewer stars in the universe, as stellar stability is driven by radiative pressure, which is ultimately from nuclear reactions, counterbalancing gravitational collapse
yup, heat is a huge problem for creationists Not only from radiometric dating, but also a global flood in human history.
"It sure seems that they're putting a lot of faith in something that they can't actually test through direct observation" - says the man who 100% accepts creation, a version of events that occurred before there were even human beings in existence to witness anything.
It's always struck me as odd that these people reject all science as being false because it contradicts what their bible says yet simultaneously they want to use science to prove their point.
Hey! TY for posting this. I'm a highschool student interested in biology. Your reactions to these videos and the facts you give have been helpful for me to learn new information. Thank you for posting this series, and may you have a great day.
I had to pause for a moment after the guy in the video said THEY were putting a lot of faith in something they can't test through direct observation
Reactiria, 1:1 “And thus John's dreams of clapping them checks were gone”
Still a better story than the bible.
_shut up, john!_
edit: btw, I think a really important thing your channel does that sets it apart is that you aren't afraid to say "you know what? that's actually a good point! Here's why". Being able to do that definitely lends you a certain kind of credibility among people who would probably otherwise quickly dismiss your words. So that's neat, keep up the good work dude :)
“Shut up John” 😂😂😂, that single ad lib destroyed me after a lengthy explanation about multiple evidentiary sources.
I'm glad you did this one. I keep seeing the c14 dating not working without a refute. You should do a video on this one from answers it's called "how old are fossils" lol the title is just great
Oh you bet Forrest I definitely want to see more. Your commentary and jokes were spot on I loved it.
Creationist: "The Earth is only 6000 years old"
Also Creationist: "Some fact that presupposes the age of the Earth being at least 50,000 years old being used as evidence to 'disprove' science."
Lol
In the UK, there are a few YE Creationists. But they are all Northern Ireland Protestants, mostly of the DUP Party, so we know that they're all batshit crazy to start with.
Pleeeease do not stop this series. This is one of my favorite series currently.
You do amazing work! Keep it up. It is so informative and at the same time entertaining. Thank you.