Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Creation Podcast: Episode 36
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лис 2022
- Carbon dating is a common method used to determine the ages of fossils and other materials, but carbon14 deteriorates quite quickly. How can it still be detected in things that are supposedly millions or billions of years old?
With the expertise of ICR geologist Dr. Tim Clarey, host Trey Bowling investigates different dating methods used by scientists to see if the data tells a different story than the one told in textbooks.
Related resource: Rethinking Radiometric Dating | Get the book here: store.icr.org/rethinking-radi...
#Science #Podcast #Geology #Creation #GlobalFlood #Radioisotopes #Genesis #Bible #TheCreationPodcast #ICR #Rocks #CarbonDating #Chemistry
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on UA-cam for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/
ICR exposing evolution! Awesome 😎
Thanks for the support!
@@icrscience you are very welcome!
Where's their Nobel? Looks like they'd show it off in the background...
@@MrWeezer55 you mean getting an award from the same committee that wants to promulgate the opposing view. right. gotcha
@@HS-zk5nn Evolution isn't an 'opposing view '. It's a fact.
Thank you for helping us understand the assumptions underlying so-called "science".
so your deny science
No, they didn’t deny science in general. This comment was about the demonstrably faulty assumptions underlying carbon & isotope dating methods.
You mean, consistent rates of radiometric decay?@@brandybiscoff9685
@@brandybiscoff9685 At every point in history scientists thought they were right and knew how everything worked. Years later proven wrong again and again and again and.....
@@brandybiscoff9685all this piffle has been debunked many times over. Ask them about the Heat Problem
Other then the erroneous Radioisotope dating numbers, the Mt St. Helens' eruption and subsequent mudflows carved a canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon in just hours, and also showing hundreds of layers. This basically shoots down millions of years for the creation of the Grand Canyon without question.
Could you show me a 270° bend in engineers canyon or something similar to the grand canyons horseshoe bend?
@@johnbrinsmead3316 Why would that matter? The GC was caused by massive water flows also remember. Denying evidence placed right in front of you shows self-deceit.
@@Flagrum3 because channel erosion from rapidly flowing water doesn't form U-turns such as what we see at horse shoe bend and don't see in engineers canyon.
@@johnbrinsmead3316 How do you know that for sure? You suppose they were caused by river flow, as asserted by secularists?
@@Flagrum3 are we still talking about the grand canyon. As far I know mainstream geology describes it as being formed by a plateau being up lifted by tectonic forces through a river valley. Now if we were to follow a dam breach hypothesis why does the canyon cut through a high point of the plateau rather than through a lower point on the slopes of the plateau?
These people are the real deal they have done the hard yards to prove the dating methods are faulty yes this is real science which has been tested to come with real answers keep up the good work well done.
Get them to tell you about the Heat Problem. They can't get round it.
While you're at it, Google "basin modelling" in the fossil fuel industry.
God's word always prevails. The age of the earth and universe is no exception.
You mean the infallible word of god plagiarised from other cultures (Mesopotamian, Zoroastrian, Helenic) cobbled together by a number of different writers, some unknown, some time after the events in question, and written in the 3rd person, by fallible men?
@@jonathanrussell1140 haha.....no I said what I meant. You have no idea what you're talking about and you've been taught by fools.
@@jonathanrussell1140
How was it plagiarised from the Hellenic when the scriptures existed well before the Greeks could influence anyone? Non believers make this claim time and again and get the wrong results because they don't think about it long enough.
@technicianbis5250-ig1zd
Well - you could be right if you're talking about the old testament, although it is claimed that Greek myth had a strong oral tradition which may have influenced Hebrew culture
But don't you come a bit unstuck with the new testament having been written in Koine Greek?
So there's that.
Then there's virgin birth...
Perseus was supposed to have been the result of divine visitation by Zeus, no mortal involved...
And that's kind of a cornerstone of christianity...
Or have I been misled all this time?
@@jonathanrussell1140
"Greek myth"
Hebrew orally taught had a stronger impact and resulted in the Torah, the NT is based on the old so no dedication of the OT. Christ came to fulfill prophesy found in the OT. The Greeks were a vehicle to spread the gospel into foreign lands because modern Greek is still similar to ancient Greek and easier to translate, the Rosetta stone finally translated did not alter anything in scripture, just showed another ancient writting along with Egyptian and Greek and solidified earlier translations.
Amen ICR! Sorry I'm late 😃🙏
Google basin modelling.
Great presentation of the evidence!
No, this was just a typical pack of lies from ICR. Typical of the nonsense they spew.
Google "basin modelling" as used in the fossil fuel industry and find out how it uses accurate radiometric data to assess the quality and therefore viability of fossil fuel reserves before they start drilling. Radiometric dating helps keep petrol and diesel cars on the road. You're welcome.
Just the topic I wanted to understand more. Waiting for the podcast release, thanks in advance
If you want to understand it more, do not look for answers here. There are none.
Google "basin modelling" and look at the contribution radiometric dating makes towards successful fossil fuel extraction.
Yes. Next...
Always knew it, we only wanted to hear it from the experts. Thanks @ICR for this episode. You are doing a tremendous work.
If only we could actually publish these inaccurate results through various dating methods, for things that we know when something happened; that should help a lot for us to use as a reference when we discuss these topics with others.
Recently, they published a report of a dinosaur footprint found in Alaska, and dated 113 million. They gave the height, weight, probably they'll come with a pictogram of the full dinosaur just based on the footprint, too. We know all this is make believe claims, but it'd be helpful if we have some investigative report on our side, too.
lol make believe claims huh with evidence like the bible
@@radiospace7071 what on earth would make you think the bible is make believe? Surely you don't think we as Christians believe that do you?
@@newcreationinchrist1423 Self-induced ignorance makes him 'believe' the Bible is make believe. ; )
@@radiospace7071the bible doesn't really make any scientific claims. Genesis is about how GOD created created the universe and the Earth and life on it.
Nobel Prize for ICR in 3... 2....... 1...............
Wait, what?
Any date estimate older than 5,000 years is guessing at best.
source?
@radiospace7071
Reality.
If you cannot give at least a couple of different witnesses that match or at least agree, to a datum, it isn't science.
This is the issue.
The age "estimates" given by "Science" are literally all over the place. There isn't a proper correlation anywhere to be seen.
Now, anything less than 5000 years, we have not only geological evidence but also written evidence, archeological evidence, historical evidence, and anthropological evidence.
Anything involving a supposed age of over 5000 years is simply wishful thinking and drastic assumption.
Why 5,000 years? Why not 150 years? Why not 10 minutes? Why not 5 nanoseconds?
@@offthefront7537Probably because we have written history that goes back that far. Beyond around 5,000 years back, we do not.
Google basin modelling
Love the RATE Project.
Is the RATE project providing useful data for the fossil fuel industry when it is using basin modelling? You might want to check that out.
great video!
Great 🎉
Sirs, I could not find this on my podcast player. It would seem to be a natural match with an audio format. Please consider doing this. Thank you.
Re: leaching - When you have crystalization, is there still leaching occuring?
Yes - however people who start with preconceptions based on their religious beliefs can not be trusted.
People who start with the presupposition that the age of anything can be determined by naturalistic methods can not be trusted to give correct ages.
@@mmaimmortals There are no other methods than naturalism and the scientific method.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu
Sure there are.
There is the historical method where you simply say what you saw happen.
If you see a volcano erupt, you simply say so and tell when and where it happened.
Doesn’t even require a PhD...
@@mmaimmortals That's a naturalistic method you just described. It's called observation. Now take it one step further and say that we can compare rock that came from a recent eruption everyone knows about to rocks elsewhere. We can tell if those came from a volcano or not . . . and so on, building on evidence from this we know and drawing more conclusions etc.
As an interesting aside, we know the exact date of the Vesuvius eruption that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum. Rocks from this eruption were radiometrically dated to see how accurate the method is. Guess what . . .
Does this include those whose religion is scientism or a belief in macro evolution?
Just a question: would more carbon in the atmosphere contribute to larger plants and aninals? As we see some huge fossil plants & animals. I know Kent Hovind has speculated the Earth must have had increased atmospheric pressure and increased oxygen, like a hyperberic chamber. Air bubbles in petrified sap show increased oxygen levels. And experiments with hyperberic conditions I believe have resulted in larger plants and fish. Would increased carbon help in this as well?
Plants definitely flourish with higher carbon content.
It isn’t the green house gas the alarmists suppose it is.
The more plants that grow, the more carbon is filtered out of the air.
When you burn wood and leaves, you’re essentially feeding the plants.
Frank Turek and guys like him have being saying it for the longest time that “science” is interpreted by scientists. So it’s there take on it.
kind of the same deal like when police or politicians are guilty of wrong doing and they are investigated by who? - The police and other politicians "we have investigated the claims and have found that we are innocent"
Yeah, we should never trust them darn scientists, like the ones who discovered antibiotics and lasers and space telescopes and air travel and computers and vaccines against polio and smallpox and new treatments for cancer and metallurgical advances able to build giant bridges..........
Thank you
Google basin modelling. See how the fossil fuel industry uses radio metric dating.
Wikipedia says _"... carbon-14 ... occurs in trace amounts, making up about 1 or 1.5 atoms per 10^12 atoms of carbon in the atmosphere."_
Wait, *"1 or 1.5"?* Which is it? That's a 33 to 50% error right at the start.
I think you need to revisit the arithmetic involved. 1 in 100 would represent 1% . 1.5 in 100 would represent 1.5%. The margin of error would be 0.5%. 1 in 1000 would be 0.1% . 1.5 in 1000 would be 0.15%. A difference of 0.05%.
We're talking about 10 to the power of 12 here. If my counting of the zeroes is correct, this would yield an error of 0.00000000005%
Pretty easy to get the wrong end of the stick.
If you want to get to grips with the usefulness of radiometric dating in the real world, Google "basin modelling" in the fossil fuel industry. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it.
@@jonathanrussell1140 The measurement is relative to the starting amount, so we need to know it accurately. Going from 1 to 1.5 is a 50% increase in C14 present (but oddly, going from 1.5 to 1 is only a 33% decrease). Though in retrospect, I wonder if they actually meant a known value between 1 and 1.5.
@@KenJackson_USanyway, Google basin modelling and see how the fossil fuel industry uses it.
@@jonathanrussell1140 I wonder why the fossil fuel industry cares about the age of their product.
@@KenJackson_US your answer suggests that you haven't done the research.
is the presence, of carbon, an argument, for a young earth...
Yes.
No. Google basin modelling to see how the fossil fuel industry uses radiometric dating.
@@PastorwithoutaPulpitnothing proves a young earth. Google basin modelling to see how the fossil fuel industry uses radiometric dating to extract viable quality fossil fuels with consistent success.
All you get from this video is nothing but bad faith.
Good facts, but lackluster delivery. Furthermore, an oversimplified summary of RATE. Andrew Snelling would have been a much better choice. No offense to ICR. I absolutely love you guys and the work you do work!
Andrew Snelling is a two-faced charlatan.
With reference to The Ninth Commandment, when does misrepresentation cross into bearing false witness? I invite responses. Best Wishes, Dr Ian
Are accusing something that was said here of being a misrepresentation? What would that be, exactly?
Google basin modelling to see how the fossil fuel industry successfully uses radiometric dating to achieve results.
Typically, YEC misleading information about radiometric dating involves casting doubt on the stable nature of radiometric decay, or casting doubt over ratios of parent/daughter material, or casting doubt due to possible contamination.
All of these things have either been refuted or are known about. Various tests have been conducted on decay rates to see if they vary as a result of severe changes in temperature, pressure, etc. Any variations are minuscule. To all intents and purposes decay rates are constant. They are part of what we know about physics.
Parent/daughter ratios. Once an igneous rock cools and crystallises the radiometric clock starts from the position of 100% parent. As it decays, the daughter element is formed. The hourglass analogy often used is an accurate one.
If a pure sample taken from an area below the surface with no identified faults/cracks etc, is used then you can guarantee 100% parent material at formation therefore a reliable ratio of parent/daughter isotopes at the sampling date.
The presence of faults such as polonium halos would indicate not to use that area for sample. The conditions that lead to possible contamination are known and avoided.
A margin of error is built into all radiometric dating anyway. With Uranium 235 - Lead 207 dating, uranium 235 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years with a margin of error of a few million years. Now consider the furore over the Mt St Helens results where 10 year old rock was sent off to be tested by YEC "researchers". If you try to test a 10 year old rock using Uranium235/Lead207 dating, given the margin of error, what do you think the result will be? Will it enable bad faith actors to claim that the rock was either at one end of the margin of error, or at the other?
So a 10 year old rock, tested using an inappropriate method could be wildly misrepresented. The vast majority of weird results reported turn up on YEC sites, because they want to discredit radiometric dating, because they will not admit what the fossil fuel industry knows, that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
Fascinating
Google basin modelling to see how the fossil fuel industry uses radiometric dating.
The methods used by radiometric dating labs work to exclude errors and outliers.
The methodology is flawed because we cannot determine the %Error of the method. If you cannot determine %Error, then it's not a useful methodology...and certainly not useful for scientific research.
@@sbgtradingwe can determine the % errors. Tell me something.
Do you fly to places? Planes fall out of the sky sometimes.
Do you drive to places?
Cars are known to have mechanical failures from time to time.
There will be a few anomalies from time to time. The vast majority of them can be explained by contamination or incorrect sampling methods. Mostly these are done by YECs in an attempt to get some mud to stick. The Mount St Helens scam being an obvious one.
Consider this
One of the supposed "flaws" is the radioactive decay rates. YEC "scientists" know they can't argue against radioactive decay. But they want you to believe that radioactive decay was much faster before the flood. What this essentially means is that the earth would have suffered the equivalent of 5000 trillion megatons of damage in the space of at most 6000 years, rendering the earth still radioactive enough to fry all life on earth.
Then there's the problem of compressing Pangaea to Here plate tectonics into 6000 years, resulting in a whole lot more frying of the planet.
Then what about the problem of all the earth impacts we know have happened? That's a whole bunch more heat, dust and debris.
It's basically called the Heat Problem. YEC "scientists" are still working on it....
This is why we KNOW (and I can't stress that enough) that all of these videos trying to prove a literal biblical timeline of 6000 or so years are just so much bs. Sorry to harsh your buzz, but the earth would still be an uninhabitable mess if it weren't billions of years old.
@@sbgtrading Do you still fly, even though planes fall out of the sky? Do you still drive even though cars have accidents?
@@jonathanrussell1140 Sure I do...what's your point?
@@sbgtradingradiometric dating is reliable. The margin of error is small. YEC "researchers" are out to discredit it, but meanwhile the fossil fuel industry uses basin modelling which includes accurate radiometric dating to help identify new viable fields for extraction. If you don't believe me, Google basin modelling.
Radiometric decay rates do have a margin of error built into them. The biggest clock is that of Uranium 235 to Lead 207, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years +/- a few million years. This margin of error represents the known minor fluctuations in decay rate that may occur. Now consider if someone in bad faith, trying to discredit radiometric dating because it proves old earth, took a sample of 10 year old rock from Mt St Helens, didn't tell the lab where it came from, and asked them to date it using Uranium/Lead dating. Would the +/- a few million years margin of error be used as an excuse to misrepresent the date as being incorrect, do you think?
Ask yourself who has the greater incentive to use the correct results in radiometric dating, the fossil fuel industry which stands to profit from successful finds, or the YEC ministries who want to discredit the process because it disproves young earth? It's really very simple, and we shouldn't have to keep debunking this tosh, but somebody is throwing money at this, so we have to keep calling them out.
In short, radiometric decay rates are constant to within tiny margins of error, the parent/daughter ratios of pure samples can be trusted and the possible sources of contaminants are known. Don't use samples where there are identified faults, such as polonium halos.
We think a million years and a billion years are more or less the same, 'give or take' (!) and that they're both 'forever' minus a few hours. 😅
Who is we? Not me.
@@offthefront7537 So when you hear that something happened say five hundred and fifty million years ago and then they correct them selves and say "oh we were wrong it actually happened six hundred and eighty million years ago that has a major impact on you and can change your views in a measurable way? I mean that is a difference of over one hundred million years - its not small potatoes but it essentially becomes just numbers after a while. I mean if it does I would love to understand it so I would appreciate someone showing me how it changes things.
@@aaronowen4425 so go to school and study chemistry, radio isotopes, physics, geology and many other things and try to understand what is going on. Or take the easy way out and just accept what someone says the Bible says and you’re fine. The Bible closes your eyes to what is possible man opens your eyes. Man is constantly revising his views of the observed world. It’s called having an open mind and humility when you admit your mistakes. Is that not what the Bible teaches?
@@offthefront7537 well that is all well and good but with all respect you didn't answer my question about how it affects you. "Man is constantly revising his views of the observed world" Yes I agree 100% with that statement - in my life time the humble egg has went from being a super food to being one of the worst things you can eat for your health and back and forth so many times that I have lost count lol. And that is JUST an egg. Scientists can't make their mind up on a simple egg being good or bad for you. The problem is man often has an ulterior motive (want to sell more eggs? - hire a study where the findings are that it is a super food - want to sell an egg substitute? - hire some scientists/Dr. to discover that eggs clog your arteries and are terrible for your heart etc...), wanting to back a particular stance on a subject, being financially incentivized to have a certain outcome etc. Even look at the process of peer review - while it has its place, look how many times in science it has actually stifled progress because someone thinking outside of the box was dismissed because it didn't go with what was accepted as fact. Look how years ago when we were much less advanced then we are now scientists use to find CURES for sicknesses - now we are light years ahead and you never hear about cures anymore only treatments - I wonder why that is? (that is a rhetorical question by the way to make a point) Anyway It doesn't affect my life one way or the other what stance you decide to take but in my experience the Bible has been 100% dependable where as man much less so. I don't know where you stand on your beliefs but I would urge you to give the bible a chance you might be surprised. I did not make the comment out of malice towards you if you took it that way than I apologize for not wording it better.
Those pesky rescuing devices.. 😂
now that we have found more galaxies farther away, the age of the universe has to increase again, wait for it
Hubbles already accounts for the fact that are objects more that 13.8 million light years from Earth.
Not that the distances are accurate either, being based on the assumption that doppler effect is the only source of redshift, which was proven wrong by Halton Arp's research on objects visibly interacting despite having very different redshifts.
The creator of the universe who has no limits could have easily spread light across the universe instantly.
@@MrGarymola Exactly. In fact, we don't know the speed of light in different parts of universe. We only know it varies.
The "age of the universe" is always qualified as "the age of the visible universe."
Russ Humphreys discovered that the earth's magnetic field has a half life of less than 1500 years. So 4,500 years ago the earth's magnetic field should have been 8 times what it is now. What impact would this greater magnetic strength have had on the number of cosmic rays that got through to hit nitrogen to produce carbon 14?
We are told that the magnetic poles flipped several times during the flood. Could this action have reduced the strength of the earth's magnetic field at even a greater rate?
What impact would these types magnetic changes have on carbon 14 dating?
Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates of specific isotopes and those of their daughter products are uniform over time - this assumption could be wrong but if so would have profound impacts on fields ranging from nuclear energy to the fine tuning of the universe
Very good point, Rob! Wikipedia says about cosmic rays (which form C14), _"the bulk is deflected off into space by the magnetosphere or the heliosphere."_ So if the magnetosphere was _stronger_ thousands of years ago, it surely would have deflected _more_ c-rays and produced _less_ C14. This would produce an _older_ apparent age today.
@KenJackson_US I would love to come across a report from someone who knows how to use the data to calculate the impact of the half life of the earth's magnetic field on the past creation of Carbon 14.
@@roblangsdorf8758
Probably a bigger impact on the carbon balance is a drastic change in green vegetation mass.
So the Flood scrubbing the planet of trees and plants would severely disrupt the carbon balance.
That’s because healthy plants help filter carbon out of the air.
If volcanoes are erupting and spewing ash and smoke, not having plants will cause C12 to be high and give a false long “age”. (Due to a relatively low C14 : C12 ratio).
It would take years, even decades to recover from this.
Likewise, desertification could have a similar effect, such as what happened to Egypt.
Also, an ice age could do it too because of burying large areas under snow.
Yes, magnetic field strength plays a role, but possibly not as much as denuding plant material.
@johnbrinsmead3316 John, I have always wondered why uranium in nuclear reactors became spent fuel so quickly if it had a half life of millions of years. Have you heard any justification for this?
So what everyone misses is when god created the earth it was water first and everything sprang from the water which is where all life comes from.
Molten rock, not water.
@@jonathanrussell1140
Here’s the thing. There is molten rock at the crust because of friction between the plates. But when you go deeper scientists don’t actually know what it is. They know it’s liquid and a solid core but it’s an assumption that it’s lava or molten rock because lava comes out of volcanoes. Any one who’s gone more than a few miles deep stops running into lava and starts running into more water and crystal .
@@markhoffman7437 citations needed
According to ICR, approximately how old is the universe?
Not ICR but I see no issue with believing in billions of years for the age of the universe. I also believe that there wasn't life on earth until approximately 6000 years ago.
The apparent age vs. actual age....depending on your methodology, the universe can appear old. But God testified that it's not old. ICR would probably say the actual age of the universe is probably around 6000 yrs. The hebrew calendar has a similar age, it dates the world at 5783 yrs.
@@truthbebold4009 I've largely held a similar view for several years. I know life can't be millions of years old because the measured mutation rate would make all life go extinct within a couple million years. That also places an upper limit on the age of any fossil bearing sediment layers.
However, I've recently decided to also reject the radiometric dating of the physical earth because it's heavily dependent on the ASSUMPTIONS of the starting element composition and that they haven't been disturbed in billions of years. I strongly suspect they make those assumptions circularly based on their _a priori_ belief that the earth is old. Garbage in, garbage out.
Couldn't we select different assumptions for those starting compositions that give us a young earth?
@@mattbrook-lee7732: "(if multiple clocks all say the same time then confidence in that time being correct increases exponentially)"
Multiple clocks means you're starting with multiple assumptions about starting conditions.
I've also seen the claim that those multiple clocks routinely return wildly differing times and the one most desired is selected as the correct answer and the others are just discarded. How can we know that's not happening?
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Interesting. Though high probability assumptions are still assumptions. And you're likely _starting_ with the assumption that the worldwide flood didn't even happen, which is a bad start.
Has any species ever gone extinct? Will any current species go extinct? If yes then at what rate does extinction occur? If this is the case then when will the planet be bereft of life? Or will god just create new species? What then happened to dinosaurs? Were they on the ark?
Has any species ever gone extinct? - 99%
Will any current species go extinct? - All current species will go extinct.
If yes then at what rate does extinction occur? - That varies.
- If this is the case then when will the planet be bereft of life? - Estimates vary.
Or will god just create new species? - There are many gods but they can create only destruction. Lord Jesus could create new species since He already created the existing ones according to God's will. Bible however doesn't tell much of the future world. New heavens and new earth will get created.
What then happened to dinosaurs? Were they on the ark? - Dinosaurs obviously were in the Ark as dinos were reportedly going around still in the Middle Ages.
I find it mind-boggling that you're even asking these questions! Just Google the answers, man!
15:00 They probably got the right date because they made a mistake!
People who buy into evolution get annoyed at me when I say that belief in evolution is full of assumptions and imagination.
I guess we get annoyed most of all at your arrogant ignorance.
@@stevepierce6467 Like yours? I have spent years looking at the evidence on both sides and have found that for evolution to be extremely lacking. Like I said, it is entirely based on assumptions and imagination, no actual scientific facts.
@@HoneyHollowHomestead Or, you can acknowledge the actual truth, that evolution is indeed based on extensive research and diligent study of mountains of evidence proving scientific facts. Evolution is fact, and much of modern medical science is based on that fact.
@@stevepierce6467 I have already fought this battle in my mind over many years, I have looked at the "evidence" with an open mind. I could deny the truth no longer. If you choose to continue believing the lie you have been brainwashed with your entire life, that is on you. I encourage you to attempt to look at the actual evidence with an open mind, if you are able to. Continue to watch this channel and others like it. I will pray that your eyes will be opened.
@@HoneyHollowHomestead The day someone presents me with concrete verifiable evidence for biblical creationism is the day I will listen intently. Until then I will continue to follow where concrete verifiable evidence leads. I would definitely look at evidence for creationism with an open mind.....if only there were some!
There are many other dating techniques…..potassium-argon for example ! Very sketchy, and tells us nothing ! As soon as he says “ pre-flood “ , I quit listening !
What are you afraid of in the dating, dating in the Bible is only how written word was formed with each letter was formed. Religion try to say what in history proves they are right but history in no in the Bible.
If this guys a scientist then I'm the Dali lama.
You sound more like the Melo-drama
Because you can't comprehend it it can't be true. I can't comprehend how doctors do what they do therefore they're not really doing it.
It's not a matter of comprehension...it's a matter of facts. Radiometric dating has issues. If you cannot calculate %Error of the method, then that method is useless for scientific research. And radiometric dating methods have an indeterminate %Error value.
I'm 75 years old. Nothing was here before I was born. Prove me wrong.
If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, the universe might not be older than last Thursday.
Hurray! I was not here to physically witness World War II, therefore it never happened! (also 75)
This guest does not seem very honest. I doubt geochronogists would use their methods if they were constantly wrong. Different isotopes would have to be wrong in exact same way as if physics went willy-nilly.
Do you hold a doctorate degree, as does Dr. Tim Clarey, in geology? Apparently you didn't bother to take the time to learn the identity of the "guest". Next, exactly what are your FACTS that shape your opinion that Dr. Clarey was lying? Or is that just another ASSUMPTION, like the assumptions mentioned in the video, itself.
What is your FACTUAL evidence to confirm your statement about "geochronogists". Further, you've either ignorantly or deliberately chose to ignore one of the main points in this discussion. Potential contamination by groundwater over the life of the sample being tested. How can the geochronogists ensure that a rock sample taken from the Grand Canyon or a mountain top containing seashell fossils be free from the effects of H20 over the expanse of time?
@@oldtimerlee8820 That is a silly argument from authority. This is first year geology were talking about. I just read one of Clarey's article where he cites himself 5 times and no one else. That is a hallmark sign of circular scholarship. If rocks samples are contaminated, they would be have to be wrong by the exact amounts. This would also not work with isochron methods. If it is water that is contaminating it would helpful to demonstrate how certain isotopes are more soluble than others.
"I doubt geochronogists would use their methods if they were constantly wrong." - You mean they would abandon their well paid jobs just because they know their methods are unreliable? Evolution theory needs those millions of years. Thousands of years would water the whole theory.
the bible never says 6000 years old. it says Adam is 6000 years ago, he is made Day 4? in an unknown time scale. a day in the bible fluctuates. it can be a thousand years. or any length. Satan is described as a Serpent, how was he created? it generates questions. with time dilation, speed of light and other factors. it looks like God is a reality.
Adam was made on day 6.
And that literally is a “time scale”.
It literally means on the 6th day that the creation existed.
The serpent in the "Garden of Eden" isn't Satan, because Satan rocks up later on with both his legs still intact.
@@mmaimmortalsAdam (Adamah = clay/man) is the result of an Ancient Hebrew Golem spell.
@@jonathanrussell1140 The serpent was subtle. Satan is speaking. Satan bonded with a serpent. He boded also with JUDAS, the anti christ. Today he uses Hollywood to speak. He uses Politicians. He speaks through Kings. Ezekiel 28. He possesses those that want him. Judas invited him in. He wanted Satan. and so we wait for JUDAS, the capstone. He arrives , when we go away. He is dredged up. Given power and rules the G7 nations. the Ten nations. That will rule earth in the last years. WHO DO YOU THINK... can supply the digital cash for everyone worldwide? Ephraim the Syrian says we wait for ten nations. he said it in the 4th century. He is reading the bible. and he knows we should see ten nations. Everyone who needs cash? Digital cash, will need permission. From what authority? TODAY? Russia? China? no - its a global authority. THE UN is far too big. 198? nations. the EU? over 27? The G7 is GOLDILOCKS. Just right.
Why during this discussion is he not citing the bible? I thought this was the source for all truth? Why not have someone on who has a different viewpoint and have a real discussion? remember socrates?
Main steam science in these fields is based on nothing more than faulty assumptions based on predetermined factors, such as the fallacy of deep time, designed to fit a narrative of their imaginations. The funny thing to me is time is not their ally but disproves their claims and works against them. Add as much time as you want and it's still impossible for different kinds of multicell creatures to emerge from some type of primordial goo or to evolve beyond their original creation state. There is no new information being added to any creature on the planet, the reverse is actually true as can be shown. Micro evolution does in fact occur within kinds and we can see it but there's no proof of macro evolution as they claim to be the case. They do this as if it were fact when even they know the mathematical impossibility of their claims in most cases. There is no way to get DNA from random chance as it is a definite language. One we are still woefully ignorant of despite claims over 15 years ago now that they had cracked it. The claim was made that they could produce just the amino acids and proteins that are required for the basic foundation in a lab under controlled conditions. They've still yet to do this and that is under controlled conditions not just in some puddle of goo...
God Bless...
What an utter load of proven complete falsehood.
Luckily it is easy to falsify the bible. One contradiction in the bible is enough.
Luckily there are no contradictions in Bible.
@@jounisuninen There are a lot, so there is no doubt that the bible is not a book of facts.
@@georg7120 What is one contradiction in the Bible?
@@chrispark2698 There are many.
@@chrispark2698 There are many of them.
Science confirming the bible is an oxymoron.
"Science confirming the bible is an oxymoron." - Evolutionist producing unbiased science is an oxymoron.
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion ..." [Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.]
Science follows behind Bible ...
Like the fact that the universe contains no empty space but is kind of "fabric" that affects the speed of light.
Also the fact that there is no evolution, just devolution as all living organisms advance towards extinction.
Also that universe had a start and will meet its end in the heat death.
Also that mankind is about 6000 years old as show the latest studies in genetics.
Also the DNA which shows God's handwriting as it's impossible to appear in any unguided process.
Also that creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
And so on ...
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla
Scientism you mean .
Can empirical evidence be trusted?
Or would you rather prefer another schools student telling you their teacher has the answer book....minus the calculations! 😂
As usual you missquoat and cherry pick the facts. Your treachery is shameful.
What exactly did they get wrong?
@@chrispark2698almost all of it. They got the half-life of Carbon-14 about right. The rest is misrepresentation.
@@jonathanrussell1140 My question was "what EXACTLY did they get wrong?"
How about an example?
@@chrispark2698well I could go through the video timeline and fact check it all for you, or you could. The actual mechanics of Carbon 14 dating are accurately described. It's the interpretation that is way out of whack.
Before I go through the video and hit you with specifics, you might want to consider how the fossil fuel industry uses accurate radiometric dating as part of Basin Modelling to help find viable, good quality fossil fuel reserves before they go to the trouble of drilling. They need to know they're going to get bang for their buck. It's a practical application of radiometric dating in the real world. It works.
@chrispark2698 for the most part, the description of the process of Carbon-14 dating is accurate.
What you don't hear or see are any citations of actual results. It's all hearsay. We know Steven Austin did some dodgy sampling of coal, where the samples obtained were contaminated. This is done to discredit radiometric dating because it doesn't fit the YEC agenda. The parameters involved in radiometric dating are questioned to cast further doubt on the methodology. This includes "was the decay rate constant", "were the proportions of parent/daughter isotope correct", "was there contamination of the rock from e.g. soluble uranium?"
All of these so called doubts are known to the labs that do the dating. The decay rate issue has been tested to destruction, in conditions of extreme temperatures and pressures to see if the rate alters. It doesn't. To all intents and purposes it remains constant. Any variations are infinitesimally small, but as a precaution all the different methods have their own margins of error built in to compensate for this.
WRT parent/daughter isotopes,
we know that the parent clock starts at 100% and the daughter clock at 0%.
Any anomalies that show up in the testing and can usually be explained by geological events such as reheating and subsequent recrystallization of the rocks. It is therefore important to know the location the sample came from to determine if there are any known events that might compromise the results.
The lava mentioned at the bottom the grand canyon could have been re-plasticised by geological events.
He is lying when he says they almost always get the dating wrong.
This is full of conjecture.
But also bear in mind that since these charlatans know these issues, they can work them to their advantage.