I found Dr Snelling's presentation fascinating. He explained theories that resolve the conflicts I have with widely accepted concepts of geoscience and my beliefs about creationism. I was a hard rock geophysicist with lab and field experience. His discussion of accelerated radioactive decay was presented with not enough facts and time to convince me. The other premises were well explained, with references provided. Thank you Dr. Snelling.
I not only learned in depth how these dating methods were flawed but I learned a little bit about how radiometric decay works which helped me to understand even more about how inaccurate these dating methods are. He even showed where he got the information from and proved that they ran these tests on the methods. This was definitely the best lecture I’ve seen on this topic. I love this channel.
Jesus said King James Bible In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you . This is just a clue pertaining to the vastness of the existing realm ,possibly in a different universe?
Yes, they really showed their dishonest in this video, they knew the lava flow was younger than the lower limit for the method they selected, that is, the K-Ar method. The lower limit for K-Ar is 100,000 years, at least. If you use the method outside the limit, like on younger rocks, you get wild readings. So they KNEW they would get wrong result by using the K-Ar method, but presented the result anyway said radiometric dating methods are flawed, truly dishonest.
@@millantronni3242 I’m sure dinosaur soft tissues that should completely decay within 900k years was just a big hoax too huh? Or is there some way that the decay rates for those cases are just special?
@@gatolf2 "I’m sure dinosaur soft tissues that should completely decay within 900k years was just a big hoax too huh?" No, Mary found heavily mineralized collagen that she could extract with acids, awesome, look what science can do. She also found out why it could be preserved for so long, awesome, look what science can do " Or is there some way that the decay rates for those cases are just special?" If you bother to read Mary's paper it will be revealed to you, it have nothing to do with decay rate but all with iron. Now, before you run over to AiG to see what you should think about all this, no, they have not found blood or meat.
@@millantronni3242 yeah they have found blood cells as well. There’s a whole list of these things being discovered. It wasn’t an isolated incident. As usual with people who want to believe in the old earth and evolution, they just redefine what could falsify it. Ever since her discovery of this they started finding it all the time. You know why? I’ll tell you why. They never tried looking for it before because they’ve chosen to believe that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. Even they believed this wasn’t possible because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Then when it gets discovered they come up with something that might explain it away and then brush it under the rug to never be talked about again 😂 just like the Cambrian explosion and just like the fact that you can hundreds of different unchanged species in the fossil record that are supposedly millions of years old.
So I've heard good rebuttals to the Mt. Saint Helens dates. Basically, it amounts to the equipment being used contaminating the rocks with excess Argon. Or, they claim he's being dishonest by using a method that oughtn't work in such a short time. I still have questions. I understand the concept of dating method ranges, but doesn't that mean you must have already decided how old something is before you date it? I understand the criticisms but I still want answers.
Back in '97 I bought the Creation 6 Pack of Cassettes and nearly worn them out listening to Dr. Snelling, Dr. Gary Parker, Ken Ham, Dr. Carl Weiland and Professor A E Wilder-Smith. The information then is just as relevant today and has strengthened my faith in the Word of God, and inoculated me from evolutionist propaganda. God bless your Ministry. - Amen.
@@hwd7 As you say- "ministry" Not science. They have to warp and misrepresent and lie about science to make their cases. If they used actual science, not their ministry they would have no case at all.
Eine atheistische "Wissenschaft" belügt uns und belügt sich selbst, sie glauben ihren Lügen wie einem Dogma, dem man nicht widersprechen darf. Die Wahrheit wird unterdrückt und verschwiegen, Falsches öffentlich als Tatsache hingestellt, obwohl man es unterdessen schon besser wissen müsste, so sind die meisten im Irrtum, der Gott leugnet gefangen. Danke an alle, die an erkannter Wahrheit festhalten und ihre Forschung veröffentlichen.
@@sliew9120 Relative not absolute. Radiometric dating is absolute not relative. If the facts that a low it to be such were not facts, Atomic bombs wouldn't explode and nuclear reactors would.
Thank you for going over this in detail, however most of it I don't understand and I don't know that I'm going to be able to retain, but I'm glad it's here for a resource for those who can.
I just want to thank you folks for posting these lectures. I went to college but I did not study these subjects back then. I have however for the last 20 yrs. been examining (dating methods, geology, biology, botany) & have gotten to the point to where I understand what you guys are talking about. The only thing I like to study more is The Word of God. This info is very much needed in these days since schools only teach the secular points of view & will not allow the Biblical points of view & allow students to decide for themselves. Schools today do what Hitler, Stalin & Mao did, "INDOCTRINATION". Keep up the good work.
Excellent presentation full of cited info ty! Lava exterior rapid cool-and-trap argon was so obvious in hindsight, but it never occured to me b4?!! Lol
Supposedly they do, but I personally don't believe in climate change - at least not the part where scientists are trying to blame us for their "when in doubt burn it" philosophy. I mean think about it - first coal and steam, then the combustion engine, and then again the trillion tons of coal we STILL burn every year, and even nuclear energy - all are based on burning something that produces hydrocarbons and/or toxins. Yet it's OUR fault? I don't think so. And even if we humans ARE responsible it's STILL the scientist's fault since we have no control or say over what they invent or the methods they choose. There are also a lot of PHd scientists who think the planet is warming due to the sun and that it has nothing to do with us whatsoever. Just another way of passing the buck and at the same time squeezing more of them out of us for our so-called "carbon footprint." So, even a new born needs to pay for his or her place on Earth? What a crock...! If scientists would drop their worthless and bankrupt fairy tale, then they could start to do real science, and we could start researching sources of energy without burning stuff. How much better condition would the planet be in if they went with clean forms of energy and didn't take the easy way out by burning everything? No they have to push the oil so they can get every penny they can out of us - with little regard for the health of us and the Earth! And one last thing - there was a young Texas man back in the early '70's who rigged his fat ride's fuel system to run on fumes ONLY. After only a few tries he succeeded in getting 100 MPG out of the 4-door beast! Not surprisingly, he died shortly afterwards in a highly suspicious manner. You can search UA-cam for "engine running only on fumes" and you'll find several videos showing this to be 100% true! There are also hybrids out there that run on gas and water, but could easily be converted to run on water ONLY!?! Imagine THAT?!? And the ONLY emission when running on water is WATER! Talk about CLEAN energy! Nope, can't have these technologies because they wouldn't stay billionaires, right?
" Don’t carbon-12 and carbon-14 factor into the miscalculations/misinterpretations wrt climate change? " Not really, but they have to adjust it for the last 50 years of nuclear bomb testing in the atmosphere. But the starting values for 14C is well known, it is extracted from tree rings (dendrochronology) which we have a record of 8500 years back, after that we use stalagmites for the "starting" value back to some 50000 years.
@@lancetschirhart7676 it all depends on what you mean by peer-reviewed journals. We all have the same data. It's when we attach our presuppositions to that data and misinterpret it that faulty conclusions can arise. If you start with faulty assumption you will, by very definition, end up with faulty conclusions. Evolutionism needs those Rock layers 2 indicate millions of years. Without that, the theory died. Therefore, the evolutionist is forced to reject soft tissue in dinosaur bones, fossil trees that cross through hundreds of millions of years of strata, and carbon 14 in diamonds. So oh, the evolutionists must reject the design that is so apparent in nature and the creationist is free to explore it. At this point, these two religions collide. And it's hard to be peers when both sides disagree with each other's presuppositions.
@@geriallen7443 Evolution is strongly supported by several independent fields of science not just one, to try knock those that believe in Evolution because of your disagreements with one of the fields shows gross ignorance of all the supporting fields out there. Evolution is not only the most solid accepted theory to date it is demonstrable, it can be witnessed in real time and we can even now see the many direct genetic links between related species and those that share common ancestry, the fact in evolution everything came originally from the same early living organisms and we can actually identify and physically see these common factors in our DNA to those early single celled organisms and every living thing on earth we care to test. To deny evolution is to not understand it and from similar videos this channel has done it is clear that they are pushing a very warped version of evolution to suit their agenda which people like yourself lap-up as it also suits your mindset.
One question I would love to ask Dr. Snelling is why neodymium is even present since it is a decay product of Samarium and takes 100 billion years when the universe is supposedly 13.5 billion years old.
I am intrigued by this video. Where are the actual citation links showing the dating errors (6 billion year old diamonds, etc.)? If I want to interest unbelieving colleagues, I need the citations to the original papers. Thanks!
Every drop of water on earth today is just as old as the earth itself. Is it not the same for every rock, which are made up of grains of various elements. Does it make any difference whether they are found on the surface of the ground or spit from the interior of the earth thru the mouth of a volcano? I'd seriously like to know.
I personally found 2 rocks with red coral skeletons still attached to them east of the Superstition Mountains which are east of Apache Junction Arizona. We're talking serious desert! My friend who I was with helped me load the rocks into his vehicle. He asked if he could take them in to show to his teacher at Mesa Community College where he was studying geology. I agreed. What I didn't agree to at the time was his generous donation of those rocks to the school. Last year I contacted the school and inquired about those rocks. I KNOW they were on display there at one time but no one there knew anything about them when I asked. Are they so afraid of the truth that they "need" to hide something like this?
This merely proves that the area was underwater at one time, not a global flood. Let me ask, how do you think a delicate feature like coral could have survived intact during a violent, earth shattering event such as Noah's flood? In fact science affirms that your area was underwater during the time when most of the southwest was inundated by an inland sea.
Yeshua, only if the deluges lasted much longer. I still have not seen a single claimed method whereby calcium carbonate from coral reefs could be laid down into limestone beds in a single world wide raging flood. And like I said above, some of those bedded limestones do feature fragile coral which was buried in underwater landslides. Now you might say, "Ahh ha! You proved my case!" But no, that only solves the fragile coral in the limestone bedding. You still need warm calm seas, like the ones off the coasts of Bahama to settle the surrounding layers. Furthermore, we have delicate features like ripple marks, raindrops, reptile tracks, fossilized eggs, plant fossils, etc which would have to be buried, in some cases transported whole cloth millions of miles intact, and then laid anew. Even worse, the dating of the materials would have to match.Even creationists like Snellings and Humphreys admit to this problem. In short, creationists have more massive problems with their idea than the entire weight of water the flood was said to have produced.
Juan Pascal hey Juan! Most Christian Scholars speculate, yes note that word speculate, that the flood lasted for one year. However, inland seas as well as large lakes would have taken much longer to dry up. Hey I wasn't there! Whole lot of speculation going on! Peace be to you!
Three assumptions? No, Young Grasshopper, there are six. Let’s put them all in one place. Since a rock sample was formed, we are asked to assume; 1. No parent atoms were added 2. No parent atoms were removed 3. No daughter atoms were added 4. No daughter atoms were removed 5. Decay rates have been constant, and, 6. Sample originally had only parent atoms (no daughter atoms) We could then add an overriding 7th assumption which controls all of the previous assumptions and all the interpretations of all observations, which is that the earth is billions of years old. And so it is all doctrinal and not, in the strict sense of the word, scientific. The latter is demonstrated by the dismissiveness and even downright oppression and hostility toward the young Earth paradigm. If it dismisses and rejects evidence, then it is not science, but in fact has become anti-science masquerading as science. That’s a critically important point. It is not science merely because it says it is science, surrounds itself with the trappings of science, and uses much of the language of science. And so, to wrap it up with a nice bow on top- Anti-science, just like the anti-Christ, claims to be that which it opposes, and furthermore in its pride and arrogance it claims infallibility in its determinations, demands agreement and compliance, and oppresses its detractors using intimidation and threats. It’s really quite transparent when you think about it in those terms. And mark these words- Anti-science standing in the place of science (Vicarius Scientia) and the anti-Christ standing in the place of Christ (Vicarius Filii Dei) are even now in league with one another, building a single, church/state, global power structure. And it will succeed because we’ve been too intimidated and distracted to even think about it. And should you think me off base, or even mad, then go and read Laudato Si, and there you find a perfect melding together of anti-science and anti-Christianity, each beautifully masquerading as the real thing, claiming infallibility, and demanding compliance (or else).
I like the gist of your comment, except that I don't see why you needed to break out the 2nd assumption of "contamination" into its four possibilities, i.e. your assumptions 1-4.
@@mers3481 Because it looks more impressive that way than it really is. That's the trick with science denial. When you have little on your side, you need to make it look bigger than it really is.
1-4 are not 4 different assumptions, they're only 1, no contamination. So you got only 3. For what you call "assumption" 6, it's not an assumption, it's pretty much known. See Geo Girl on UA-cam, she has a very good video on explaining how that works and how we know it. As to decay rates being constant, that's been observed and it's been checked against other dating methods for consistency. You got very little in reality. Your effort to blow up the contamination assumption into 4 is very telling of someone who knows he has little to go by.
Biochemist: What exactly is the cause of radioactive decay? If it is inherent instability of the subatomic particles, then the rate of decay is not subject to external interference, but is an internal law of the atom (perhaps subject to minor external interference but not significant). Therefore, the argument that the decay rate could have been different in the past is not valid. Any feedback from a knowledgeable person, please? Another question: I wonder at the "consistency" of the result of millions of years for recent samples - why is it always (or almost always) millions? How come the results are so far off? What is causing that?
How does carbon 14 decay/transform into nitrogen 14 when Carbon 14 has 6 electrons but it emits an electron when it decays into nitrogen 14, which has 7 electrons?
It's about the protons and neutrons, not electrons. When C-14 decays, one of its neutrons emits an electron and changes into a proton. The electrons around the nucleus are not affected.
Hi David, i was looking for that too and found the following link www.icr.org/rate/ then go to the bottom of the page and click on the free download 2.8MB PDF, a lot of what i wanted was there.
it depends on the method of testing. C14 can be tested using liquid scintillation, gas scintillation, direct beta counting, or AMS. AMS is more reliable, requires less of a sample, but has the drawbacks of being more expensive, and more prone to contamination. Having said that AMS is the current standard method. AMS allows for a range from 100 years to 40K with 50K years being the theoretical max. Older methods have smaller ranges some as little as 20K years.
I have read around 50,000 years after that the aging breaks down in accuracy, so even if you can go back accuraly 100,000 years, doesnt change the fact of the evidence of global flood.
The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years and is more precise for recent events. For older rock layers, isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years. Millions of years during which life has been striving. For those seeking for 'references' (there are tons of them) just understand that internet is a publication, which existence is motivated by traffic thus ad revenues created by any phony calls for your attention (polemics, lies).
@David Anewman Why not? I'm open. You seem to detain absolute truth. Great! Travel the world, dig it, find some historic coherence, write a real fact based article or book, have it reviewed, I'll be happy to change my mind. Until then, you are just a troll that have been trolled and trying to troll. And yes, you can actually date with 'stardust' even if its approximate, at least its not a lie. All that video is saying, is that absolute time measurement is not precise and that this channel owner lives from your ignorance.
they really showed their dishonest in this video, they knew the lava flow was younger than the lower limit for the method they selected, that is, the K-Ar method. The lower limit for K-Ar is 100,000 years, at least. If you use the method outside the limit, like on younger rocks, you get wild readings. So they KNEW they would get wrong result by using the K-Ar method, but presented the result anyway said radiometric dating methods are flawed, truly dishonest.
@@millantronni3242 so how do you know you can trust the method, if you can not test it on samples of known age. If it completely fails on samples of known age, it doesn’t give me any reason to trust it on samples of unknown ages. Even worse, on samples of unknown ages you can assign it any age the method gives you, and how would you know if it’s actually correct or not? If you cross reference them with similar methods, you are still dealing with the same issues, Or you have to cross reference them to methods that don’t require assumptions and aren’t affected by unknown various conditions, but then why wouldn’t you use that method in general? Why do you accept these methods as reliable and think of yourself as scientifically correct, but the person questioning the reliability, and actually uses the part of the scientific method of trying to find problems with the hypothesis of the methods as unscientific? Just because their worldview is different then yours, doesn’t automatically mean that there arguments are invalid
He doesn't say we can't calibrate methods based on an objective comprehension of decay rates, he simply asserts that we don't, and never explains why he believes that. We actually do calibrate our methodologies based on empirical data obtained from tests of samples of known ratios. Its actually been extensively studied and continues to be rigorously studied with higher standards. Just to give a simple example of calibration, is cross confirmation. Taking things with a known ratio, of a known age, and applying diffenent methods to see if they match up. Something like carbon dating a wooden beam from the 1700's from an old estate with written records proving when it was constructed, and when the wood was down and from which forrest. If the records show it was built in 1783 and the wood havested three years prior, that puts the wood at roughly at 230 years old at a minimum, plus or minus 15 depending on which part of the tree the beam was cut from. If we radio carbon dated that and got 238 years plus or minus 10, then at least in this instance it was an accurate prediction. Now a one off means nothing. Two doesn't mean much either, or four...but after you get to about 50, 100, or 1,000 sampkes that have consistently matched up with very few explainable anomolies, it starts looking like a reliable dating method.
He gives a reason for the statement that you can not calibrate. You do not have any measurement from the original or start date. You have no way to get the original amount, especially for any prehistoric date. He also explains the issues with Isochron method.around the 25 minute time frame.
@@waynebaker542 ". You do not have any measurement from the original or start date" Yes, it is, for radio metric carbon dating tree rings are used to know the starting values up to 8000 years back, after that stalagmites are used. tree rings grow patterns are correlated to sediment beds in lakes and ice core, all three matches.
@@taripar4967 hmmm...if you're only looking at the sources critical of their accuracy and not looking at rhe sources that explain how the studies were conducted, which methkds they used, and how those methods are calibrated...then no. One kf the common criticisms of radiometric dating is in not knowing the original ratio of the parent and daughter isotopes. While this is true, some daughter isotopes are more or less stable than others establishing a finite range for the margin of error. Tree ring data of coarse is not applicable to calibrating uranium-lead, or argon-argon or potasium-argon methods, thus is why no one has ever used it for that despite some very misguided claims. However tree ring data is useful for calibration of carbon dating, as many species of trees have very reliable grow patterns, that can be used to construct an accurate timeline across different trees of the same species in a specific region.
1:02:53 because K/Ar is not suitable for measuring the dates above 1 Gy and actually 0.5 Gy iff the lab is not good. Analogy, if you take a weights with 1 kilo max weigth shown, then 2, then 4 and weight 3.5 kilo on them it will show 1 kilo, 2, 3.5
The claims made about dating assumptions are incorrect. For example, in uranium-lead dating we can directly determine if any initial daughter lead (206/207) was present in zircon by measuring the abundance of lead-204, which is NOT a daughter isotope (sometimes called common Pb). The relative abundance of 204 to 206 and 207 in nature is known and can be used to determine initial values of the latter. However, this is a non-issue with uranium-lead zircon dating anyway because we've analyzed the composition of tens of thousands of zircons and we know it does not incorporate lead into its crystal lattice to begin with. We can also validate decay rates by dating the same rock sample using different isotopic systems in different minerals - for example comparing the U-Pb zircon age to the Re-O molybdenite age. The fact that they routinely match shows that the decay rates of these isotopes are indeed constant. If either isotope rate varied they would never match.
Science! I love how all the orthodox dates given for ancient phenomena are considered “scientific facts”, I suppose just like the 6 billion year old diamonds
They really showed their dishonest in this video, they knew the lava flow was younger than the lower limit for the method they selected, that is, the K-Ar method. The lower limit for K-Ar is 100,000 years, at least. If you use the method outside the limit, like on younger rocks, you get wild readings. So they KNEW they would get wrong result by using the K-Ar method, but presented the result anyway said radiometric dating methods are flawed, truly dishonest.
@@taripar4967 "To say they are different tells me there's an assumption that certain rocks already ARE 100k+ years old." The 100k limit is due to or ability to detect small amount of argon and that argon close to the surface need to escape. "All measurements for ancient rock should be deduced surrounding rock formations we CAN observe. If K-Ar dating doesn't work on brand new rocks, it doesn't work on any rocks. " No, we are limited to how well we can measure things, the K-Ar methods is built around measuring daughter isotopes and the remaining amount of parent isotope and to detect/measure small amount of something is in principle difficult. Therefore there is A lower limit of K-Ar to got get accurate measurement of the small amount of produced argon 40 (daughter isotopes that is produced by decaying parent isotopes) A upper limit of K-Ar to get good and accurate measurement of parent isotopes of potassium. Because the potassium is decaying over time it is less and less of them, until a limit where we either can not measure them of they are just gone (all have decayed into Argon) All radiometric dating methods have upper and lower limits and other constrains. For example radio metric carbon dating (c14) it have a upper limit of around 50000, older than that it is extremely difficult to measure it at all and the risk of very tiny amount of contamination during handling gets the overhand so even if C14 is measured and "give" an age of 65000 years you can not distinguish it from contamination or background radiation, also, it can not be used for sea living creatures (this have been known since 1961) due to the reservoir effect. "If U-Pb doesn't work on new rocks, it doesn't work on old rocks. Seems obvious to me." See same reason for K-Ar above, all methods have upper and lower limits and restrictions of how and when to be used. Most methods have assumptions (which of course is testable and falsifiable) " The methods were developed in isolation from actual, new lava flows (to my knowledge) in order to date fossils and rock layers and such." Please elaborate, i do not understand you? " The method should have always been derived from newly formed rock, not old rock we don't (and can't) know the origin state of." That would be difficult in all radio metric dating, take K-Ar method, if you measure on newly formed rock you do not have much isotopes from the decay yet and you have atmospheric argon gas as well very very small amount decayed potassium argon coming out of "cracks" near the surface. If you want to demonstrate that a method is wrong you should show that the assumptions are wrong (they are testable and falsifiable) as a principle, not come with one measurements, you need to demonstrate the principle behind the assumptions are wrong. For example: Demonstrate that the decay rate for K-Ar can vary over time, this have been tested but not been able to show it can vary so far the assumption is "fair to use". But if you can demonstrate a circumstance that the beta decay rate do vary you can falsify K-Ar method (and most likely C14 as well becaosue both are beta decay) but it wont affect U-Pb, that are other type of decays involved as well.
I firmly am on the side of creation based on 1- my interpretation of the scientific data , ( and to simplify because it's late and I don't want to type :) 2- I'll just call it common sense, discernment, or intuition but the math itself say's there no way the sermon coming from the bully pulpits of the secular high priests can be correct. 21st century bio-chemistry is one arrow too many. A single chain of amino acids joined with isometric polymers and optical isomers ( right and left handed ) requires a chain of aprx 250. The universe is said to be 14.6 billion ? that's like 10 to the 60th - seconds sense the big bang. The odds of one usable protein arising from chance with these complexities are 10 to thee 248,,,, Then please tell me where the code comes from? Too many data points for this comment. Galileo in the early 17th century wrote what many to believe the founding document of the scientific revolution circa 1620. Bruno had just been burned at the stake, and he wrote to a friend and highly placed Benedictine Monk , I believe his name Cassinelli. to keep it short he wrote that the second book of God, is the book of God's works. And it is written in the language of mathematics. As such the only one's truly qualified to interpret it's true meaning were the mathematicians. He went on to draw a corollary that as such, this imbues them with a priestly class status. Anyone without the proper cred's are mostly useless eaters ( his words not mine lol ) I think most scientists have followed this thought even to today. I never write or comment but I was so impressed with the discourse in a civil way , it was uplifting to read a true exchange of ideas without all the "key banging". Awesome job from you all, I am a Christian, Veteran, Father and as of two day's ago a grandfather. This country needs us all to be able to engage the diversity of thought / ideologies of our neighbors without having to lop off heads! and live and let live man :) Maybe next time we can straighten me out on the palladium Halo's found in Granite. Isn't their half life about 6 seconds yet we find the halo signatures trapped in solid Granite? or that the carbon and O/2 levels in pre history had to be different to support the gigantism we see in the early fossil record.
I agree, but to me the most important point you make above is huge and very basic, and that's WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM?!? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know for a FACT that information comes only from an intelligent mind, and that even if information could be created "naturally," trillions of years wouldn't be anywhere near enough time to create just the massive amount of info stored in the DNA molecule out of an inert chemical soup. I can't remember exactly what he was referring to (I think it had something to do with certain complex sugars in a cell), but practicing synthetic chemist James Tour said in one of his lectures that the chances of these molecules being created randomly are 1 to the 39 billionth (with a "B")! That is by far THE BIGGEST number I've EVER heard quoted by ANY scientist while discussing ANYTHING. Especially since there are supposed to be ONLY 1 to the 80th atoms in the ENTIRE Universe! I'm pretty sure James makes this comment in this lecture @ ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html If you haven't heard him speak you should consider watching this video. He's super funny and scary smart. You'd learn how he won the world's first ever nanocar race that he and his team built with an engine that ran at 3 million RPMs! I couldn't even begin to imagine that but what if your car could run at that speed?!? Ha! You wouldn't be able to keep a tranny in it, or tires on it! Very smart people, and Tour is very entertaining...
@@ForeverBleedinGreen The problem with your analysis here is you have trapped yourself into a way of thinking that misinterprets probability for example - If I was to be dealt a royal flush in poker the odds on that is 1 in 649,739, the odds of then be dealt a 2nd royal flush after the first depends from where in the timeline you look at the calculation, if you are the viewing it after the 1st royal flush has dropped and doing the odds of another one then it is the exact same 1 in 649,739. However if you approach this from a time perspective before the first one has dropped and you are calculating the odd of 2 in a row then this number is vastly greater, 1 in approx 420billion. Why do I bring this up, this is because this is how you are misinterpreting the probability here, you are looking at the big figure because you are trying to work out a string of probabilities in a row when in fact you should be calculating the probability post event for each stage. Secondly you have assumed this is truly random event but that is not the case, the universe is governed by natures laws and because of that there is a natural procession that can create very complex outcomes from very basic rules, we see this throughout nature be they fractural designs in plants to shoals of fish seemingly making complex patterns and moves to evade predators, it is not the case it is simply each fish following a few rules relating to the adjacent fish and what they do. So this idea that complex amino acids cannot form as we observe because the probability is way too high is flawed from the off, in fact when you factor in my comments and add the fact they are not truly random it actually given the age of the universe means it is almost a certainty they will form on a regular basis. This is a well known probability trick used by the church to dispel the idea nature itself can give these results, I have demonstrated this many a time to expose this deliberate attempts to misguide the people by the church, I have yet to see any challenge to my position on this.
@@ForeverBleedinGreen Ironically even James Tour would never claim that Evolution is false… instead he pretends that he doesn’t know enough about it to say if it’s true or not. There are 200 ERV insertions in the human genome that we share with chimpanzees and are at exactly the same places. The likelihood of only 2 of them being at the same place has a chance of 10 to the power of 50… no need to calculate it for the rest… it would be 10 to the power of trillions.😂 In other words… it’s impossible that Evolution is false.
@David Anewman Hey great question. _According to your claims on redshift, the Earth is the center._ Actually no. The observations show all galaxies rushing away from us. The observations also show all galaxies rushing away from all OTHER galaxies, that's just how the universe is expanding. So no matter what planet you are on or even what galaxy you are in, all other stars and galaxies are rushing away from you. That's what we observe. So there's no reason to think we're the center since it looks like that from every position. Also, do you think the earth is the center of our solar system? And that our solar system is in the center of the milky way? And that the milky way is in the center of our local group of galaxies? All of that stuff is obviously false anyway, so it wouldn't even make sense that we would be at the center of the universe. Does that make sense?
@David Anewman Lol. It isn't "ideology." I go where the evidence takes me, without special pleading. Also, without special pleading. The expansion of the universe is like atoms, it's truth is just not up in the air at this point because the amount of data confirming it is just too enormous. You don't believe or understanding modern cosmology because it contradicts _your_ worldview, which isn't necessarily your fault, and is more likely just you choosing sources that misrepresent the science to you because you're choosing sources that also share that worldview rather than learning the mainstream from the mainstream first. For a good introduction to dark energy, go to the channel Space Time's playlist of dark energy. They have a lot of big bang material also. Again, it's just an introduction, but I'm confident it's better than what you're used to. Matt's the head of graduate studies in astrophysics at CUNY so you'll be hearing a mainstream voice at least. Cosmology is just too hard for me to argue with a geocentrist, sorry. I can't even get this other creationist to see why the geologic column's fossils reflect evolution's prediction accurately, which doesn't require any knowledge. That tends to be the case even with easy subjects like that. Good luck.
Doc Snelling believes in a Young Earth, not because he is allowing the evidence to show him the truth, but because he WANTS to believe the Biblical account. He is correct to question all the ways geologic dating can be flawed, but he does not bring the same questioning to the Bible's explanation of geologic time. The account in Genesis was written more than 3000 years after the claimed creation date!? Is it possible the scribes didn't get the correct message, or something was lost in the telling? The Bible's first and second creation stories (Genesis 1 versus the Adam story) also have some contradictions. Was light formed on Day 1 or when the sun, moon, and stars were formed on Day 4? WERE plants growing on dry land BEFORE the sun was there, the sun that makes photosynthesis possible? Here's another one. We can measure how fast the earth's tectonic plates move and how much mountains rise each year. It's in fractions of feet or inches. Knowing that, merely look to the foothills of our beautiful Sierra Nevada or the White Mountains to the east. Trees there, with measurable growth rings between 3000 and 5000 years, sit atop rocks that formed deep in the earth or in ancient seas. This mix of relative and absolute dates leaves NO room for a 6000 year-old earth. Seek the truth. It will set you free.
Jews thought the earth was flat??? In their holy writings it clearly says the earth is a sphere and hangs in empty space. How can you must interpret that??
@Timmy P Yeah, cognitive dissonance does suck. But if you apply yourself, you can learn level "1.01" knowledge in the physical science disciplines, and then you won't have people choke with laughter when you describe your beliefs to them, for the rest of your life. You say: _I know it’s tough to swallow, cognitive dissonance is very real_ I know it's tough to swallow, Timmy P., but youtube isn't good enough.
Timmy P It's because things you said led me to believe you were a "flat-earther". No doubt, my own biases were at play here, as I frequently speak to the kind of person who would _literally_ believe in such a fact, if it were presented to them. I speak to flat-earthers, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, plasma cosmologists, young-earthers, mediums/psychics, etc. I'm going to take your word for it that my initial comment insulted your intelligence, and that would have been a mistake. In fact, I find intelligent flat-earthers etc all the time
In ancient times humans in general believed that the earth was flat. As early as the sixth century B.C.E., however, Greek philosopher Pythagoras theorized that the earth must be a sphere. Even so, two centuries before Pythagoras formulated his theory, the prophet Isaiah stated with extraordinary clarity and certainty: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh here translated “circle” may be rendered “sphere.” Interestingly, only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle.f Far ahead of his time, then, the prophet Isaiah recorded a statement that is scientifically sound and free from ancient myths.
To this day the synagogue does not recognize or teach, clear prophecy in the book of Isaiah that predicted Jesus as the Messiah. They fulfill the prophecy of rejection of Him, even to this day.
@@joelsmith4133 No in Hebrew the word for circle that is used means flat and round because there is a nother spot in isaea where he tells you not to fight against the Lord least you be crumpled into a ball they obviously knew the difference between something that was round and spheracle
Oh so that’s Cold Stone Steve Austin not Stone Cold Steve Austin! I Get it now. He was younger back then, but gentlemen, we can rebuild him. One day, God will rebuild him, and us too. In fact, the work has already began!
I've heard this before, and something about this seems off. Firstly because I think it assumes that all the starting material is all or a vast majority of it is parent material, which theres no reason we have to assume that. But also if the current decay rates arent releasing enough energy to warm, or cool the rocks they are in, then just how much decay would have to be occurring to release enough energy to even affect the rocks tempurature, let alone melt it.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 A) yes we can assume how much parent/daughter material there is because of the chemistry of the rocks and the fact we can watch them form. B) we can detect the heat generated by radiation. To do the 4.5 billion years of radiometric decay in 1 year you would release so much energy the sun would blush
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Approximately 50% of the heat radiated from the earth is from radioactive decay of heavy elements beneath the earth's crust. For these elements to have experienced accelerated decay during the year of the flood, the amount of heat generated would have been enormous. Even if the 50% estimate is off by several orders of magnitude (say it was 0.05%), four billion years of heat from radioactive decay compressed into one year would have boiled all the water off the face of the earth.
@@Chazd1949 well the two questions I'd have at that point is, how do we know what 4 billion years of decay looks like? Isn't that going back to assuming that all daughter elements are the result of decay. Or that X amount of parent element was present at the begining. I mean these assumptions are always violated when we examine known age volcanic deposits, so it's likely that the assumption of X amount of parent isotope was present 4 billion years ago is wrong as well. It just seems like begging the question. Excluding that the whole boiling all the water off the surface of the earth kinda works in the young earth catastrophic plate tectonics model that thevyoung earth camp puts fourth. Because it's not like the oceans only start to evaporate after all the decay takes place. As the oceans warm they will evaporate at greater rates, the water vapor will rise cool down by radiating that heat into the outer atmosphere, and by extention space, the cooler rains fall back down cooling the oceans to be warned back up by said decay. It would jusg be a very rapid cycle of radiating the excess heat into space via the massive amounts of water vapor then said water vapor condensing and raining back down to do the same again.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Good questions, my friend. First, I need to ask if you are sincerely considering the possibility that the universe may actually be billions of years old; or like some young earth creationists, are you committed to the young earth view regardless of what any evidence or reasoning may count against it? If the latter is the case, then those of us who are willing to share the information that brought us to the old earth/universe view would be wasting our time and energy as well as yours. Personally, I have no interest in trying to “convert” YECs to away from their belief, and, in fact, I remain open to either possibility. However, the preponderance of evidence leads me away from the YEC position that I held for more than thirty years. Please note, however, I remain a creationist and am willing to share any insights that have led me thus far. .
The big flaw in his argument is we know the daughter atoms were not there when the rock formed, the conditions under which the rock actually forms do not favour the daughter atoms in anyway so for him to say it is an assumption is wrong and this is the problem when theists lecture on science, they deliberately or maybe through ignorance make false claims that favour a different viewpoint IE the writings in the bible. In his many videos he treats the scientific community as intellectually challenged and he somehow has a higher understanding, he actually has no authority on the matter and at best he is just airing his own misguided opinions as he fails to bring anything to the table that supports his own claims. If you are not well educated in the sciences the the last place you want to educate yourself is on biased agenda based sites like this one and actually go get a real degree and do the experiments yourself. Education and realising it isn't what you were led to believe is the biggest eye opener here for any theist who is willing to accept the bibles claims may be wrong as the scientific community can demonstrate already in several areas.
@@robertwest2952 No it isn't, volcanic activity is present now and we have real world examples of the process still occurring, there is only so many times you can say assumptions with the evidence stacked against you until it becomes wishful thinking because you want a story book to be right,
@@genome616 it is STILL an asumption that there were no daughter atoms when the rock was formed because we where NOT there when it happened. You cannot observerve something where there are no observers
@@robertwest2952 Apply that to the writings of the bible then and all the claims of witnesses, how do you know it was real, you were not there. Also assumption is the wrong word, we use various methods to come to those theories, laws of physics, comparable evidence today etc etc, these atoms behave the same then as they do now or the universe would break down, also we have a window into the past when we look into the night sky, we can measure and detect what any source of light is made of and this opens us to a wealth of information that all go towards theorising these things, assumptions can be baseless and just get feeling and that is how the church likes to misrepresent science but they are far from assumptions, they are on a lot of scientific weight.
@@genome616 As for the bible yes we are going on the claims of witnesses, of course. So who witnessed the beginning of the world?? I know we can do all kings of things using the scientific method (something invented by Christians BTW). To use the radiometric dating methods. however, we have to assume that all things have happened the same way from the begininning and without being there we cannot know for sure. Science involves observation which we can do in the present, but we cannot observe things in the past (unless we have a time machine) we observe things in the present and assume that they were the same in the past.
Faith - to a Christian means believing in God's goodness despite your current experience. Faith to an Atheist is believing something that is in direct opposition to proven fact. Both religious systems require faith. One is driven by love for God and His word, the other driven by hatred for that same God and His word.
Gizmo So, faith to a Christian = Life sucks but don't blame God. However, faith to an atheist = Life sucks but we can do something about that! You have up to three guesses which approach I prefer. BTW 1. Please explain how the latter approach is a religion. It's certainly not an organised one with buildings and a hierarchy. Nor are tithes or collection plates involved. And there are very few if any full-time, salaried "pastors". BTW 2. How can anyone hate an entity that doesn't exist in their reality? OK. I accept that deities exist in the human psyche; they have been recorded for as long as humans have been around. But atheists don't hate these fictions. What a waste of time that would be! Like hating Hamlet, or Lord Voldemart. BTW 3. Please clarify a point. Your: "believing something that is in direct opposition to proven fact" puzzles me. Could you supply an example? Thank you.
The only way to claim that radiometric dating only provides relative ages is to misrepresent radiometric dating, which is exactly what you've done here.
The poor man should be sent back to high school. He opens stating that atomic nuclei have the "same" number of protons and neutrons! Is this a joke? Please somebody tell him that he is gravely mistaken. U-235, to take a known example, has 92 protons and 235-92=143 neutrons. Actually there are precious few such examples. There is He4, Li6, Be8, B10, C12, N14, O16, F18, Ne20, all the way to Iodine, atomic number 53. There is no I106 isotope. So his statement holds for exactly 52 isotopes, of a total well in excess of 2,000! By minute 3.38 a novel concept in nuclear physics is "revealed" unto us! Neutrons split! In this process he says that an electron is ejected (actually, one neutron leaves the nucleus). What is the purpose of this charade? Just to try to deny science, since science, hence reason, collides with an ancient book that says the universe was made in 6 days some 6,000 years ago? You knowingly lie, and even worse try to teach such absurdities to children? Reason reigns supreme, and superstition retreats defeated. Take note.
@@carrieellis8552 which is just another idiocy! Please do get a periodic table and take a look. Unless ionized, atoms have the same number of electrons as they do do of protons so that the atomic electric charge is neutral.
@@carrieellis8552 He says tuff, he hopes his creationist audiences will not bother to check. He also hopes that they will assume anyone who fact checks and challenges him will be regarded as somehow fallen for seeking the truth.
Why do people of a certain faith always try to convince me . Their concerns would be better served if they would just worship their god and take up their collections, read their bible and go on with their life. I think that your hour glass is in error.
Timmy P dendochronology has been used to calibrate carbon dating to several thousand year ago. We thus know that carbon dating works and can use this to: 1. Calibrate other, longer ranged radio processes. 2. Adopt the eternal principle that radio processes are consistent in the long term. So if you wish to discount radio dating you will have to posit new evidence backed argument against that.
I found Dr Snelling's presentation fascinating. He explained theories that resolve the conflicts I have with widely accepted concepts of geoscience and my beliefs about creationism.
I was a hard rock geophysicist with lab and field experience.
His discussion of accelerated radioactive decay was presented with not enough facts and time to convince me. The other premises were well explained, with references provided.
Thank you Dr. Snelling.
I not only learned in depth how these dating methods were flawed but I learned a little bit about how radiometric decay works which helped me to understand even more about how inaccurate these dating methods are. He even showed where he got the information from and proved that they ran these tests on the methods. This was definitely the best lecture I’ve seen on this topic. I love this channel.
Jesus said
King James Bible
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you . This is just a clue pertaining to the vastness of the existing realm ,possibly in a different universe?
Yes, they really showed their dishonest in this video, they knew the lava flow was younger than the lower limit for the method they selected, that is, the K-Ar method.
The lower limit for K-Ar is 100,000 years, at least. If you use the method outside the limit, like on younger rocks, you get wild readings.
So they KNEW they would get wrong result by using the K-Ar method, but presented the result anyway said radiometric dating methods are flawed, truly dishonest.
@@millantronni3242 I’m sure dinosaur soft tissues that should completely decay within 900k years was just a big hoax too huh? Or is there some way that the decay rates for those cases are just special?
@@gatolf2
"I’m sure dinosaur soft tissues that should completely decay within 900k years was just a big hoax too huh?"
No, Mary found heavily mineralized collagen that she could extract with acids, awesome, look what science can do.
She also found out why it could be preserved for so long, awesome, look what science can do
" Or is there some way that the decay rates for those cases are just special?"
If you bother to read Mary's paper it will be revealed to you, it have nothing to do with decay rate but all with iron.
Now, before you run over to AiG to see what you should think about all this, no, they have not found blood or meat.
@@millantronni3242 yeah they have found blood cells as well. There’s a whole list of these things being discovered. It wasn’t an isolated incident. As usual with people who want to believe in the old earth and evolution, they just redefine what could falsify it. Ever since her discovery of this they started finding it all the time. You know why? I’ll tell you why. They never tried looking for it before because they’ve chosen to believe that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. Even they believed this wasn’t possible because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Then when it gets discovered they come up with something that might explain it away and then brush it under the rug to never be talked about again 😂 just like the Cambrian explosion and just like the fact that you can hundreds of different unchanged species in the fossil record that are supposedly millions of years old.
I was involved in dating fossils but in the end, I discovered we had incompatible personalities.
I see what you did there :P
EXPLAIN THE JOKE.
He broke up with the fossil. Dating like relationships my dating like finding out the age.
Took me a minute to get that joke, but yeah, that's a good one. I'm a little slow this morning.
Just tell us the end of the joke! 😆
So I've heard good rebuttals to the Mt. Saint Helens dates. Basically, it amounts to the equipment being used contaminating the rocks with excess Argon. Or, they claim he's being dishonest by using a method that oughtn't work in such a short time.
I still have questions. I understand the concept of dating method ranges, but doesn't that mean you must have already decided how old something is before you date it? I understand the criticisms but I still want answers.
Back in '97 I bought the Creation 6 Pack of Cassettes and nearly worn them out listening to Dr. Snelling, Dr. Gary Parker, Ken Ham, Dr. Carl Weiland and Professor A E Wilder-Smith. The information then is just as relevant today and has strengthened my faith in the Word of God, and inoculated me from evolutionist propaganda.
God bless your Ministry.
- Amen.
"evolutionist propaganda"
lol.
sterilize yourself, bible nerd
@@irietrader921 Abusive Ad Hominem attacks are not an argument that frogs evolved into Princes.
@@hwd7
As you say- "ministry"
Not science.
They have to warp and misrepresent and lie about science to make their cases.
If they used actual science, not their ministry they would have no case at all.
Eine atheistische "Wissenschaft" belügt uns und belügt sich selbst, sie glauben ihren Lügen wie einem Dogma, dem man nicht widersprechen darf. Die Wahrheit wird unterdrückt und verschwiegen, Falsches öffentlich als Tatsache hingestellt, obwohl man es unterdessen schon besser wissen müsste, so sind die meisten im Irrtum, der Gott leugnet gefangen. Danke an alle, die an erkannter Wahrheit festhalten und ihre Forschung veröffentlichen.
I like this approach. Calm, down to earth, evidentially sound and rational.
and false as a 3 dollar bill!
And a total misrepresentation of radiometric dating.
@@MrMZaccone what did he say thats a misrepresentation of the dating methods?
@@sliew9120 Relative not absolute. Radiometric dating is absolute not relative. If the facts that a low it to be such were not facts, Atomic bombs wouldn't explode and nuclear reactors would.
Thank you for going over this in detail, however most of it I don't understand and I don't know that I'm going to be able to retain, but I'm glad it's here for a resource for those who can.
Article , Diane mdoesnt carbon 14 dating disprove the Bible, on answers in Genesis website
Ditto, most of it is over my head, but its good to see these supposed dating methods debunked.
I just want to thank you folks for posting these lectures. I went to college but I did not study these subjects back then. I have however for the last 20 yrs. been examining (dating methods, geology, biology, botany) & have gotten to the point to where I understand what you guys are talking about. The only thing I like to study more is The Word of God. This info is very much needed in these days since schools only teach the secular points of view & will not allow the Biblical points of view & allow students to decide for themselves. Schools today do what Hitler, Stalin & Mao did, "INDOCTRINATION". Keep up the good work.
You should read snelling’s peer reviewed work. Let me know what you think.
Excellent presentation full of cited info ty! Lava exterior rapid cool-and-trap argon was so obvious in hindsight, but it never occured to me b4?!! Lol
That's not from any volcanic activity, it's biology from the flood.
If anyone knows, have any old-age proponents given a response to this video? I’d like to hear counterarguments
Don’t carbon-12 and carbon-14 factor into the miscalculations/misinterpretations wrt climate change?
Supposedly they do, but I personally don't believe in climate change - at least not the part where scientists are trying to blame us for their "when in doubt burn it" philosophy. I mean think about it - first coal and steam, then the combustion engine, and then again the trillion tons of coal we STILL burn every year, and even nuclear energy - all are based on burning something that produces hydrocarbons and/or toxins. Yet it's OUR fault? I don't think so. And even if we humans ARE responsible it's STILL the scientist's fault since we have no control or say over what they invent or the methods they choose. There are also a lot of PHd scientists who think the planet is warming due to the sun and that it has nothing to do with us whatsoever. Just another way of passing the buck and at the same time squeezing more of them out of us for our so-called "carbon footprint." So, even a new born needs to pay for his or her place on Earth? What a crock...!
If scientists would drop their worthless and bankrupt fairy tale, then they could start to do real science, and we could start researching sources of energy without burning stuff. How much better condition would the planet be in if they went with clean forms of energy and didn't take the easy way out by burning everything? No they have to push the oil so they can get every penny they can out of us - with little regard for the health of us and the Earth!
And one last thing - there was a young Texas man back in the early '70's who rigged his fat ride's fuel system to run on fumes ONLY. After only a few tries he succeeded in getting 100 MPG out of the 4-door beast! Not surprisingly, he died shortly afterwards in a highly suspicious manner. You can search UA-cam for "engine running only on fumes" and you'll find several videos showing this to be 100% true! There are also hybrids out there that run on gas and water, but could easily be converted to run on water ONLY!?! Imagine THAT?!? And the ONLY emission when running on water is WATER! Talk about CLEAN energy! Nope, can't have these technologies because they wouldn't stay billionaires, right?
" Don’t carbon-12 and carbon-14 factor into the miscalculations/misinterpretations wrt climate change? "
Not really, but they have to adjust it for the last 50 years of nuclear bomb testing in the atmosphere.
But the starting values for 14C is well known, it is extracted from tree rings (dendrochronology) which we have a record of 8500 years back, after that we use stalagmites for the "starting" value back to some 50000 years.
Why not just use the dating given in Genesis?
Good science should agree with the Bible, and what it is showing is that it absolutely does.
@@geriallen7443 In your opinion, about what percent of geologists publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals are capable of doing good science?
@@lancetschirhart7676 it all depends on what you mean by peer-reviewed journals. We all have the same data. It's when we attach our presuppositions to that data and misinterpret it that faulty conclusions can arise. If you start with faulty assumption you will, by very definition, end up with faulty conclusions. Evolutionism needs those Rock layers 2 indicate millions of years. Without that, the theory died. Therefore, the evolutionist is forced to reject soft tissue in dinosaur bones, fossil trees that cross through hundreds of millions of years of strata, and carbon 14 in diamonds. So oh, the evolutionists must reject the design that is so apparent in nature and the creationist is free to explore it. At this point, these two religions collide. And it's hard to be peers when both sides disagree with each other's presuppositions.
@@geriallen7443 no it doesn't the ignorance in your comment just shows how poorly educated in the sciences you are.
@@geriallen7443 Evolution is strongly supported by several independent fields of science not just one, to try knock those that believe in Evolution because of your disagreements with one of the fields shows gross ignorance of all the supporting fields out there.
Evolution is not only the most solid accepted theory to date it is demonstrable, it can be witnessed in real time and we can even now see the many direct genetic links between related species and those that share common ancestry, the fact in evolution everything came originally from the same early living organisms and we can actually identify and physically see these common factors in our DNA to those early single celled organisms and every living thing on earth we care to test.
To deny evolution is to not understand it and from similar videos this channel has done it is clear that they are pushing a very warped version of evolution to suit their agenda which people like yourself lap-up as it also suits your mindset.
I like this guy.
Yeah, he's great.
One question I would love to ask Dr. Snelling is why neodymium is even present since it is a decay product of Samarium and takes 100 billion years when the universe is supposedly 13.5 billion years old.
Nice lecture.
I am intrigued by this video. Where are the actual citation links showing the dating errors (6 billion year old diamonds, etc.)?
If I want to interest unbelieving colleagues, I need the citations to the original papers. Thanks!
Shane Creamer 46:35
@@lifeeternal9823 not citations.
This is Andrew Snelling, honesty is not his strong suit
Op if you want bibliography it's in the published RATE research which has been out since 2007.
Every drop of water on earth today is just as old as the earth itself. Is it not the same for every rock, which are made up of grains of various elements. Does it make any difference whether they are found on the surface of the ground or spit from the interior of the earth thru the mouth of a volcano? I'd seriously like to know.
I personally found 2 rocks with red coral skeletons still attached to them east of the Superstition Mountains which are east of Apache Junction Arizona. We're talking serious desert! My friend who I was with helped me load the rocks into his vehicle. He asked if he could take them in to show to his teacher at Mesa Community College where he was studying geology. I agreed. What I didn't agree to at the time was his generous donation of those rocks to the school. Last year I contacted the school and inquired about those rocks. I KNOW they were on display there at one time but no one there knew anything about them when I asked. Are they so afraid of the truth that they "need" to hide something like this?
Your two rocks were really rather common. Do you think everyone at that school would know about them?
This merely proves that the area was underwater at one time, not a global flood. Let me ask, how do you think a delicate feature like coral could have survived intact during a violent, earth shattering event such as Noah's flood? In fact science affirms that your area was underwater during the time when most of the southwest was inundated by an inland sea.
Juan Pascal do you suppose that these multiple Inland Seas we're remnants of a worldwide deluge? If not, why not?
Yeshua, only if the deluges lasted much longer. I still have not seen a single claimed method whereby calcium carbonate from coral reefs could be laid down into limestone beds in a single world wide raging flood. And like I said above, some of those bedded limestones do feature fragile coral which was buried in underwater landslides. Now you might say, "Ahh ha! You proved my case!" But no, that only solves the fragile coral in the limestone bedding. You still need warm calm seas, like the ones off the coasts of Bahama to settle the surrounding layers. Furthermore, we have delicate features like ripple marks, raindrops, reptile tracks, fossilized eggs, plant fossils, etc which would have to be buried, in some cases transported whole cloth millions of miles intact, and then laid anew. Even worse, the dating of the materials would have to match.Even creationists like Snellings and Humphreys admit to this problem. In short, creationists have more massive problems with their idea than the entire weight of water the flood was said to have produced.
Juan Pascal hey Juan! Most Christian Scholars speculate, yes note that word speculate, that the flood lasted for one year. However, inland seas as well as large lakes would have taken much longer to dry up. Hey I wasn't there! Whole lot of speculation going on! Peace be to you!
Great lecture but graphics unsuitable for viewing.
Three assumptions? No, Young Grasshopper, there are six. Let’s put them all in one place.
Since a rock sample was formed, we are asked to assume;
1. No parent atoms were added
2. No parent atoms were removed
3. No daughter atoms were added
4. No daughter atoms were removed
5. Decay rates have been constant, and,
6. Sample originally had only parent atoms (no daughter atoms)
We could then add an overriding 7th assumption which controls all of the previous assumptions and all the interpretations of all observations, which is that the earth is billions of years old. And so it is all doctrinal and not, in the strict sense of the word, scientific. The latter is demonstrated by the dismissiveness and even downright oppression and hostility toward the young Earth paradigm. If it dismisses and rejects evidence, then it is not science, but in fact has become anti-science masquerading as science. That’s a critically important point. It is not science merely because it says it is science, surrounds itself with the trappings of science, and uses much of the language of science.
And so, to wrap it up with a nice bow on top- Anti-science, just like the anti-Christ, claims to be that which it opposes, and furthermore in its pride and arrogance it claims infallibility in its determinations, demands agreement and compliance, and oppresses its detractors using intimidation and threats. It’s really quite transparent when you think about it in those terms.
And mark these words- Anti-science standing in the place of science (Vicarius Scientia) and the anti-Christ standing in the place of Christ (Vicarius Filii Dei) are even now in league with one another, building a single, church/state, global power structure. And it will succeed because we’ve been too intimidated and distracted to even think about it. And should you think me off base, or even mad, then go and read Laudato Si, and there you find a perfect melding together of anti-science and anti-Christianity, each beautifully masquerading as the real thing, claiming infallibility, and demanding compliance (or else).
I like the gist of your comment, except that I don't see why you needed to break out the 2nd assumption of "contamination" into its four possibilities, i.e. your assumptions 1-4.
@@mers3481 he hasn't found out about isochron methods yet
Well said!
@@mers3481 Because it looks more impressive that way than it really is. That's the trick with science denial. When you have little on your side, you need to make it look bigger than it really is.
1-4 are not 4 different assumptions, they're only 1, no contamination. So you got only 3. For what you call "assumption" 6, it's not an assumption, it's pretty much known. See Geo Girl on UA-cam, she has a very good video on explaining how that works and how we know it. As to decay rates being constant, that's been observed and it's been checked against other dating methods for consistency.
You got very little in reality. Your effort to blow up the contamination assumption into 4 is very telling of someone who knows he has little to go by.
Biochemist: What exactly is the cause of radioactive decay? If it is inherent instability of the subatomic particles, then the rate of decay is not subject to external interference, but is an internal law of the atom (perhaps subject to minor external interference but not significant). Therefore, the argument that the decay rate could have been different in the past is not valid. Any feedback from a knowledgeable person, please?
Another question: I wonder at the "consistency" of the result of millions of years for recent samples - why is it always (or almost always) millions? How come the results are so far off? What is causing that?
Dr Snelling could be right. According to the scriptures in the Old Testament God stopped the Earth from turning. I just want a deeper explanation.
this is the key to win the battle against evolutionists
yes, lying and misinterpreting.
How does carbon 14 decay/transform into nitrogen 14 when Carbon 14 has 6 electrons but it emits an electron when it decays into nitrogen 14, which has 7 electrons?
It's about the protons and neutrons, not electrons. When C-14 decays, one of its neutrons emits an electron and changes into a proton. The electrons around the nucleus are not affected.
@@joelebert9767 are you saying that a neutron changes into a proton by "emitting" an electron?
@@sjicoua Without getting into the complicated quantum mechanics, yes.
Transcript with the data, references, and maybe figures would be WONDERFUL...
answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/determination-decay-constants-half-lives-uranium/
www.icr.org/rate/
Hi David, i was looking for that too and found the following link www.icr.org/rate/ then go to the bottom of the page and click on the free download 2.8MB PDF, a lot of what i wanted was there.
Thank you!
what is the range or scale that carbon dating works on ? 1yr to billions ??? 500 yrs to millions?
up to 80.000 years from what I have been told.
it depends on the method of testing. C14 can be tested using liquid scintillation, gas scintillation, direct beta counting, or AMS. AMS is more reliable, requires less of a sample, but has the drawbacks of being more expensive, and more prone to contamination. Having said that AMS is the current standard method. AMS allows for a range from 100 years to 40K with 50K years being the theoretical max. Older methods have smaller ranges some as little as 20K years.
I have read around 50,000 years after that the aging breaks down in accuracy, so even if you can go back accuraly 100,000 years, doesnt change the fact of the evidence of global flood.
The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years and is more precise for recent events. For older rock layers, isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years. Millions of years during which life has been striving. For those seeking for 'references' (there are tons of them) just understand that internet is a publication, which existence is motivated by traffic thus ad revenues created by any phony calls for your attention (polemics, lies).
@David Anewman Why not? I'm open. You seem to detain absolute truth. Great! Travel the world, dig it, find some historic coherence, write a real fact based article or book, have it reviewed, I'll be happy to change my mind. Until then, you are just a troll that have been trolled and trying to troll. And yes, you can actually date with 'stardust' even if its approximate, at least its not a lie. All that video is saying, is that absolute time measurement is not precise and that this channel owner lives from your ignorance.
26:52 This will seriously make you doubt our ability to correctly estimate ages.
You thinking of the K-Ar measurement of mount saint Helen ?
they really showed their dishonest in this video, they knew the lava flow was younger than the lower limit for the method they selected, that is, the K-Ar method.
The lower limit for K-Ar is 100,000 years, at least. If you use the method outside the limit, like on younger rocks, you get wild readings.
So they KNEW they would get wrong result by using the K-Ar method, but presented the result anyway said radiometric dating methods are flawed, truly dishonest.
@@millantronni3242 so how do you know you can trust the method, if you can not test it on samples of known age.
If it completely fails on samples of known age, it doesn’t give me any reason to trust it on samples of unknown ages.
Even worse, on samples of unknown ages you can assign it any age the method gives you, and how would you know if it’s actually correct or not?
If you cross reference them with similar methods, you are still dealing with the same issues,
Or you have to cross reference them to methods that don’t require assumptions and aren’t affected by unknown various conditions, but then why wouldn’t you use that method in general?
Why do you accept these methods as reliable and think of yourself as scientifically correct, but the person questioning the reliability, and actually uses the part of the scientific method of trying to find problems with the hypothesis of the methods as unscientific?
Just because their worldview is different then yours, doesn’t automatically mean that there arguments are invalid
He doesn't say we can't calibrate methods based on an objective comprehension of decay rates, he simply asserts that we don't, and never explains why he believes that. We actually do calibrate our methodologies based on empirical data obtained from tests of samples of known ratios. Its actually been extensively studied and continues to be rigorously studied with higher standards.
Just to give a simple example of calibration, is cross confirmation. Taking things with a known ratio, of a known age, and applying diffenent methods to see if they match up. Something like carbon dating a wooden beam from the 1700's from an old estate with written records proving when it was constructed, and when the wood was down and from which forrest. If the records show it was built in 1783 and the wood havested three years prior, that puts the wood at roughly at 230 years old at a minimum, plus or minus 15 depending on which part of the tree the beam was cut from. If we radio carbon dated that and got 238 years plus or minus 10, then at least in this instance it was an accurate prediction. Now a one off means nothing. Two doesn't mean much either, or four...but after you get to about 50, 100, or 1,000 sampkes that have consistently matched up with very few explainable anomolies, it starts looking like a reliable dating method.
He gives a reason for the statement that you can not calibrate. You do not have any measurement from the original or start date. You have no way to get the original amount, especially for any prehistoric date. He also explains the issues with Isochron method.around the 25 minute time frame.
You should of listen to the entire video instead of instantly going to post your comment
@@Dobermann89-dr2rc time stamp?
@@waynebaker542
". You do not have any measurement from the original or start date"
Yes, it is, for radio metric carbon dating tree rings are used to know the starting values up to 8000 years back, after that stalagmites are used.
tree rings grow patterns are correlated to sediment beds in lakes and ice core, all three matches.
@@taripar4967 hmmm...if you're only looking at the sources critical of their accuracy and not looking at rhe sources that explain how the studies were conducted, which methkds they used, and how those methods are calibrated...then no.
One kf the common criticisms of radiometric dating is in not knowing the original ratio of the parent and daughter isotopes. While this is true, some daughter isotopes are more or less stable than others establishing a finite range for the margin of error.
Tree ring data of coarse is not applicable to calibrating uranium-lead, or argon-argon or potasium-argon methods, thus is why no one has ever used it for that despite some very misguided claims. However tree ring data is useful for calibration of carbon dating, as many species of trees have very reliable grow patterns, that can be used to construct an accurate timeline across different trees of the same species in a specific region.
1:02:53 because K/Ar is not suitable for measuring the dates above 1 Gy and actually 0.5 Gy iff the lab is not good. Analogy, if you take a weights with 1 kilo max weigth shown, then 2, then 4 and weight 3.5 kilo on them it will show 1 kilo, 2, 3.5
The claims made about dating assumptions are incorrect. For example, in uranium-lead dating we can directly determine if any initial daughter lead (206/207) was present in zircon by measuring the abundance of lead-204, which is NOT a daughter isotope (sometimes called common Pb). The relative abundance of 204 to 206 and 207 in nature is known and can be used to determine initial values of the latter.
However, this is a non-issue with uranium-lead zircon dating anyway because we've analyzed the composition of tens of thousands of zircons and we know it does not incorporate lead into its crystal lattice to begin with.
We can also validate decay rates by dating the same rock sample using different isotopic systems in different minerals - for example comparing the U-Pb zircon age to the Re-O molybdenite age. The fact that they routinely match shows that the decay rates of these isotopes are indeed constant. If either isotope rate varied they would never match.
I'm, just here for the vowels.
Science! I love how all the orthodox dates given for ancient phenomena are considered “scientific facts”, I suppose just like the 6 billion year old diamonds
Mick Healy
Did you make a point?
Mick Healy
Right here:
www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-04-11-me-609-story.html
Anyway, what’s your point?
Mick Healy what was your point on the diamonds?
Six billion years when purposely using the wrong dating method.
"The method doesn't work when there's an observer."
Hmmm...counts out alot of rock.
Ree B, wait till you catch the Chinese virus and are on the ventilator. You will question your disbelief in the existence of God.
@@ZM-xf8yy You seem to have missed my point. Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
🌅💗🌸💐🌹🌻💝🌌😊
They really showed their dishonest in this video, they knew the lava flow was younger than the lower limit for the method they selected, that is, the K-Ar method.
The lower limit for K-Ar is 100,000 years, at least. If you use the method outside the limit, like on younger rocks, you get wild readings.
So they KNEW they would get wrong result by using the K-Ar method, but presented the result anyway said radiometric dating methods are flawed, truly dishonest.
@@taripar4967
"To say they are different tells me there's an assumption that certain rocks already ARE 100k+ years old."
The 100k limit is due to or ability to detect small amount of argon and that argon close to the surface need to escape.
"All measurements for ancient rock should be deduced surrounding rock formations we CAN observe. If K-Ar dating doesn't work on brand new rocks, it doesn't work on any rocks. "
No, we are limited to how well we can measure things, the K-Ar methods is built around measuring daughter isotopes and the remaining amount of parent isotope and to detect/measure small amount of something is in principle difficult.
Therefore there is
A lower limit of K-Ar to got get accurate measurement of the small amount of produced argon 40 (daughter isotopes that is produced by decaying parent isotopes)
A upper limit of K-Ar to get good and accurate measurement of parent isotopes of potassium. Because the potassium is decaying over time it is less and less of them, until a limit where we either can not measure them of they are just gone (all have decayed into Argon)
All radiometric dating methods have upper and lower limits and other constrains.
For example radio metric carbon dating (c14) it have a upper limit of around 50000, older than that it is extremely difficult to measure it at all and the risk of very tiny amount of contamination during handling gets the overhand so even if C14 is measured and "give" an age of 65000 years you can not distinguish it from contamination or background radiation, also, it can not be used for sea living creatures (this have been known since 1961) due to the reservoir effect.
"If U-Pb doesn't work on new rocks, it doesn't work on old rocks. Seems obvious to me."
See same reason for K-Ar above, all methods have upper and lower limits and restrictions of how and when to be used.
Most methods have assumptions (which of course is testable and falsifiable)
" The methods were developed in isolation from actual, new lava flows (to my knowledge) in order to date fossils and rock layers and such."
Please elaborate, i do not understand you?
" The method should have always been derived from newly formed rock, not old rock we don't (and can't) know the origin state of."
That would be difficult in all radio metric dating, take K-Ar method, if you measure on newly formed rock you do not have much isotopes from the decay yet and you have atmospheric argon gas as well very very small amount decayed potassium argon coming out of "cracks" near the surface.
If you want to demonstrate that a method is wrong you should show that the assumptions are wrong (they are testable and falsifiable) as a principle, not come with one measurements, you need to demonstrate the principle behind the assumptions are wrong.
For example: Demonstrate that the decay rate for K-Ar can vary over time, this have been tested but not been able to show it can vary so far the assumption is "fair to use".
But if you can demonstrate a circumstance that the beta decay rate do vary you can falsify K-Ar method (and most likely C14 as well becaosue both are beta decay) but it wont affect U-Pb, that are other type of decays involved as well.
Deception is strong with the evil one
I am not going to date a radioisotope! I don't care if you call me radioisotopephobic! I won't do it!
LMAO!
You're just a bigot if you won't date her, him, er... it!
So confused?!
I firmly am on the side of creation based on 1- my interpretation of the scientific data , ( and to simplify because it's late and I don't want to type :) 2- I'll just call it common sense, discernment, or intuition but the math itself say's there no way the sermon coming from the bully pulpits of the secular high priests can be correct. 21st century bio-chemistry is one arrow too many. A single chain of amino acids joined with isometric polymers and optical isomers ( right and left handed ) requires a chain of aprx 250. The universe is said to be 14.6 billion ? that's like 10 to the 60th - seconds sense the big bang. The odds of one usable protein arising from chance with these complexities are 10 to thee 248,,,, Then please tell me where the code comes from? Too many data points for this comment. Galileo in the early 17th century wrote what many to believe the founding document of the scientific revolution circa 1620. Bruno had just been burned at the stake, and he wrote to a friend and highly placed Benedictine Monk , I believe his name Cassinelli. to keep it short he wrote that the second book of God, is the book of God's works. And it is written in the language of mathematics. As such the only one's truly qualified to interpret it's true meaning were the mathematicians. He went on to draw a corollary that as such, this imbues them with a priestly class status. Anyone without the proper cred's are mostly useless eaters ( his words not mine lol ) I think most scientists have followed this thought even to today. I never write or comment but I was so impressed with the discourse in a civil way , it was uplifting to read a true exchange of ideas without all the "key banging". Awesome job from you all, I am a Christian, Veteran, Father and as of two day's ago a grandfather. This country needs us all to be able to engage the diversity of thought / ideologies of our neighbors without having to lop off heads! and live and let live man :) Maybe next time we can straighten me out on the palladium Halo's found in Granite. Isn't their half life about 6 seconds yet we find the halo signatures trapped in solid Granite? or that the carbon and O/2 levels in pre history had to be different to support the gigantism we see in the early fossil record.
K O Spare us the results when you DO want to type!
I agree, but to me the most important point you make above is huge and very basic, and that's WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM?!? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know for a FACT that information comes only from an intelligent mind, and that even if information could be created "naturally," trillions of years wouldn't be anywhere near enough time to create just the massive amount of info stored in the DNA molecule out of an inert chemical soup.
I can't remember exactly what he was referring to (I think it had something to do with certain complex sugars in a cell), but practicing synthetic chemist James Tour said in one of his lectures that the chances of these molecules being created randomly are 1 to the 39 billionth (with a "B")! That is by far THE BIGGEST number I've EVER heard quoted by ANY scientist while discussing ANYTHING. Especially since there are supposed to be ONLY 1 to the 80th atoms in the ENTIRE Universe! I'm pretty sure James makes this comment in this lecture @ ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
If you haven't heard him speak you should consider watching this video. He's super funny and scary smart. You'd learn how he won the world's first ever nanocar race that he and his team built with an engine that ran at 3 million RPMs! I couldn't even begin to imagine that but what if your car could run at that speed?!? Ha! You wouldn't be able to keep a tranny in it, or tires on it! Very smart people, and Tour is very entertaining...
@@ForeverBleedinGreen The problem with your analysis here is you have trapped yourself into a way of thinking that misinterprets probability for example -
If I was to be dealt a royal flush in poker the odds on that is 1 in 649,739, the odds of then be dealt a 2nd royal flush after the first depends from where in the timeline you look at the calculation, if you are the viewing it after the 1st royal flush has dropped and doing the odds of another one then it is the exact same 1 in 649,739. However if you approach this from a time perspective before the first one has dropped and you are calculating the odd of 2 in a row then this number is vastly greater, 1 in approx 420billion.
Why do I bring this up, this is because this is how you are misinterpreting the probability here, you are looking at the big figure because you are trying to work out a string of probabilities in a row when in fact you should be calculating the probability post event for each stage.
Secondly you have assumed this is truly random event but that is not the case, the universe is governed by natures laws and because of that there is a natural procession that can create very complex outcomes from very basic rules, we see this throughout nature be they fractural designs in plants to shoals of fish seemingly making complex patterns and moves to evade predators, it is not the case it is simply each fish following a few rules relating to the adjacent fish and what they do.
So this idea that complex amino acids cannot form as we observe because the probability is way too high is flawed from the off, in fact when you factor in my comments and add the fact they are not truly random it actually given the age of the universe means it is almost a certainty they will form on a regular basis.
This is a well known probability trick used by the church to dispel the idea nature itself can give these results, I have demonstrated this many a time to expose this deliberate attempts to misguide the people by the church, I have yet to see any challenge to my position on this.
@@ForeverBleedinGreen
Ironically even James Tour would never claim that Evolution is false… instead he pretends that he doesn’t know enough about it to say if it’s true or not.
There are 200 ERV insertions in the human genome that we share with chimpanzees and are at exactly the same places.
The likelihood of only 2 of them being at the same place has a chance of 10 to the power of 50… no need to calculate it for the rest… it would be 10 to the power of trillions.😂
In other words… it’s impossible that Evolution is false.
Strange that “ imbeciles” knew the shape of the earth thousands of years before science did!! (Isaiah 40v22
Job 26v7)
Strange that imbeciles think the earth is young hundreds of years _after_ science.
@Dexter O'Shields These Martians are not sending their best. Trust me, folks.
Strange that they _didn't_ realize that the earth wasn't the center of the universe or that germs cause disease
@David Anewman Hey great question.
_According to your claims on redshift, the Earth is the center._
Actually no. The observations show all galaxies rushing away from us. The observations also show all galaxies rushing away from all OTHER galaxies, that's just how the universe is expanding. So no matter what planet you are on or even what galaxy you are in, all other stars and galaxies are rushing away from you. That's what we observe. So there's no reason to think we're the center since it looks like that from every position.
Also, do you think the earth is the center of our solar system? And that our solar system is in the center of the milky way? And that the milky way is in the center of our local group of galaxies? All of that stuff is obviously false anyway, so it wouldn't even make sense that we would be at the center of the universe.
Does that make sense?
@David Anewman Lol. It isn't "ideology." I go where the evidence takes me, without special pleading.
Also, without special pleading.
The expansion of the universe is like atoms, it's truth is just not up in the air at this point because the amount of data confirming it is just too enormous.
You don't believe or understanding modern cosmology because it contradicts _your_ worldview, which isn't necessarily your fault, and is more likely just you choosing sources that misrepresent the science to you because you're choosing sources that also share that worldview rather than learning the mainstream from the mainstream first.
For a good introduction to dark energy, go to the channel Space Time's playlist of dark energy. They have a lot of big bang material also. Again, it's just an introduction, but I'm confident it's better than what you're used to.
Matt's the head of graduate studies in astrophysics at CUNY so you'll be hearing a mainstream voice at least. Cosmology is just too hard for me to argue with a geocentrist, sorry. I can't even get this other creationist to see why the geologic column's fossils reflect evolution's prediction accurately, which doesn't require any knowledge. That tends to be the case even with easy subjects like that. Good luck.
Yet another hole in the evolution theory. What a huge surprise.
Doc Snelling believes in a Young Earth, not because he is allowing the evidence to show him the truth, but because he WANTS to believe the Biblical account.
He is correct to question all the ways geologic dating can be flawed, but he does not bring the same questioning to the Bible's explanation of geologic time.
The account in Genesis was written more than 3000 years after the claimed creation date!? Is it possible the scribes didn't get the correct message, or something was lost in the telling?
The Bible's first and second creation stories (Genesis 1 versus the Adam story) also have some contradictions. Was light formed on Day 1 or when the sun, moon, and stars were formed on Day 4? WERE plants growing on dry land BEFORE the sun was there, the sun that makes photosynthesis possible?
Here's another one. We can measure how fast the earth's tectonic plates move and how much mountains rise each year. It's in fractions of feet or inches.
Knowing that, merely look to the foothills of our beautiful Sierra Nevada or the White Mountains to the east. Trees there, with measurable growth rings between 3000 and 5000 years, sit atop rocks that formed deep in the earth or in ancient seas. This mix of relative and absolute dates leaves NO room for a 6000 year-old earth.
Seek the truth. It will set you free.
Oh, wow. I'm sorry Dr. Snelling, I mistook you for Dr. Ken Ham. Thanks for the creation science lesson! ❤️
ken ham is a dr of nothing...
Jews thought the earth was flat??? In their holy writings it clearly says the earth is a sphere and hangs in empty space. How can you must interpret that??
@Timmy P Yeah, cognitive dissonance does suck. But if you apply yourself, you can learn level "1.01" knowledge in the physical science disciplines, and then you won't have people choke with laughter when you describe your beliefs to them, for the rest of your life.
You say:
_I know it’s tough to swallow, cognitive dissonance is very real_
I know it's tough to swallow, Timmy P., but youtube isn't good enough.
Timmy P
It's because things you said led me to believe you were a "flat-earther".
No doubt, my own biases were at play here, as I frequently speak to the kind of person who would _literally_ believe in such a fact, if it were presented to them.
I speak to flat-earthers, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, plasma cosmologists, young-earthers, mediums/psychics, etc.
I'm going to take your word for it that my initial comment insulted your intelligence, and that would have been a mistake. In fact, I find intelligent flat-earthers etc all the time
In ancient times humans in general believed that the earth was flat. As early as the sixth century B.C.E., however, Greek philosopher Pythagoras theorized that the earth must be a sphere. Even so, two centuries before Pythagoras formulated his theory, the prophet Isaiah stated with extraordinary clarity and certainty: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh here translated “circle” may be rendered “sphere.” Interestingly, only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle.f Far ahead of his time, then, the prophet Isaiah recorded a statement that is scientifically sound and free from ancient myths.
To this day the synagogue does not recognize or teach, clear prophecy in the book of Isaiah that predicted Jesus as the Messiah. They fulfill the prophecy of rejection of Him, even to this day.
@@joelsmith4133 No in Hebrew the word for circle that is used means flat and round because there is a nother spot in isaea where he tells you not to fight against the Lord least you be crumpled into a ball they obviously knew the difference between something that was round and spheracle
Oh so that’s Cold Stone Steve Austin not Stone Cold Steve Austin! I Get it now. He was younger back then, but gentlemen, we can rebuild him. One day, God will rebuild him, and us too. In fact, the work has already began!
If radioisotopes were decaying at a greater rate in the past the energy released would have melted the earth. The energy has to go somewhere.
I've heard this before, and something about this seems off.
Firstly because I think it assumes that all the starting material is all or a vast majority of it is parent material, which theres no reason we have to assume that. But also if the current decay rates arent releasing enough energy to warm, or cool the rocks they are in, then just how much decay would have to be occurring to release enough energy to even affect the rocks tempurature, let alone melt it.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 A) yes we can assume how much parent/daughter material there is because of the chemistry of the rocks and the fact we can watch them form. B) we can detect the heat generated by radiation. To do the 4.5 billion years of radiometric decay in 1 year you would release so much energy the sun would blush
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Approximately 50% of the heat radiated from the earth is from radioactive decay of heavy elements beneath the earth's crust. For these elements to have experienced accelerated decay during the year of the flood, the amount of heat generated would have been enormous. Even if the 50% estimate is off by several orders of magnitude (say it was 0.05%), four billion years of heat from radioactive decay compressed into one year would have boiled all the water off the face of the earth.
@@Chazd1949 well the two questions I'd have at that point is, how do we know what 4 billion years of decay looks like? Isn't that going back to assuming that all daughter elements are the result of decay. Or that X amount of parent element was present at the begining. I mean these assumptions are always violated when we examine known age volcanic deposits, so it's likely that the assumption of X amount of parent isotope was present 4 billion years ago is wrong as well. It just seems like begging the question.
Excluding that the whole boiling all the water off the surface of the earth kinda works in the young earth catastrophic plate tectonics model that thevyoung earth camp puts fourth. Because it's not like the oceans only start to evaporate after all the decay takes place. As the oceans warm they will evaporate at greater rates, the water vapor will rise cool down by radiating that heat into the outer atmosphere, and by extention space, the cooler rains fall back down cooling the oceans to be warned back up by said decay. It would jusg be a very rapid cycle of radiating the excess heat into space via the massive amounts of water vapor then said water vapor condensing and raining back down to do the same again.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Good questions, my friend. First, I need to ask if you are sincerely considering the possibility that the universe may actually be billions of years old; or like some young earth creationists, are you committed to the young earth view regardless of what any evidence or reasoning may count against it? If the latter is the case, then those of us who are willing to share the information that brought us to the old earth/universe view would be wasting our time and energy as well as yours. Personally, I have no interest in trying to “convert” YECs to away from their belief, and, in fact, I remain open to either possibility. However, the preponderance of evidence leads me away from the YEC position that I held for more than thirty years. Please note, however, I remain a creationist and am willing to share any insights that have led me thus far.
.
The big flaw in his argument is we know the daughter atoms were not there when the rock formed, the conditions under which the rock actually forms do not favour the daughter atoms in anyway so for him to say it is an assumption is wrong and this is the problem when theists lecture on science, they deliberately or maybe through ignorance make false claims that favour a different viewpoint IE the writings in the bible.
In his many videos he treats the scientific community as intellectually challenged and he somehow has a higher understanding, he actually has no authority on the matter and at best he is just airing his own misguided opinions as he fails to bring anything to the table that supports his own claims.
If you are not well educated in the sciences the the last place you want to educate yourself is on biased agenda based sites like this one and actually go get a real degree and do the experiments yourself. Education and realising it isn't what you were led to believe is the biggest eye opener here for any theist who is willing to accept the bibles claims may be wrong as the scientific community can demonstrate already in several areas.
"The big flaw in his argument is we know the daughter atoms were not there when the rock formed," that is a BIG assumption
@@robertwest2952 No it isn't, volcanic activity is present now and we have real world examples of the process still occurring, there is only so many times you can say assumptions with the evidence stacked against you until it becomes wishful thinking because you want a story book to be right,
@@genome616 it is STILL an asumption that there were no daughter atoms when the rock was formed because we where NOT there when it happened. You cannot observerve something where there are no observers
@@robertwest2952 Apply that to the writings of the bible then and all the claims of witnesses, how do you know it was real, you were not there.
Also assumption is the wrong word, we use various methods to come to those theories, laws of physics, comparable evidence today etc etc, these atoms behave the same then as they do now or the universe would break down, also we have a window into the past when we look into the night sky, we can measure and detect what any source of light is made of and this opens us to a wealth of information that all go towards theorising these things, assumptions can be baseless and just get feeling and that is how the church likes to misrepresent science but they are far from assumptions, they are on a lot of scientific weight.
@@genome616 As for the bible yes we are going on the claims of witnesses, of course. So who witnessed the beginning of the world?? I know we can do all kings of things using the scientific method (something invented by Christians BTW). To use the radiometric dating methods. however, we have to assume that all things have happened the same way from the begininning and without being there we cannot know for sure. Science involves observation which we can do in the present, but we cannot observe things in the past (unless we have a time machine) we observe things in the present and assume that they were the same in the past.
Faith - to a Christian means believing in God's goodness despite your current experience. Faith to an Atheist is believing something that is in direct opposition to proven fact. Both religious systems require faith. One is driven by love for God and His word, the other driven by hatred for that same God and His word.
Gizmo So, faith to a Christian = Life sucks but don't blame God. However, faith to an atheist = Life sucks but we can do something about that! You have up to three guesses which approach I prefer.
BTW 1. Please explain how the latter approach is a religion. It's certainly not an organised one with buildings and a hierarchy. Nor are tithes or collection plates involved. And there are very few if any full-time, salaried "pastors".
BTW 2. How can anyone hate an entity that doesn't exist in their reality? OK. I accept that deities exist in the human psyche; they have been recorded for as long as humans have been around. But atheists don't hate these fictions. What a waste of time that would be! Like hating Hamlet, or Lord Voldemart.
BTW 3. Please clarify a point. Your: "believing something that is in direct opposition to proven fact" puzzles me. Could you supply an example? Thank you.
Lol what a ridiculous statement
The only way to claim that radiometric dating only provides relative ages is to misrepresent radiometric dating, which is exactly what you've done here.
luckily the Spanish inquisition did not wipe out all the scientist as we would be still living in the dark ages of the bible
Then you don’t understand the Bible
@@planetearth1705 nothing to want or understand about it
@@bonysminiatures3123 then how do u criticize it?
The poor man should be sent back to high school. He opens stating that atomic nuclei have the "same" number of protons and neutrons! Is this a joke? Please somebody tell him that he is gravely mistaken. U-235, to take a known example, has 92 protons and 235-92=143 neutrons. Actually there are precious few such examples. There is He4, Li6, Be8, B10, C12, N14, O16, F18, Ne20, all the way to Iodine, atomic number 53. There is no I106 isotope. So his statement holds for exactly 52 isotopes, of a total well in excess of 2,000! By minute 3.38 a novel concept in nuclear physics is "revealed" unto us! Neutrons split! In this process he says that an electron is ejected (actually, one neutron leaves the nucleus). What is the purpose of this charade? Just to try to deny science, since science, hence reason, collides with an ancient book that says the universe was made in 6 days some 6,000 years ago? You knowingly lie, and even worse try to teach such absurdities to children? Reason reigns supreme, and superstition retreats defeated. Take note.
He said they had the same number of electrons and neutrons, not protons.
@@carrieellis8552 which is just another idiocy! Please do get a periodic table and take a look. Unless ionized, atoms have the same number of electrons as they do do of protons so that the atomic electric charge is neutral.
@@carrieellis8552
He says tuff, he hopes his creationist audiences will not bother to check. He also hopes that they will assume anyone who fact checks and challenges him will be regarded as somehow fallen for seeking the truth.
Why is he roaring?
A ten year old rock dating at 128 million years old.
Why do people of a certain faith always try to convince me . Their concerns would be better served if they would just worship their god and take up their collections, read their bible and go on with their life. I think that your hour glass is in error.
Ahhaha yall ridiculous
I guarantee that the youtube atheistic geniuses steer clear of this comment section.
This is BS. The relative dates are calibrated against real ages using various known comparators such as dendochronology.
@Pete Conrad, you obviously ain’t listened !
OnTheWay no, I just don’t agree. Let’s hear your beliefs
auggie1980tillend opinion has nothing to do with it. I’m talking soy evidence. No surprise you’d avoid that issue since creationism has none.
Timmy P dendochronology has been used to calibrate carbon dating to several thousand year ago. We thus know that carbon dating works and can use this to:
1. Calibrate other, longer ranged radio processes.
2. Adopt the eternal principle that radio processes are consistent in the long term.
So if you wish to discount radio dating you will have to posit new evidence backed argument against that.
Pete Conrad
😂 ok