Michael Nash, Amazes me too. The Bible has science hidden throughout its entirety. For instance; in the 1600's a Jewish Rabbi studying Genesis came to the conclusion that there were 10 dimensions. Scientists didn't come up with that number until the 20th century. In Job, God talks about a wandering star, and it was found that Antares (if i remember correctly) is that star. It is not bound gravitationally to any system, but moves through interstellar space on its own trajectory. Science ALWAYS backs the Bible when true, honest, scientific method is used. I pray that God continues to delight you with these wonderful insights, such as He does me.
"The first gulp of natural sciences turn you into and Atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Hiesenberg 1932 Nobel laureate. As someone who works with radioactive decay 40+ hrs a week. I see two additional challenges with a 4.5 billion or 13.8 billion year age. 1. We are measuring these half lifes on the slope region or assymtotic end which is measure this at X halflives. Activity beggining (A noght) can vary wildly. Internal radiation dose uses linear statistical modeling to address this problem. (In short biology + radioactive decay+ environmental factors + time creates orders of magnitude variations in your intial activity assumptions). The variations in K- - Ar and Pb-Pb are not surprising given the nature of Bioassay measurements. 2. How do we know there are no other short lived half life isotopes causing contamination?
Thank you very much for sharing experience and thoughts. The whole idea of observational science is being able to observe the whole experiment. If we weren’t there at the beginning and most of the experiment, how could we know rates have been constant.
The way I see Radioactive Dating as False is simply this: If I were to cut down a 1000 Year old Redwood Tree, then use the wood to make a Table. How old is that Table? 1000 years old or 1 day? The fundamental fallacy exposed here is that the age of the material does not equal the Age of the Object.
Watching Neil deGrass Tyson, earlier today, he wondered why do theists from whatever persuasion like to have science back the faith position, in whatever form. Neil is right of course, as a theists I choose to accept the biblical position because, this is what I have, "Faith". Do I believe God created heaven & earth in 6 literal days? Yes, Do I believe in a literal Adam & Eve? Yes & my yes position is a statement of Faith. I believe in these things because out of my bible, comes Faith. Do I believe in a God, that created the universe in 6 days? Yes, & if God can created a universe in 6 days, he can also do the easy stuff, like walking on water, cast out demons, quite frankly, He can do, absolutely whatever He chooses. My Faith rests securely in the fact that Jesus died for my sins, let's not let our Faith rest in what is provable. My salvation was learnt through a prize much greater than this.
Neil dGT also wants to have science back his faith position as well. He's a committed naturalist and seeks science to further justify his faith commitment.
what’s that joke I heard the monkeys saying “we left them behind or something during evolution” God says we come to Him willingly and love Him willingly because we want to love Him. I love you Jesus. I heard the dead sea is evaporating before the century ends (sus) 🫶🏻Praying for The Lord’s Return
Can’t you come up with something more original, same old science conspiracy theory. There is nothing scientists like more than someone proving a theory wrong. It opens up whole new areas if investigation. The reason evolution is accepted is that it is supported by masses of experimental evidence ( unlike the bible which is supported by none). If evolution isn’t true why don’t you prove it in a scientific paper? Look forward to seeing you collect your Nobel Prize.
@S J Of course they would publish it. Proving that evolution was false would be one of the biggest upheavals in science ever. Everything we know about geology, quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry and cosmology would be trashed. The person that could prove it wrong would become more famous than Einstein. Why is it that creation scientists don't publish their work in scientific journal? The reason is that the work they produce is not scientific, not because of an agenda. They start off with the answer (god did it) and work backwards ignoring any evidence that conflicts with the bible. It is interesting that you Use Copernicus in your argument. The only reason that the heliocentric model was accepted as the truth was because the Catholic church insisted that because god made the universe it must be perfect and the Earth must be at the centre of it. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for daring to suggest the earth orbited the sun. Galileo was put under house arrest for the same thing. Lots of scientists at the time believed in the heliocentric model but were afraid to speak out because of the church. Copernicus left instructions that his theory was only to be published after his death because he feared for his life. So it was it was religion (an agenda), not scientific agenda that perpetuated the heliocentric model. Just think how much faster science could have progressed over the centuries if it had not been held back by religion. Yes, science is about questioning and testing everything, and it works. Religion (and creation science) is the complete opposite, the answer to everything is that god did it no matter what the evidence may say.
@@marcj3682 If it’s been proved where is the evidence? I must have missed the the award of the Nobel prize to the individuals who proved evolution - , to be wrong. Tell what year did they get it? Also can you let me have details of the scientific papers they must have had published in all the major scientific journals. A discovery as big this must have made headlines all around the world, strange that I must have missed it. A RUclips video using flawed and dishonest science is proof of nothing, .
The guy who discovered radiometric dating won a Nobel prize in 1960. The method has been refined for 60 years already. If you can disprove it, you deserve the next Nobel prize. This is almost saying the earth is flat.
These are great questions! 1: because the daughter lead atoms are a different size and have different bonding angles. We know that a near perfect Zircon could not have formed without an exceptionally low percentage being present to begin with. This is not an assumption it is physics. 2. These atoms are locked in a Zircon crystal which is exceptionally resilient and because they grow from a center nucleus outward, You can visibly see if the crystal growth process has had any interruption. 3. Different parent and daughter elements have varying half lives, which allows you to check them against each other and only if the decay rate are constant for each, would they be able to agree with each other using different rates.
Discrepancies aside, the most beautiful thing about radiometric dating is that there is absolutely no way to test or validate it. Ask the FDA to approve a medicine that cannot be tested.
@@rckli There's nothing we have that is known to be more than a few thousand years old. Anything older than that is theoretical and reliant upon theoretical dating methods. So you can test a theory with a theory, but you can't validate it or prove it in any way. Radiometric dating is known to be wildly inaccurate on items with known ages, but assumed to be correct for items with unknown ages.
@@wintermetalhd can you be more specific, please? You’re saying stuff that runs contrary to what I’ve heard from academia on the subject. For example - “anything older than that is theoretical and reliant upon theoretical dating methods” - see, this is very different from what I’ve learned, which were objective methods of testing things out for yourself. Many of the methods can be replicated by anyone with the ability to do so - you can visit any major university with a decent science lab and they might do a demonstration for you. So I’m just very confused as these two things are opposing one another
@@rckli The lava dome at Mt St Helens, when less than 10 years old, was dated from 340,000-2.8million years old using K-Ar. Petrified wood in England was dated to 28k years using C-14, but the rock strata it was found in was dated to 183 million. There are dozens of examples, a quick search on the internet. The fact remains that God created all of the elements. He wasn't so dumb that he didn't know how to make Argon 40 so he only made K40 and had to wait for it to decay. No one was there to measure how much Argon 40 existed in your laboratory specimens at the time they were created. C14 is by far the most accurate in that it can only be off by 50-some-odd-thousand years. But again C14 is found in significant quanities all the time, in items that are supposedly millions of years old.
Years ago I was discussing carbon 14 dating with a young Christian Lady and I made an offhand comment that God has a sense of humor and that he allowed the discovery of carbon 14 dating as a false dating concept to confound atheist lol She agreed with me
@@douglasdavis8395 except every dinosaur with feathers is above dinosaurs without them in the rock layers. And all the full birds are above the transitional species.
This video is 4 years old. Man the guy must have multiple Nobel Prizes for going against a scientific consensus. Scientific community around the world must be shocked until now.
@@knightclan4 Hydroplate Theory from Dr. Walt Brown is another fascinating theory which explains all the geology of the earth from the catastrophic major flood event.
I am so happy to have found Answers in Genesis! Praise the Lord! Thank you all for what you are doing and thank you for helping God stir up Love and Good works in my soul! “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” hebrews 10:24
@@iandaley2295 says the person who's argument got disproven also how do you know he's a scam you don't need to donate also I didn't know that people donate money to him
@@zakkmarchant says the person who doesn't know anything about punctuation... What argument is disproven? You're not making any sense. Answers in Genesis lies about science and slanders the many good and selfless people who contribute to our world thru scientific inquiry.
@@iandaley2295 really the many good people and selfless people tell that to Nikola Tesla's he's the most selfless don't lie about scientists being selfless. also where is he's lies seems pretty good argument. He is good but there are better
They will tell you that you can't use these "anomalies" because they weren't observed in a controlled environment, completely ignoring the natural history isn't a controlled environment.
The universe from nothing? You tell me as thats what christians believe. No universe>- **MAGIC** > universe! The answers to your nucleotides question is only a google search away.
Um there is no evidence of anything being added to an existing genome. Atheism is what teaches the universe came from nothing. U need to learn your own religion
Cakes are delicious. I would love it if a woman baked a cake for me. Also doing laundry is essential. When their husbands are out working, it's actually convienient and loving for a wife to do laundry. Look to the past and you'll find that women did these things.
@@WABeard That knife cuts both ways. Lots of ignorance and lack of critical thinking to go around. I was utterly surprised when I became a Christian that there are many of us that aren't stupid, let alone brilliant, who have followed the evidence and still believe. Don't be so quick to call others these things, because you might very well be talking yourself, and you owe it to yourself to follow the truth.
'Where does the light come from?' Light is the visible part of the E-M spectrum; so it must have been that the whole energy spectrum was created. It would need to be created first as energy is basic to the material cosmos. It would need to be created before it could be 'emitted'. The Maxwell-Heaviside equations describe this event; Poynting then tells us about how it flows. This gives meaning to the separation of light from dark (while still making phenomenological sense to the normal observer). This might also play into the 'distant starlight' problem, which is usually cast as an 'instrumental' problem rather than being seen as connected to the basic formation of the material cosmos. Addendum I get the impression from many of the replies to this comment that we have failure of understanding at work. I did not say or infer that light was not the first thing created by God. It was: his initial creation was the entire energy field essential for as the foundation of matter of which light is merely the visible part. Or did you think he created visible light first, then x-rays, infra red 'light', ultra-violet 'light' microwaves, etc on some other day that he doesn't mention? This energy field is described today (is explained), in the equations I mentioned. They describe (explain) the entire spectrum, not just visible light. 'Explain' means present them in terms that can be used in further work of stewardship of God's creation. What I am saying that reducing 'light' to merely the visible spectrum is nonsensical and leads into silly problems about how could days indicated by changing light conditions exist before the sun. Days are about time, not lighting conditions (try living above the Arctic Circle to test that one). Of course the astronomic signs of passing time were created on day 4, so they couldn't MARK the passage of time on the prior days. Nevertheless, time did pass. God tells us so, as he is the author of time as well. What sort of time passed in creation week? He calibrates it for us: 'evening and morning' type time.
@@Dekadin2 that's not what we believe. It's what you say we believe. Its more like it came from a very small spec of super dense energy. Before that we don't know. As far as this radio metric dating being wrong. The first problem is that they don't only use one element I think they use at least three from one sample. Then they check that each of those elements have a very similar ratio of parent and daughter isotopes per each elements half life. That way if one doesn't line up right they know there has been contamination in that sample and they throw it away. The whole sample, not just that data point. We have studied the conditions under which the half life of elements can be altered. And those conditions are extreme. Doesn't usually happen on earth extreme. And those conditions affect each element differently which throws off the ratios. Don't remember his third point but I'll finish this video and see what else he has to say. Also easy on the sarcasm. Where did God come from is just as hard to answer as what was before that little speck. I think it'd make more sense that a bunch of energy expanded the cooled then formed matter that started behaving via physics to form all we know today than an all powerful being coming from ... (We don't know) thats not a dig, my side doesn't know where the energy came from.
@@AbeMangum you're playing a semantics game. You still have to hold the belief that everything came from nothing. God is outside the physical realm. The spiritual realm is eternal, the physical was created. You can't just keep tossing the ball down to someone else to explain where that dense energy came from. Wake up, brother. You know in your heart that God is sovereign. Otherwise why would you be wasting time on this video?
It seems the radiometric dates are relative to the radioisotope clocks that are used. Those error-chrons show that radiometric dating is not an accurate science.
Plus, mt is hellens in one 24 hour day made layers out. If you would to look at it without knowing what happened, you would say it took millions of years. Nope
@@iveseen1 You are kidding me! It amazes me that most put so much faith that uniformitarianism is true. That they can't see the assumptions they call fact. You weren't there when the experiment started You weren't there when 99% of the experiment was going. The only real science is the amount of each element the sample has in it. You might want to approach the truth of Jesus Christ from the prophecy and archaeology route. Old earth bias is hard to overcome. Many people are Christian and believe in Jesus.
@@knightclan4 were you there when the bible was written?to hear the wisdom of the talking serpent, donkey,burning bush,the ripping of featuses from wombs, dashing little ones on rocks, virgin births ,emaculate rape,resurrection,torture and kill a son and die for a couple of days, then go to heaven to save everyone.....and you think radioactive methods are flawed.What do you think is really flawed..cheers Mick.
also the dead sea scrolls were determined with carbon dating....the hardest thing about being a christian is all the other ignorant and naive christians in the world
Speaking where the bible is silent, we have to assume that there was much more to the story of the Flood than is revealed in the scriptures. The miracle of getting all the animals into the Ark is Tinker Toys compared to all the other miracles that had to have been happening at the time. The bible tells us that the earth split open and the waters from under the earth gushed onto the surface. What kind of mixing and matching was happening when all that took place? When Noah let all those animals go, there had to have been some pretty fancy stepping to get to far flung locations like Australia and other places. None of this information is provided by the text. Speaking where the bible is silent is a favorite pastime of charlatans and it the fertile ground of mythology. The Atheist religion has made a ton of money preaching their gospel but that's par for the course.
@Betty - It illustrates how wrong the standard narrative has always been. The assumption from the Atheist religion is that the bible is always mythological. So when it talks about Hittites, it's making up stories. People who believe the bible go out and find physical evidence of the Hittite Empire and it shuts the mouths of the unbelievers. This story repeats over and over again. Jericho wasn't conquered by the Israelites. Archaeology finds tons of evidence of the ancient city being destroyed. The unbelievers put Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula but the bible says it is in Arabia. We can't find archaeological evidence of this mountain in the Sinai Peninsula but we do see evidence of it in Arabia. The list goes on and on. So when the standard narrative says that Noah's Flood is a myth then I have to look at the track record of that source and ignore the accusation. One day that narrative will be debunked along with all the rest.
@Betty - My point is that these so-called "science" experts (and, in point of fact, a naysayer for the sake of saying, nay, is NOT science but just a troll, right?) don't prove anything they just say, "It didn't happen." BUT (and this is a HUGE but), they will insist that their myths and propositions are indeed correct. The Big Bang theory has been COMPLETELY debunked and they hang onto that myth like it's the antidote. Their "science" is more like a religion and that is why I call it "Scientism" - the dogma of the Atheist religion. It's just so much myth telling because nobody can prove any of it. To me, one theory is as good as the next as long as it remains untested in the laboratory. I haven't seen anyone produce a universe in a laboratory yet and so it's not really science - in the strictest definition of the term. But it passes for science and on the basis of their myth, they poo-poo ours. It's just a big pissing contest. Show me an experiment, okay? Which is where the Flood comes in. Because of the track record of all these naysayers against the bible, I gotta go with the bible. It has been validated over and over again. Archaeologists are going into the field equipped with the description of the locations and events specified in the bible and finding evidence of these events and peoples. Naysayers are out there saying, "Nuh-uh", while actual researchers are turning up gold. I don't think I have to point out that "Nuh-uh" is not an argument. I myself am putting my money on the one with the record of wins. I'm a gambler and I like to win. So I back the favored horse in the race.
Thank you for these challenges. Answering all of them would be to long for a short youtube comment so here are 5 reasons the Old Earth Model cannot be true 1. Salty oceans: The oceans get more and more salty with time. At the observed rate it cannot be millions of years old. 2. Genetic mistakes: Through the generations more and more genetic mistakes accumulate in the humans. There should be many more than what we see today if the species was millions of years old. 3. The moon: The moon is moving away from the Earth and is an important stabilizing factor. Without the moon there would be no life on Earth. There are currently no plausable hypothesis for how the Earth "picked up" the moon either. 4. Earth rotation deceleration: Earth is spinning. But did you know it is slowing down? If we go back millions of years the earth would spin so fast that the dinosaurs would have been thrown of the planet and that would be why they went extinct. 5. Dinosaurs: Not too long ago we found DNA and hemoglobin in a Danosaur bone. These can only be maintain under perfect circumstances for at least 15,000 and 10,000 years. This means that this particular dinosaur has to be at most 10,000 years old (and it was not found in perfect storage condition) Thank you again for your challenges. It does feel like you are a bit condescending at times. If you really want to make us YEC change our mind I recommend that you treat the opposite view with respect while you try to disprove it. You do not have to agree to respect each other. I hope you have a wonderful day.
His presentation reveals information I’ve learned piecemeal over the last 30 to 40 years. I used to believe in evolution but now I know how “scientists” manipulate their test results to support their theories.
@@Sarcasticass any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations is evolution. That's a basic definition any biologist or person working in the Life Sciences would give you if you were to ask. Biological evolution is just population genetics. It's a fact. It's observed. It's the way life works. Evolutionary theory or the modern synthesis is applied science. We utilize what we learn about evolution in nature and we apply it to real world areas, such as agriculture and medicine. There's even a specific field of science called *evolutionary medicine* The only people who have a problem with biological evolution are those who have religious beliefs that are opposed to it. No data or evidence has ever been discovered that indicates biological evolution is not fact.
I suspect too many unknown variables for dating methods to be true science. New 'facts' keep popping up. Mind you, I suspect that is likely true of all so-called science.
@Betty well, I’m glad there isn’t a deeper issue 🥳 I reckon you believe that rational people believe that non life got to gather with non life and produced life that could reproduce and all in an environment that could sustain life?
Well, the consensus is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years, so I would suggest this guy write the proper Scientific Papers, submit it to Peer review, send to the Swedish Nobel Academy and sit to wait for his Nobel Prize.
Now you know a little more truth..... You can either cling to the dying so called scientific theories with all your might, or start researching the truth.
@@shirleywelden7755 If overwhelming evidence points to a hypothesis, science will take the claim seriously. The claim would be rigorously tested by other scientists via peer review, that's how science works. At present no one from the Creationist community has presented anything for peer review. Science unlike religion is open to change and this is the crux of the issue. I'd rather have questions that can't be answered (science) than answers that can't be questioned (thiesm).
@@kiwibass6207 Tested by atheists? you think this is the right method? Scientists who are prejudiced cannot and will not investigate these things, they are in advance against everything a religious man says. Precisely atheists are not open to other opinions, THAT are the pseudo scientists.
@@shirleywelden7755 science is constantly changing. How in the world can people think the the scientific community (filled with people of all kinds of religion btw) doesn’t like change or can’t overcome their bias enough to foster change? Is the fact that they don’t accept many biblical ideas sufficient for people to conclude that they are so close minded? Perhaps anyone who disagrees is automatically biased; that’s a convenient perspective to have
Praise the Lord in heaven, because through him we found the truth even though we were deceived by the greatest liar of all time, and it is now our duty to share it since we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves
A coworker was telling me yesterday that she trusts "carbon dating" to accurately determine the age of the earth, so I knew I needed to watch this video again to brush up on my radiometric dating knowledge. Thank you Dr. Snelling and AiG for this great explanation! I gotta get up to Kentucky to visit the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter!
I found out that they actually don't use "carbon dating" to determine the billion year age of the earth, so she actually didn't understand what she was even saying. This means that she was just repeating what she heard from someone and didn't know enough about it to know that she misunderstood what she told you.
@Yougetagoldstar I agree with you. Unfortunately most people just believe what they're told in textbooks or nature films and aren't exposed to sources like Answers in Genesis. I'm so grateful to God for leading me to the truth in the Bible about creation and especially salvation. All I can say about my coworker's deception is, but for the grace of God, there go I.
@@tannermcginn7330 - Except that aig is presenting demonstrably incorrect information as if they have evidence to support their outlandish claims. Can you define 'god?' Can you demonstrate 'god?'
Follow up question is ALWAYS "why?" Wait for their response and then debate from there. 9/10X. They will clearly layout their false assumptions on the front end👌
Radioactive dating is used to find fossil fuel. The entire energy industry relies on these dating methods. Every time you gas up your car you are using fuel found with these dating methods.
@@douglasdavis8395 Its a beautiful place for sure. Near the end of The Grand Canyon but also has high elevation mountain pine forest and tons of different wildlife. I have seen a few and still keep a sea shell with the inside of it cemented with old stone that I found at about 8,000ft elevation there. Hundreds of miles from any sea and a mile and a half above sea level. Unfortunately forest fires have damaged quite a bit of it the last couple decades.
One of my favorite "science" statements is when asked how the age of a formation is determined the reply is--"By the age of the fossils in them"---then--How is the age of the fossils determined? By the age of the formation they are found in! What is wrong with this picture?
Interesting points. I have a question. From your same logic, if you weren’t there to watch the Bible passed down from generation to generation, how do you know there wasn’t contamination?
I suppose each denomination has their own "version" but from what I understand modern Bibles match the Dead Sea scrolls which are thousands of years old
@@SkeezyBacon the modern Bible is a curated and heavily edited/redacted collection of texts put together by the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. If you look further back in time, much older than the Bible says the earth actually existed, you’ll find tablets and scrolls from many different cultures that the Bible seems to have borrowed many of its stories from
@@DadGotU Fair enough. Constantine assembled the Bible as we know it now; with the New Testament. The Old Testament was already being read for much longer. Christ himself taught the law of Moses. The dating of these texts from different cultures is questionable at best. As well, the Bible didn't borrow, every culture just witnessed the same events i.e. the flood. And the main unspoken point this guy is trying to convey is that it cant be confirmed. We admit our religion. The evolutionist refuses to. cheers man
Amazing how these people want to claim so many flaws in science yet can't see any in believing in god and the bible which is so full of holes Hans Christian Anderson could have done a better job.
@@currnhyde3123 The bible says the earth is flat and stands on four pillars there is a dome over the earth and this contains the sun and the stars which orbit the earth.
@@currnhyde3123 got no answer from my reply so I'll give you another the bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest but there are a few that are smaller
@@currnhyde3123 try the old testament. Would you mind explaining how god is a sadistic mass murdering psychopath in the old testament, but magically turns into a hippie in the new testament?
Anyone who has any knowledge of physics knows that this fellow is wrong, none of his arguments against radio-dating hold up to scrutiny. The dating of the age of the earth and universe is not restricted to measuring radioactive decay, we know how old our sun is and this age corresponds to the age we determine from radio-dating. Most of this talk is so simple minded I have to believe it is oriented to children.
I am confused. How is it that new rocks from dried lava flows shouldn't test as the age of the lava from when it was under the volcano? Is it because it is assumed that air and water at the surface where the sample is taken begin the decay process and therefore tell us the amount of time that the rock has been on the surface rather than the age of the earth itself?
"How is it that new rocks from dried lava flows shouldn't test as the age of the lava from when it was under the volcano?" Depends on the radioactive method, with Ar-Ar and K-Ar method it comes down to when the material solidified and therefore is able to trap the gases you measure, like Argon, in it's crystalline structure. So when you measure, with certain methods, on solidified lava, you do not measure when the lava was made but when is was solidified. Also, some gases are never used to determinate the age, like helium, the reason for this is that can "go in and out" of the crystalline structure to easy so it is unreliable (so if you hear a YEC'er talking about Helium gasses and age measurement you know he is lying to you). With isochronal dating method you can determinate if the sample you have have been leaking (or taken up) gases like Argon and if so, you should discard the sample. The radioactive methods improves, Ar-Ar are much more used than K-Ar, becaosue it is easier to conduct and is reliable (less uncertainty in the result) There are some 70 different methods to choose from and C14 (radiometric carbon dating) is one of the very few in which the starting value is needed to be known.
@@fender97 "Are you saying that this video has no merit whatsoever" My response to Jennifer was not about that, you could comment that, "and that radioisotope dating is without assumption? No, where did I claim that? However those assumptions are testable, have been tested and they stood they stood the test. You can test them, go ahead and falsify them becaosue the lad in the video nor the RATE team did it.
Why so scared of being wrong. Every scientist agrees they can't date accurately. The dates change at least once every decade. Seems suspicious to me, but not really because even science admits they have no clue. Why are you surprised?
4:30 isn't the time clock analogy a bad one to describe the dating? the second half-life of the time clock means that you'll have 0% of the parent element left, whereas in dating with radioactive elements in the second half-life you'll have half of the half amount which is 25% left of the parent element and so on and so on, it'll be exponential decaying and never going to zero. so as long as you know the ratio of those 2 elements in living things or in rocks you can calculate the age of the dead and rocks . rocks are forming and crystallizing without stop so it can be measured in rocks in the present I think. you're talking about needing to observe observe observe when it happened. why don't you ask yourself about needing to be there observing your god making the earth and the flood and all those none sense stories? hypocrites
Also earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, not 4 billion. Some evidence shows life *may* have appeared as early as 4.1 billion years ago, but the oldest undisputed bacterial microfossils are 3.8 billion years old.
@Adam B Easy. Radioactive isotopes decay at specific rates, and we can measure the ratio of the isotope with it's daughter product to calculate the age of rocks. Usually multiple radiometric dating methods are used to maximize accuracy. These different methods independently confirm each other literally thousands of times over, and have organized the entire fossil record into a coherent linear structure. To think that's somehow an accident is statistically absurd.
My question is... when we use radiocarbon dating to say how old something is, what are we comparing it to for "accuracy" if radiocarbon dating and other assumptions for aging things are the only source. We can say a ruler is a fantastic measuring device to measure a square. There was be discrepancy whether we want to call it inches or cm but that's just semantics. We can measure it objectively. The things we measure here on Earth are often compared to what is objectively true. We don't have to make assumptions on one way of measuring then compare another way of measuring to say the measurements are accurate. That's called precision, not accuracy. Picture this: your friend needs to qualify for the track meet so he practices his 400m dash. You go out with him to count but you don't bring a stopwatch. You say, "I don't need that stupid thing, I know how to count and my perception of time is great." You've made your first assumption. Your friend starts running over and over and you give the times - 38s, 39s, 36s. You go, "Wow man you're killing it." Later, he goes to the qualifiers and he runs his 400m dash in 59 seconds and does not qualify. You and him are shocked and you say, "How is this possible? I counted over and over again and you ran almost the same every single time. Okay maybe I was off by a second or 2 because I assumed I my perception of time was great but that's besides the point. Every time I counted your runs, it was nearly the same, so I must be right."
Check out Dr John Baumgardner’s theory of catastrophic plate tectonics. If the single catastrophic global flood occurred as written, it changes geology as we were taught in school. It would mean that the Bible could be true, which means Jesus is Savior. Which most people don’t want to be true.
@@knightclan4 Yeah, people don't want that to be true. It is incomprehensible to me that people believe that life originated from dead material. All dead material disintegrates in nature (entropy) why do evolutionists believe that life arises from it? That is the opposite. They claim that science can explain everything, why then reverse natural laws. You should be able to explain this properly if you are so sure of this, but that never happens, it is accepted and that is a belief. People who believe in a creator just say so, but evolutionists ridicule religious people when they themselves believe in something based on quicksand.
We've measured decay rates only in the last 130 yrs...and you want to extrapolate them back to 100,000,000 yrs or 3,800,000,000 yrs? Quite a bit of time for such a small sample.
John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven: the Son of Man" - Jesus. John 4:25,26 the woman said to Him, I know that the Messiah will come. Jesus answered: I who speak to you am He. He came from heaven and based His preaching only on telling us about how to join Him there. The devil has snatched away the grain and given the world chaff. Science is good but Jesus gave us faith as the one knowledge above all. We may never understand everything about everything on earth here but whatever we understand or don't, let us not fail to understand the teachings of Jesus which are about how to relate with God.
Who was John? Oh, that's right. A man. If you're just going to believe what a man wrote, I have a book written by a man for you. You'll love it. The man who wrote it is named L. Ron Hubbard.
@@HS-zk5nn - Believers are the ones who try to repudiate science; the Dark Ages, as it were. There is zero evidence of the 6,000 year-old earth, but tons of evidence pointing to a 4 billion + year-old earth. But, enjoy living a believer's life; it will make no difference in the end: you will be disappointed.
those who believe in a young earth have NEVER been able to explain tectonic plate activity, which we can see and measure daily.....also, how did fossils of the same plants and animals end of up on the west coast of Africa AND the east coast of Brazil?! Just accept that the universe is way older than we know, that humans wrote the Bible (and everything else), and that Jesus was a genius who taught us a new way to live compared to the archaic laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Earth is 4 billion years old at least, and there are several very telling reasons why. You never read about Jesus getting in an argument about the age of the earth....because he didnt know either. Jesus married Mary Magdalene and The Council of Trent decided to not put that part in the Bible.
The Earth is not young only the surface is young. Earth is like a ball of dough. A earth that is constantly kneading the dough. Always recycling what's on the surface. What is so hard to understand about that.
Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism If the global flood was a real event, what evidence would you expect to see. Folded mountains in Google images gives a representation of rapid plate tectonics, not slow gradual bending of brittle rock layers.
Scientist don't just measure the age of a single rock and go OK, that's its age. They test other rocks to make sure that it's not contaminated. Natural laws don't just change.
The don't measure the 'age' of any rock. They measure isotopic ratios, then make assumptions, one of which is the question-begging assumption of an evolutionary time scale, then steer their age assessment by this; rocks that give ratios which would contradict the 'evolutionary' age are then dismissed, explained away or given a 'statistical pep-talk'.
Who did? What rocks? A throwaway comment like this proves absolutely nothing. In 1997 researcher’s at the University of Naples and Berkeley in the USA did radioactive dating on samples of lava from the Vesuvius eruption in 79 CE. They used Ar 39/40 for the dating. The age of the rock in 1997 was 1918 years old. The result they obtained was an age of 1925 years., so how about backing up your comments with actual facts.
@@21divel That's what all the people who haven't even read the first 5 lines of the bible say. Do that and think about what you're actually reading. Unfortunately, most Christians have not done that either and that is why the earth should not be older than 6000 years, a pointless discussion if you read carefully.
@Betty That's what all the people who haven't even read the first 5 lines of the bible say. Do that and think about what you're actually reading. Unfortunately, most Christians have not done that either and that is why the earth should not be older than 6000 years, a pointless discussion if you read carefully.
@BettyYes, the Bible is often difficult to understand and with a prejudice you will never get out of it. It is also not a scientific book, there are quite a few misunderstandings about that.
The lie of evolution is so engrained in our culture that there is no more science just politics and reputations. There is no pursuit of truth. The scientific consensus says that it is settled (lol). Real science is observable. No one observed millions of years. Only God’s account of creation is accurate because he was there.
Oh look another anti-theists argument from the fallacy of appeal to authority. Why am I not surprised. "Serious" can only means anti-theists like me else they must all be liars. ...right.
@@currnhyde3123 you know that correctly understanding geology is what you have to do when you need to prospect for mineral deposits or oil. The fact that we can accurately find and predict these types of things are common sense evidence on how geologists know about this stuff for example. Thung is that noone of this shiws that the earth is 6000 years old, because of course it isnt. Its weird to deny natural laws, when said natural laws are made by God. Science is undenia ly our best way to understand the natural world and nature. And given that god created nature as it is and works, denying this scientific knowledge is essentially denying how god has made our world.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
@@douglasdavis8395 Galatians 2: 16, 2: 21, Ephesians 2: 8, 9, 10, Romans 4: 5, 6, and Romans 11: 6, clearly seperate faith from works of any kind. Jonah 3: 10 calls turning from sins, "works ". Repentance of sins is a lifetime of works and has never saved anyone or contributed in any way to salvation. If repentance of sins helps save you in any way then it had better be perfect repentance. God's standard is absolute perfection, not your best efforts. Trying doesn't count. Not even one sin is allowed to be in Heaven. The book of James says that if you follow the whole law and offend in one point you are guilty of all. Oops, so much for helping out with your salvation by attempting to repent of your sins. God grants repentance unto the acknowledgement of the truth. Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. How can you possibly trust Christ alone for salvation when you are also trusting in your performance? You absolutely can't.
You are misinterpreting H. Scripture. Verse one clearly states that the heavens including the earth were created in a beginning. This beginning in several scriptures is said to be an eternity ago. Ask for scriptures if you like. The creative 6 days were not 24 hour days. While we haven't been told how old the earth is, it most certainly is not only 6000 years.
Yep! I will actually sell you the instrument required to ensure all of this is correct. I have an ICP-MC-MS that will helop you out. The key point is to look at all Isotopes instead of just one of them. For example Isotopes of Primoridal vs Radiogenic Lead is facinating, and it is the exact answer to your "assumption" 1. And 36Argon helps to determine if 40Argon capture has occured. Multi-Collectors are soooo cool 😍
Umm no this does not answer assumption 1 because the assumption itself is impossible to "answer" in the context your using.😂 Unless you can go back in time and measure/test all the matter in the universe right before and after the big bang to show via the scientific method that during the massive burst of energy that created the universe, all elements werent given a predisposed decay point that seems much older than it is... Can you prove to me that it all wasn't "contaiminated" as soon as it came into being? Keep thinking you are smarter than you are genius... it might get you somewhere.
you state that some atoms are unstable because they have too many particles in their nucleus. (I assume you meant neutrons) that is incomplete because many unstable isotopes have fewer that normal number of neutrons. it just adds to the impression that you are not trying to educate about the facts
I'm a Christian, and I give God all the glory for creating the universe billions (if not more) years ago and allowing it to evolve. Genesis 1-3 is not literal, and not intended to be. It baffles me how narrow minded you have to be to assume that humans and other homo sapien ancestors with whom we interbred have only been around for 5,000 years when we have Chinese writing from almost 12,000 years ago and have fossils of HUMANS that are within the 50,000 years that Carbon dating works without error......otherwise, the Grand Canyon and its layers started that way? And God thought it funny to put ancient animal fossils buried in the layers from the start? All that matters in this life is that Jesus's teachings help one find transformative character growth in their life and a hopefulness that calms the fear of death. Dust to dust is even in the Bible.
Science is the study of the world that God created for us to take care of. Let's honour God by taking better care of the planet that we were created to take care of.
Im just trying to start really understanding this topic so I have a solid foundation to debate it. Where can I study on how exactly it works in depth? Obviously I dont understand the equations in the references you use when I read them. Id like to be able to deefend my argument rather than having to resort to someone else to explain it for me like showing someone this video.
The scientific community have veiled the truth so much that any attempt to debunk is an arduous task - that plus the very vocal supporters comprising of atheists and theistic evolutionists, make that task almost unbearable.
Solar system formation has light emitting from hot swirling gases, small rocky planets forming first, then gas giants and finally the system's star (sun). Exactly how Gen1 describes it.
The 4th day was not the day the celestial bodies were placed but the day the authorship and purpose of the celestial bodies was announced. The darkness on the face of the deep was the darkness on the sea floor not the sea surface. The face of the waters and the face of the deep were different things. The spirit of God that moved over the face of the waters was the "breath of God" - the wind, not the Holy Spirit. The third day dry land appeared as the continental surfaces were uncovered by the "gathering of the waters". Before dry land appeared the water was shallow enough over the continental surfaces for there to be light where previously darkness was upon the deep. The sun predated the first day because all the celestial bodies were created in the beginning. The aforementioned wind would have been driven by thermal convection. Finally the mist that watered the entire surface which became the ocean that covered the entire earth did not freeze. That happened before the first day. The first day is not the first day the surface was exposed to the sun but the first day in the 6 day making process. Create - form from nothing, Make - transform for service. With these considerations, the ages of the rocks are less important with respect to scriptures.
Even though there are large differences in the various radiometric dating methods, they all give ages in the thousands of millions of years order of magnitude. So how do you reconcile that with the young earth age of < 10000 years? Hard to believe that there would be that much error in the initial condition/contamination/decay rate assumptions to give that great a difference. Then again, the examples you gave of dating Mt St Helens rocks and other recent volcanic eruptions show it can be way way off.
Zircons are absolutely older than the rock they were found in. They’re close to indestructible and get mixed in with the magma that formed the granite. They don’t get a reset because they didn’t melt.
They were faster in the past because of relativity when God stretched out the heavens so if the universe is expanding faster today then decay rates are slower than they were in the past because decay rates slow during acceleration
What happens to everything, after it has spent one year, covered by three miles, of hot volcanic filled water?! The global flood explains everything we see, which is why “scientists” claim there has been no global flood 😳
I hope Comedy Central picks this up. This is just too funny to pass up. I cant believe people still think the earth is only a few thousand years old and cherrypick science...which is exactly what they accuse others of doing. Not a surprise why they never debate anyone. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Perfect logic, I vote for any scientist saying too many "sciency" thing to be burned like in the good old days, like what the church did to Galileo and all those other pumpous blasphemers
That's a know lie created by anti-theists. We have whole Bibles dating to before 340AD (codex vaticanus) and many many physical documents of whole books and portions of books that go back into the 200sAD and fragments that go into the 100sAD and that's *only* the New Testament. We have many more fragments called the dead sea scrolls that date to the 200sBC to the 30sAD and we have historical records of translations of the complete Old Testament and apocrypha being translated in Greek during the 200sBC called the Septuagint. On top of this just from earthy Church leader quotes of the Bible we could recreate the whole Bible many times over. Their quotes were not short. You need to read a book on Bible preservation instead of repeating lies you blindly beleived from people who hate Christians.
I hate to be disagreeable but this is a five-year-old video and I know that even recently they have found the remains of dinosaurs and humans in the same geologic strata in numerous places so that's kind of a strange statement you made
I came up with a metaphor that I really like to explain this to people. It’s like a person taking an absurdly large container from inside a shed that has a spout on it. The man then pours in one bottle of water and a very slow drip begins to come out of the spout. Carbon dating is the equivalent of seeing that container dripping and saying “wow this container must have been here for millions of years based on how little water is left in this thing and at the rate it is dripping out of the spout“
No, it's more like if someone left a note saying there is 100 liters of water in a tub and it is losing water at 1ml per second, and since i know there is only 50 liters left, then 50,000 seconds must have passed since that note was written
@@haydenblack5648ehhh, it's more like nature leaving a note. You see all living organisms are constantly taking in and giving out carbon, leaving them in a constant state of balance with the atmosphere and when these organisms die, they stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere and the carbon starts decaying at a predictable rate. If we know the atmosphere content at the time of death (I'll cover that in a lil bit) and we know how much carbon is left in the organism, then we can tell how long ago it died. This method only works up to 60k years and only accurately up to maybe 40k because at that point there is so little carbon it's impossible to accurately measure it. Now for why this works even though we don't know the atmospheric content from 10,000 years ago? Since we know that carbon dating works on trees from times we know of carbon content in the atmosphere, then we can assume it also works on trees from back then. So by first getting the age of those trees back then usually through dendrochronology, then we can make a calibration curve to get accurate results. This can work on just about anything we know the age of beforehand, I just know that trees were the best ones to use to make that calibration curve.
@@haydenblack5648How many versions of the bible are there? Which one do you choose to believe and follow? There’s no graves, bones, skeletons, or really any evidence at all of the people from the Bible actually existing outside of the stories it tells.
Great presentation. Being new to Christ, I'm always stunned that the Bible is literally and scientifically true. Miraculous!
Congratulations
Read my comment above for more faith confirming resources
Amen brother praise be to God
it is and the old testament and New testimony are both witnesses of me.
Michael Nash, Amazes me too. The Bible has science hidden throughout its entirety. For instance; in the 1600's a Jewish Rabbi studying Genesis came to the conclusion that there were 10 dimensions. Scientists didn't come up with that number until the 20th century.
In Job, God talks about a wandering star, and it was found that Antares (if i remember correctly) is that star. It is not bound gravitationally to any system, but moves through interstellar space on its own trajectory.
Science ALWAYS backs the Bible when true, honest, scientific method is used.
I pray that God continues to delight you with these wonderful insights, such as He does me.
I love this channel.
"The first gulp of natural sciences turn you into and Atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Hiesenberg 1932 Nobel laureate. As someone who works with radioactive decay 40+ hrs a week. I see two additional challenges with a 4.5 billion or 13.8 billion year age. 1. We are measuring these half lifes on the slope region or assymtotic end which is measure this at X halflives. Activity beggining (A noght) can vary wildly. Internal radiation dose uses linear statistical modeling to address this problem. (In short biology + radioactive decay+ environmental factors + time creates orders of magnitude variations in your intial activity assumptions). The variations in K- - Ar and Pb-Pb are not surprising given the nature of Bioassay measurements. 2. How do we know there are no other short lived half life isotopes causing contamination?
Thank you very much for sharing experience and thoughts.
The whole idea of observational science is being able to observe the whole experiment.
If we weren’t there at the beginning and most of the experiment, how could we know rates have been constant.
I love this. Using practical science to disprove religious science/ hypothetical science. There's a difference between law and a hypothesis
@@parkertheprophet
Not sure what you mean by religious science?
The way I see Radioactive Dating as False is simply this: If I were to cut down a 1000 Year old Redwood Tree, then use the wood to make a Table. How old is that Table? 1000 years old or 1 day? The fundamental fallacy exposed here is that the age of the material does not equal the Age of the Object.
@@annoyboyPictures
Curious how this analogy relates to age of the earth?
Watching Neil deGrass Tyson, earlier today, he wondered why do theists from whatever persuasion like to have science back the faith position, in whatever form. Neil is right of course, as a theists I choose to accept the biblical position because, this is what I have, "Faith". Do I believe God created heaven & earth in 6 literal days? Yes, Do I believe in a literal Adam & Eve? Yes & my yes position is a statement of Faith. I believe in these things because out of my bible, comes Faith. Do I believe in a God, that created the universe in 6 days? Yes, & if God can created a universe in 6 days, he can also do the easy stuff, like walking on water, cast out demons, quite frankly, He can do, absolutely whatever He chooses. My Faith rests securely in the fact that Jesus died for my sins, let's not let our Faith rest in what is provable. My salvation was learnt through a prize much greater than this.
From what specific authority does your belief in a “literal” interpretation stem? It isn’t the Bible. So what is your source?
@@MGR1900 God and His word are his sources. He has found as I have that God is faithful to His promices.
Neil dGT also wants to have science back his faith position as well. He's a committed naturalist and seeks science to further justify his faith commitment.
@@MGR1900 Jesus endorsed Genesis, and Jesus is the highest authority, justified by his command of the natural realm and his power of life over death.
@@sbgtrading And Jesus told you that you are to have a literal interpretation of a collection of various books?
The scientific community will not let the truth interfere with their theory of evolution.
what’s that joke I heard the monkeys saying “we left them behind or something during evolution” God says we come to Him willingly and love Him willingly because we want to love Him. I love you Jesus. I heard the dead sea is evaporating before the century ends (sus) 🫶🏻Praying for The Lord’s Return
Can’t you come up with something more original, same old science conspiracy theory. There is nothing scientists like more than someone proving a theory wrong. It opens up whole new areas if investigation. The reason evolution is accepted is that it is supported by masses of experimental evidence ( unlike the bible which is supported by none). If evolution isn’t true why don’t you prove it in a scientific paper? Look forward to seeing you collect your Nobel Prize.
@S J Of course they would publish it. Proving that evolution was false would be one of the biggest upheavals in science ever. Everything we know about geology, quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry and cosmology would be trashed. The person that could prove it wrong would become more famous than Einstein. Why is it that creation scientists don't publish their work in scientific journal? The reason is that the work they produce is not scientific, not because of an agenda. They start off with the answer (god did it) and work backwards ignoring any evidence that conflicts with the bible.
It is interesting that you Use Copernicus in your argument. The only reason that the heliocentric model was accepted as the truth was because the Catholic church insisted that because god made the universe it must be perfect and the Earth must be at the centre of it. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for daring to suggest the earth orbited the sun. Galileo was put under house arrest for the same thing. Lots of scientists at the time believed in the heliocentric model but were afraid to speak out because of the church. Copernicus left instructions that his theory was only to be published after his death because he feared for his life. So it was it was religion (an agenda), not scientific agenda that perpetuated the heliocentric model. Just think how much faster science could have progressed over the centuries if it had not been held back by religion. Yes, science is about questioning and testing everything, and it works. Religion (and creation science) is the complete opposite, the answer to everything is that god did it no matter what the evidence may say.
@@davidalcock3074 😆🤣
@@marcj3682 If it’s been proved where is the evidence? I must have missed the the award of the Nobel prize to the individuals who proved evolution - , to be wrong. Tell what year did they get it? Also can you let me have details of the scientific papers they must have had published in all the major scientific journals. A discovery as big this must have made headlines all around the world, strange that I must have missed it. A RUclips video using flawed and dishonest science is proof of nothing,
.
The guy who discovered radiometric dating won a Nobel prize in 1960. The method has been refined for 60 years already. If you can disprove it, you deserve the next Nobel prize. This is almost saying the earth is flat.
I'm sure flat earth will be the topic of the next stupifying video they put out.
@@TylerShacklefordDurden What did he say that is factually incorrect?
@@Valornetdude all of it lol
@@TylerShacklefordDurden Okay i now understand what you are saying. ANY type of thinking that you dont agree with is wrong.
@@Valornetdude not remotely
These are great questions!
1: because the daughter lead atoms are a different size and have different bonding angles. We know that a near perfect Zircon could not have formed without an exceptionally low percentage being present to begin with. This is not an assumption it is physics.
2. These atoms are locked in a Zircon crystal which is exceptionally resilient and because they grow from a center nucleus outward, You can visibly see if the crystal growth process has had any interruption.
3. Different parent and daughter elements have varying half lives, which allows you to check them against each other and only if the decay rate are constant for each, would they be able to agree with each other using different rates.
Discrepancies aside, the most beautiful thing about radiometric dating is that there is absolutely no way to test or validate it. Ask the FDA to approve a medicine that cannot be tested.
It can’t be tested? Wdym?
@@rckli There's nothing we have that is known to be more than a few thousand years old. Anything older than that is theoretical and reliant upon theoretical dating methods. So you can test a theory with a theory, but you can't validate it or prove it in any way. Radiometric dating is known to be wildly inaccurate on items with known ages, but assumed to be correct for items with unknown ages.
@@wintermetalhd can you be more specific, please?
You’re saying stuff that runs contrary to what I’ve heard from academia on the subject. For example - “anything older than that is theoretical and reliant upon theoretical dating methods” - see, this is very different from what I’ve learned, which were objective methods of testing things out for yourself. Many of the methods can be replicated by anyone with the ability to do so - you can visit any major university with a decent science lab and they might do a demonstration for you.
So I’m just very confused as these two things are opposing one another
@@rckli The lava dome at Mt St Helens, when less than 10 years old, was dated from 340,000-2.8million years old using K-Ar. Petrified wood in England was dated to 28k years using C-14, but the rock strata it was found in was dated to 183 million. There are dozens of examples, a quick search on the internet.
The fact remains that God created all of the elements. He wasn't so dumb that he didn't know how to make Argon 40 so he only made K40 and had to wait for it to decay. No one was there to measure how much Argon 40 existed in your laboratory specimens at the time they were created.
C14 is by far the most accurate in that it can only be off by 50-some-odd-thousand years. But again C14 is found in significant quanities all the time, in items that are supposedly millions of years old.
The most beautiful thing about radiocarbon dating is that is proving young earth by the amount of helium present in the granite(inside the earth).
Excellent presentation 👏
Years ago I was discussing carbon 14 dating with a young Christian Lady and I made an offhand comment that God has a sense of humor and that he allowed the discovery of carbon 14 dating as a false dating concept to confound atheist lol
She agreed with me
Atheism has nothing to do with the accuracy of carbon dating.
And dinosaurs with feathers are there to test our faith too.
@@TylerShacklefordDurden - Some dinosaurs had feathers. Some still do. How is that a test of faith?
@@douglasdavis8395 except every dinosaur with feathers is above dinosaurs without them in the rock layers. And all the full birds are above the transitional species.
@@TylerShacklefordDurden - Please clarify and cite your sources for what you are trying to say.
This video is 4 years old. Man the guy must have multiple Nobel Prizes for going against a scientific consensus. Scientific community around the world must be shocked until now.
It’s amazing how few people actually have even heard about alternative theories to geology.
@@knightclan4 what do you mean alternative theory to geology?
@@afiqhazwan97
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics for instance .
Dr John Baumgardner's research is compelling.
@@knightclan4 Hydroplate Theory from Dr. Walt Brown is another fascinating theory which explains all the geology of the earth from the catastrophic major flood event.
@@chrispark2698
I'll check it out 👍
I am so happy to have found Answers in Genesis!
Praise the Lord!
Thank you all for what you are doing and thank you for helping God stir up Love and Good works in my soul!
“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”
hebrews 10:24
Answers in genesis is a scam. Make sure you donate so they can keep lying to children.
@@iandaley2295 says the person who's argument got disproven also how do you know he's a scam you don't need to donate also I didn't know that people donate money to him
@@zakkmarchant says the person who doesn't know anything about punctuation...
What argument is disproven? You're not making any sense.
Answers in Genesis lies about science and slanders the many good and selfless people who contribute to our world thru scientific inquiry.
@@iandaley2295 really the many good people and selfless people tell that to Nikola Tesla's he's the most selfless don't lie about scientists being selfless. also where is he's lies seems pretty good argument. He is good but there are better
@@zakkmarchant your bot is broken
They will tell you that you can't use these "anomalies" because they weren't observed in a controlled environment, completely ignoring the natural history isn't a controlled environment.
I've always liked this idea. The bible is our Basic Instructions For Leaving Earth.
*Basic Instructions BEFORE Leaving Earth.
You're welcome! 😀
Our missing instructional manual that we shouldn't leave home without.
How do u get the universe from nothing? How do u get completely new nucleotides added to the genome of an existing creature
The universe from nothing? You tell me as thats what christians believe. No universe>- **MAGIC** > universe!
The answers to your nucleotides question is only a google search away.
Um there is no evidence of anything being added to an existing genome. Atheism is what teaches the universe came from nothing. U need to learn your own religion
That is a question that can't be answered. Man invented time? We will get our answers when we pass away! Only " time " will tell.
Fair argument. His comments for all the ladies baking cakes and doing laundry was compelling.
Cakes are delicious. I would love it if a woman baked a cake for me. Also doing laundry is essential. When their husbands are out working, it's actually convienient and loving for a wife to do laundry. Look to the past and you'll find that women did these things.
@@yougetagoldstarwould a cake made by a man taste worse?
Or people with critical thinking skills. Probably doesn't offer much for people too dense to get the point. 😂
@@jr8260 almost certainly 😉
@@WABeard That knife cuts both ways. Lots of ignorance and lack of critical thinking to go around. I was utterly surprised when I became a Christian that there are many of us that aren't stupid, let alone brilliant, who have followed the evidence and still believe. Don't be so quick to call others these things, because you might very well be talking yourself, and you owe it to yourself to follow the truth.
Radiocarbon dating only works on ORGANIC MATERIAL. Fossils are ROCKS. We don’t use Radiocarbon Dating on fossils :/
'Where does the light come from?' Light is the visible part of the E-M spectrum; so it must have been that the whole energy spectrum was created. It would need to be created first as energy is basic to the material cosmos. It would need to be created before it could be 'emitted'. The Maxwell-Heaviside equations describe this event; Poynting then tells us about how it flows. This gives meaning to the separation of light from dark (while still making phenomenological sense to the normal observer). This might also play into the 'distant starlight' problem, which is usually cast as an 'instrumental' problem rather than being seen as connected to the basic formation of the material cosmos.
Addendum
I get the impression from many of the replies to this comment that we have failure of understanding at work. I did not say or infer that light was not the first thing created by God. It was: his initial creation was the entire energy field essential for as the foundation of matter of which light is merely the visible part. Or did you think he created visible light first, then x-rays, infra red 'light', ultra-violet 'light' microwaves, etc on some other day that he doesn't mention? This energy field is described today (is explained), in the equations I mentioned. They describe (explain) the entire spectrum, not just visible light. 'Explain' means present them in terms that can be used in further work of stewardship of God's creation.
What I am saying that reducing 'light' to merely the visible spectrum is nonsensical and leads into silly problems about how could days indicated by changing light conditions exist before the sun. Days are about time, not lighting conditions (try living above the Arctic Circle to test that one). Of course the astronomic signs of passing time were created on day 4, so they couldn't MARK the passage of time on the prior days. Nevertheless, time did pass. God tells us so, as he is the author of time as well. What sort of time passed in creation week? He calibrates it for us: 'evening and morning' type time.
God, the Creator dwells in light!
So did you ever read the Bible?
@Jason Shearin you're right, it all just randomly popped into existence from nothing. Much more sensible
@@Dekadin2 that's not what we believe. It's what you say we believe. Its more like it came from a very small spec of super dense energy. Before that we don't know. As far as this radio metric dating being wrong. The first problem is that they don't only use one element I think they use at least three from one sample. Then they check that each of those elements have a very similar ratio of parent and daughter isotopes per each elements half life. That way if one doesn't line up right they know there has been contamination in that sample and they throw it away. The whole sample, not just that data point. We have studied the conditions under which the half life of elements can be altered. And those conditions are extreme. Doesn't usually happen on earth extreme. And those conditions affect each element differently which throws off the ratios. Don't remember his third point but I'll finish this video and see what else he has to say. Also easy on the sarcasm. Where did God come from is just as hard to answer as what was before that little speck. I think it'd make more sense that a bunch of energy expanded the cooled then formed matter that started behaving via physics to form all we know today than an all powerful being coming from ... (We don't know) thats not a dig, my side doesn't know where the energy came from.
@@AbeMangum you're playing a semantics game. You still have to hold the belief that everything came from nothing. God is outside the physical realm. The spiritual realm is eternal, the physical was created. You can't just keep tossing the ball down to someone else to explain where that dense energy came from. Wake up, brother. You know in your heart that God is sovereign. Otherwise why would you be wasting time on this video?
It seems the radiometric dates are relative to the radioisotope clocks that are used. Those error-chrons show that radiometric dating is not an accurate science.
Plus, mt is hellens in one 24 hour day made layers out. If you would to look at it without knowing what happened, you would say it took millions of years. Nope
Thanks. I needed that. Finally it’s making better sense to me.
You have to be kidding, it's hilarious. Check the real science.
@@iveseen1 bro send me that link.
Yep
Overwhelming evidence that supports scripture.
@@iveseen1
You are kidding me!
It amazes me that most put so much faith that uniformitarianism is true.
That they can't see the assumptions they call fact.
You weren't there when the experiment started
You weren't there when 99% of the experiment was going.
The only real science is the amount of each element the sample has in it.
You might want to approach the truth of Jesus Christ from the prophecy and archaeology route.
Old earth bias is hard to overcome.
Many people are Christian and believe in Jesus.
@@knightclan4 were you there when the bible was written?to hear the wisdom of the talking serpent, donkey,burning bush,the ripping of featuses from wombs, dashing little ones on rocks, virgin births ,emaculate rape,resurrection,torture and kill a son and die for a couple of days, then go to heaven to save everyone.....and you think radioactive methods are flawed.What do you think is really flawed..cheers Mick.
The Shroud of Turin was radio carbon dated . Its funny how this method is ok if its a religious artifact .
also the dead sea scrolls were determined with carbon dating....the hardest thing about being a christian is all the other ignorant and naive christians in the world
Speaking where the bible is silent, we have to assume that there was much more to the story of the Flood than is revealed in the scriptures. The miracle of getting all the animals into the Ark is Tinker Toys compared to all the other miracles that had to have been happening at the time. The bible tells us that the earth split open and the waters from under the earth gushed onto the surface. What kind of mixing and matching was happening when all that took place? When Noah let all those animals go, there had to have been some pretty fancy stepping to get to far flung locations like Australia and other places. None of this information is provided by the text. Speaking where the bible is silent is a favorite pastime of charlatans and it the fertile ground of mythology. The Atheist religion has made a ton of money preaching their gospel but that's par for the course.
@Betty - That's what they said about people who believed in the Hittites.
@Betty - It illustrates how wrong the standard narrative has always been. The assumption from the Atheist religion is that the bible is always mythological. So when it talks about Hittites, it's making up stories. People who believe the bible go out and find physical evidence of the Hittite Empire and it shuts the mouths of the unbelievers. This story repeats over and over again. Jericho wasn't conquered by the Israelites. Archaeology finds tons of evidence of the ancient city being destroyed. The unbelievers put Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula but the bible says it is in Arabia. We can't find archaeological evidence of this mountain in the Sinai Peninsula but we do see evidence of it in Arabia. The list goes on and on. So when the standard narrative says that Noah's Flood is a myth then I have to look at the track record of that source and ignore the accusation. One day that narrative will be debunked along with all the rest.
@Betty - My point is that these so-called "science" experts (and, in point of fact, a naysayer for the sake of saying, nay, is NOT science but just a troll, right?) don't prove anything they just say, "It didn't happen."
BUT (and this is a HUGE but), they will insist that their myths and propositions are indeed correct. The Big Bang theory has been COMPLETELY debunked and they hang onto that myth like it's the antidote. Their "science" is more like a religion and that is why I call it "Scientism" - the dogma of the Atheist religion. It's just so much myth telling because nobody can prove any of it. To me, one theory is as good as the next as long as it remains untested in the laboratory. I haven't seen anyone produce a universe in a laboratory yet and so it's not really science - in the strictest definition of the term.
But it passes for science and on the basis of their myth, they poo-poo ours. It's just a big pissing contest. Show me an experiment, okay?
Which is where the Flood comes in. Because of the track record of all these naysayers against the bible, I gotta go with the bible. It has been validated over and over again. Archaeologists are going into the field equipped with the description of the locations and events specified in the bible and finding evidence of these events and peoples. Naysayers are out there saying, "Nuh-uh", while actual researchers are turning up gold. I don't think I have to point out that "Nuh-uh" is not an argument.
I myself am putting my money on the one with the record of wins. I'm a gambler and I like to win. So I back the favored horse in the race.
This man is deceiving all of you.
The devil is a great deceiver. If truth is presented, why not accept facts?
@@andys208 Kind of answered your own question there, didn't you? And your man here is still trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
@@andys208 what facts? All his "facts" are from tests incorrectly done and funded by creationists.
Thank you for these challenges. Answering all of them would be to long for a short youtube comment so here are 5 reasons the Old Earth Model cannot be true
1. Salty oceans: The oceans get more and more salty with time. At the observed rate it cannot be millions of years old.
2. Genetic mistakes: Through the generations more and more genetic mistakes accumulate in the humans. There should be many more than what we see today if the species was millions of years old.
3. The moon: The moon is moving away from the Earth and is an important stabilizing factor. Without the moon there would be no life on Earth. There are currently no plausable hypothesis for how the Earth "picked up" the moon either.
4. Earth rotation deceleration: Earth is spinning. But did you know it is slowing down? If we go back millions of years the earth would spin so fast that the dinosaurs would have been thrown of the planet and that would be why they went extinct.
5. Dinosaurs: Not too long ago we found DNA and hemoglobin in a Danosaur bone. These can only be maintain under perfect circumstances for at least 15,000 and 10,000 years. This means that this particular dinosaur has to be at most 10,000 years old (and it was not found in perfect storage condition)
Thank you again for your challenges. It does feel like you are a bit condescending at times. If you really want to make us YEC change our mind I recommend that you treat the opposite view with respect while you try to disprove it. You do not have to agree to respect each other.
I hope you have a wonderful day.
Love this Man. He speaks truth
You mean other people than the blatant lie in the title card?
His presentation reveals information I’ve learned piecemeal over the last 30 to 40 years. I used to believe in evolution but now I know how “scientists” manipulate their test results to support their theories.
It takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.
Wdym?
@@Sarcasticass any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations is evolution.
That's a basic definition any biologist or person working in the Life Sciences would give you if you were to ask. Biological evolution is just population genetics. It's a fact. It's observed. It's the way life works.
Evolutionary theory or the modern synthesis is applied science. We utilize what we learn about evolution in nature and we apply it to real world areas, such as agriculture and medicine. There's even a specific field of science called *evolutionary medicine*
The only people who have a problem with biological evolution are those who have religious beliefs that are opposed to it. No data or evidence has ever been discovered that indicates biological evolution is not fact.
I find it much more believable that God created life than that a rock created it.
@@Sarcasticass don't know what that means, but ok👌
Jesus is the Rock and this is rock solid science.
I suspect too many unknown variables for dating methods to be true science. New 'facts' keep popping up. Mind you, I suspect that is likely true of all so-called science.
Let God be true and every man a liar!! Great stuff!!
@Betty I know you’re just trolling, but I wonder if something deeper has happened to you?
@Betty well, I’m glad there isn’t a deeper issue 🥳 I reckon you believe that rational people believe that non life got to gather with non life and produced life that could reproduce and all in an environment that could sustain life?
@Betty well ain't that betty the Clown.
@@justindarnellfpv - Why would you infer that betty has any opinion about abiogenesis? Her comment was about the existence of a 'god.'
@@douglasdavis8395 if you click on Betty, you can read the comments that Betty made on this video… give it a go one time 😊
Well, the consensus is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years, so I would suggest this guy write the proper Scientific Papers, submit it to Peer review, send to the Swedish Nobel Academy and sit to wait for his Nobel Prize.
Now you know a little more truth..... You can either cling to the dying so called scientific theories with all your might, or start researching the truth.
No journal would accept the paper because of their bias.
@@shirleywelden7755 If overwhelming evidence points to a hypothesis, science will take the claim seriously. The claim would be rigorously tested by other scientists via peer review, that's how science works. At present no one from the Creationist community has presented anything for peer review. Science unlike religion is open to change and this is the crux of the issue. I'd rather have questions that can't be answered (science) than answers that can't be questioned (thiesm).
@@kiwibass6207 Tested by atheists? you think this is the right method?
Scientists who are prejudiced cannot and will not investigate these things, they are in advance against everything a religious man says.
Precisely atheists are not open to other opinions, THAT are the pseudo scientists.
@@shirleywelden7755 science is constantly changing. How in the world can people think the the scientific community (filled with people of all kinds of religion btw) doesn’t like change or can’t overcome their bias enough to foster change? Is the fact that they don’t accept many biblical ideas sufficient for people to conclude that they are so close minded? Perhaps anyone who disagrees is automatically biased; that’s a convenient perspective to have
Brilliant presentation!
Praise the Lord in heaven, because through him we found the truth even though we were deceived by the greatest liar of all time, and it is now our duty to share it since we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves
A coworker was telling me yesterday that she trusts "carbon dating" to accurately determine the age of the earth, so I knew I needed to watch this video again to brush up on my radiometric dating knowledge. Thank you Dr. Snelling and AiG for this great explanation! I gotta get up to Kentucky to visit the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter!
I found out that they actually don't use "carbon dating" to determine the billion year age of the earth, so she actually didn't understand what she was even saying. This means that she was just repeating what she heard from someone and didn't know enough about it to know that she misunderstood what she told you.
@Yougetagoldstar I agree with you. Unfortunately most people just believe what they're told in textbooks or nature films and aren't exposed to sources like Answers in Genesis. I'm so grateful to God for leading me to the truth in the Bible about creation and especially salvation. All I can say about my coworker's deception is, but for the grace of God, there go I.
@@tannermcginn7330 - Except that aig is presenting demonstrably incorrect information as if they have evidence to support their outlandish claims. Can you define 'god?' Can you demonstrate 'god?'
Follow up question is ALWAYS "why?" Wait for their response and then debate from there. 9/10X. They will clearly layout their false assumptions on the front end👌
Radioactive dating is used to find fossil fuel. The entire energy industry relies on these dating methods. Every time you gas up your car you are using fuel found with these dating methods.
17:00 this is absolutely fascinating to me, Kaibab is my favorite place in the world to camp.
No shish?
@@douglasdavis8395 Its a beautiful place for sure. Near the end of The Grand Canyon but also has high elevation mountain pine forest and tons of different wildlife. I have seen a few and still keep a sea shell with the inside of it cemented with old stone that I found at about 8,000ft elevation there. Hundreds of miles from any sea and a mile and a half above sea level. Unfortunately forest fires have damaged quite a bit of it the last couple decades.
One of my favorite "science" statements is when asked how the age of a formation is determined the reply is--"By the age of the fossils in them"---then--How is the age of the fossils determined? By the age of the formation they are found in! What is wrong with this picture?
Awesome vid!!!
Interesting points. I have a question. From your same logic, if you weren’t there to watch the Bible passed down from generation to generation, how do you know there wasn’t contamination?
I suppose each denomination has their own "version" but from what I understand modern Bibles match the Dead Sea scrolls which are thousands of years old
@@SkeezyBacon the modern Bible is a curated and heavily edited/redacted collection of texts put together by the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. If you look further back in time, much older than the Bible says the earth actually existed, you’ll find tablets and scrolls from many different cultures that the Bible seems to have borrowed many of its stories from
@@DadGotU Fair enough. Constantine assembled the Bible as we know it now; with the New Testament. The Old Testament was already being read for much longer. Christ himself taught the law of Moses. The dating of these texts from different cultures is questionable at best. As well, the Bible didn't borrow, every culture just witnessed the same events i.e. the flood. And the main unspoken point this guy is trying to convey is that it cant be confirmed. We admit our religion. The evolutionist refuses to. cheers man
@@DadGotU , I wouldn’t rely on the da Vinci code as a source. The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon.
@@DadGotU😂😂😂
Amazing how these people want to claim so many flaws in science yet can't see any in believing in god and the bible which is so full of holes Hans Christian Anderson could have done a better job.
You can't name one of those "holes". I've read all the new testament and the prophets and haven't found any holes.
@@currnhyde3123 The bible says the earth is flat and stands on four pillars there is a dome over the earth and this contains the sun and the stars which orbit the earth.
@@currnhyde3123 got no answer from my reply so I'll give you another the bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest but there are a few that are smaller
@@currnhyde3123 try the old testament. Would you mind explaining how god is a sadistic mass murdering psychopath in the old testament, but magically turns into a hippie in the new testament?
Anyone who has any knowledge of physics knows that this fellow is wrong, none of his arguments against radio-dating hold up to scrutiny. The dating of the age of the earth and universe is not restricted to measuring radioactive decay, we know how old our sun is and this age corresponds to the age we determine from radio-dating. Most of this talk is so simple minded I have to believe it is oriented to children.
The easy answer to his question is to undo the purposeful lies hacks like him perpetuate in society🤷♂️
I am confused. How is it that new rocks from dried lava flows shouldn't test as the age of the lava from when it was under the volcano? Is it because it is assumed that air and water at the surface where the sample is taken begin the decay process and therefore tell us the amount of time that the rock has been on the surface rather than the age of the earth itself?
"How is it that new rocks from dried lava flows shouldn't test as the age of the lava from when it was under the volcano?"
Depends on the radioactive method, with Ar-Ar and K-Ar method it comes down to when the material solidified and therefore is able to trap the gases you measure, like Argon, in it's crystalline structure.
So when you measure, with certain methods, on solidified lava, you do not measure when the lava was made but when is was solidified.
Also, some gases are never used to determinate the age, like helium, the reason for this is that can "go in and out" of the crystalline structure to easy so it is unreliable (so if you hear a YEC'er talking about Helium gasses and age measurement you know he is lying to you).
With isochronal dating method you can determinate if the sample you have have been leaking (or taken up) gases like Argon and if so, you should discard the sample.
The radioactive methods improves, Ar-Ar are much more used than K-Ar, becaosue it is easier to conduct and is reliable (less uncertainty in the result)
There are some 70 different methods to choose from and C14 (radiometric carbon dating) is one of the very few in which the starting value is needed to be known.
@@godergodel1649 First intelligent person in the comment section
@@alexmurray4561
"First intelligent person in the comment section"
Thanks, I hope she have read my post.
@@godergodel1649 Are you saying that this video has no merit whatsoever, and that radioisotope dating is without assumption?
@@fender97
"Are you saying that this video has no merit whatsoever"
My response to Jennifer was not about that, you could comment that,
"and that radioisotope dating is without assumption?
No, where did I claim that?
However those assumptions are testable, have been tested and they stood they stood the test.
You can test them, go ahead and falsify them becaosue the lad in the video nor the RATE team did it.
I know God cannot lie.
So science will have to catch up to the Bible.
Bible haven’t been wrong and can never be.
The bible says that the moon is a source of light. It is not. The bible is wrong.
the bible is a man-made mythical book
Talk about delusional
Had anyone else already “given” this video a thumbs down? Seems suspicious.
Curious if you believe in an old earth?
It's definitely a conspiracy... In November 2021, RUclips removed the public dislike count from all of its videos.
Why so scared of being wrong. Every scientist agrees they can't date accurately. The dates change at least once every decade. Seems suspicious to me, but not really because even science admits they have no clue. Why are you surprised?
4:30 isn't the time clock analogy a bad one to describe the dating? the second half-life of the time clock means that you'll have 0% of the parent element left, whereas in dating with radioactive elements in the second half-life you'll have half of the half amount which is 25% left of the parent element and so on and so on, it'll be exponential decaying and never going to zero. so as long as you know the ratio of those 2 elements in living things or in rocks you can calculate the age of the dead and rocks . rocks are forming and crystallizing without stop so it can be measured in rocks in the present I think.
you're talking about needing to observe observe observe when it happened. why don't you ask yourself about needing to be there observing your god making the earth and the flood and all those none sense stories? hypocrites
That's a revelation. Thank you
Moral of the story is you can't carbon date a conglomerates.
Divide 4 billion (secularist's age of Earth) by 6,000 (biblical age of earth.) The number is scary.
Dang, is the number of the beast...
😳
Secularist have never touted 4 billion years. It was always 4.5 billion stop lying
Also earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, not 4 billion. Some evidence shows life *may* have appeared as early as 4.1 billion years ago, but the oldest undisputed bacterial microfossils are 3.8 billion years old.
@Adam B Easy. Radioactive isotopes decay at specific rates, and we can measure the ratio of the isotope with it's daughter product to calculate the age of rocks. Usually multiple radiometric dating methods are used to maximize accuracy. These different methods independently confirm each other literally thousands of times over, and have organized the entire fossil record into a coherent linear structure. To think that's somehow an accident is statistically absurd.
My question is... when we use radiocarbon dating to say how old something is, what are we comparing it to for "accuracy" if radiocarbon dating and other assumptions for aging things are the only source. We can say a ruler is a fantastic measuring device to measure a square. There was be discrepancy whether we want to call it inches or cm but that's just semantics. We can measure it objectively. The things we measure here on Earth are often compared to what is objectively true. We don't have to make assumptions on one way of measuring then compare another way of measuring to say the measurements are accurate. That's called precision, not accuracy.
Picture this: your friend needs to qualify for the track meet so he practices his 400m dash. You go out with him to count but you don't bring a stopwatch. You say, "I don't need that stupid thing, I know how to count and my perception of time is great." You've made your first assumption. Your friend starts running over and over and you give the times - 38s, 39s, 36s. You go, "Wow man you're killing it." Later, he goes to the qualifiers and he runs his 400m dash in 59 seconds and does not qualify. You and him are shocked and you say, "How is this possible? I counted over and over again and you ran almost the same every single time. Okay maybe I was off by a second or 2 because I assumed I my perception of time was great but that's besides the point. Every time I counted your runs, it was nearly the same, so I must be right."
I swear creationists are the best unwitting comedians. They're their own punch lines.
And people who believe in evolution have more faith in something NEVER PROVEN than people who believe in creation! FACT!!
The light the first day is the first burst if light by the big bang, or divine fiat.
Unfortunately, I hear no explanation as to why the radioactive decay of substances would not have been constant.
Check out Dr John Baumgardner’s theory of catastrophic plate tectonics.
If the single catastrophic global flood occurred as written, it changes geology as we were taught in school.
It would mean that the Bible could be true, which means Jesus is Savior.
Which most people don’t want to be true.
@@knightclan4 Yeah, people don't want that to be true.
It is incomprehensible to me that people believe that life originated from dead material.
All dead material disintegrates in nature (entropy) why do evolutionists believe that life arises from it? That is the opposite.
They claim that science can explain everything, why then reverse natural laws.
You should be able to explain this properly if you are so sure of this, but that never happens, it is accepted and that is a belief.
People who believe in a creator just say so, but evolutionists ridicule religious people when they themselves believe in something based on quicksand.
" Unfortunately, I hear no explanation as to why the radioactive decay of substances would not have been constant. "
There is none
@@godergodel1649
Can't you see the assumption being made thinking rates have been constant.
Are you aware of the discrepancies of radiometric dating?
We've measured decay rates only in the last 130 yrs...and you want to extrapolate them back to 100,000,000 yrs or 3,800,000,000 yrs? Quite a bit of time for such a small sample.
John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven: the Son of Man" - Jesus. John 4:25,26 the woman said to Him, I know that the Messiah will come. Jesus answered: I who speak to you am He.
He came from heaven and based His preaching only on telling us about how to join Him there. The devil has snatched away the grain and given the world chaff. Science is good but Jesus gave us faith as the one knowledge above all. We may never understand everything about everything on earth here but whatever we understand or don't, let us not fail to understand the teachings of Jesus which are about how to relate with God.
Who was John? Oh, that's right. A man. If you're just going to believe what a man wrote, I have a book written by a man for you. You'll love it. The man who wrote it is named L. Ron Hubbard.
Also, the entirety of creation is only about 6k years old.
Please cite your observable, testable, repeatable, and peer-reviewed evidence of your claim.
@@douglasdavis8395 please show yours
@@HS-zk5nn - I made no claim.
@@douglasdavis8395 keep living in the dark ages
@@HS-zk5nn - Believers are the ones who try to repudiate science; the Dark Ages, as it were. There is zero evidence of the 6,000 year-old earth, but tons of evidence pointing to a 4 billion + year-old earth. But, enjoy living a believer's life; it will make no difference in the end: you will be disappointed.
those who believe in a young earth have NEVER been able to explain tectonic plate activity, which we can see and measure daily.....also, how did fossils of the same plants and animals end of up on the west coast of Africa AND the east coast of Brazil?! Just accept that the universe is way older than we know, that humans wrote the Bible (and everything else), and that Jesus was a genius who taught us a new way to live compared to the archaic laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Earth is 4 billion years old at least, and there are several very telling reasons why. You never read about Jesus getting in an argument about the age of the earth....because he didnt know either. Jesus married Mary Magdalene and The Council of Trent decided to not put that part in the Bible.
The Earth is not young only the surface is young. Earth is like a ball of dough. A earth that is constantly kneading the dough. Always recycling what's on the surface. What is so hard to understand about that.
Where's the evidence?
Recycling the soil too?
Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism
If the global flood was a real event, what evidence would you expect to see.
Folded mountains in Google images gives a representation of rapid plate tectonics, not slow gradual bending of brittle rock layers.
@@knightclan4 There is a great deal of evidence to support a global flood. You need to keep researching.
@@knightclan4 Perhaps the fossils found all over the world under thick layers all washed up in large quantities and over vast areas?
I'm getting an ad every 5 minutes on this video. Ridiculous.
Scientist don't just measure the age of a single rock and go OK, that's its age. They test other rocks to make sure that it's not contaminated. Natural laws don't just change.
the defination of science and its practice shoots down your analogy.
what is science?
As my geology professor once told me, ‘Remember, science is theoretical.’
The don't measure the 'age' of any rock. They measure isotopic ratios, then make assumptions, one of which is the question-begging assumption of an evolutionary time scale, then steer their age assessment by this; rocks that give ratios which would contradict the 'evolutionary' age are then dismissed, explained away or given a 'statistical pep-talk'.
Really? They took rocks formed in 1980 for dating, the age they got was something like 0,95 bilions years old
Who did? What rocks? A throwaway comment like this proves absolutely nothing. In 1997 researcher’s at the University of Naples and Berkeley in the USA did radioactive dating on samples of lava from the Vesuvius eruption in 79 CE. They used Ar 39/40 for the dating. The age of the rock in 1997 was 1918 years old. The result they obtained was an age of 1925 years., so how about backing up your comments with actual facts.
Do you know of a comprehensive high-resolution Young Earth Creation timeline for archaeology and geology?
After 4 years there are only 29 comments.....Basically crickets lol evolution, what a joke.
He who has ears, let him hear.
@Betty the abundant evidence for the Bible says the only jokes are the conjectures you believe in. Life from nothing.....LOL
@@21divel That's what all the people who haven't even read the first 5 lines of the bible say.
Do that and think about what you're actually reading.
Unfortunately, most Christians have not done that either and that is why the earth should not be older than 6000 years, a pointless discussion if you read carefully.
@Betty That's what all the people who haven't even read the first 5 lines of the bible say.
Do that and think about what you're actually reading.
Unfortunately, most Christians have not done that either and that is why the earth should not be older than 6000 years, a pointless discussion if you read carefully.
@BettyYes, the Bible is often difficult to understand and with a prejudice you will never get out of it.
It is also not a scientific book, there are quite a few misunderstandings about that.
Great video!
"science proves a young earth" said no serious scientist ever, only creationists coping lol
I beg you to pay attention and try to learn
The lie of evolution is so engrained in our culture that there is no more science just politics and reputations. There is no pursuit of truth. The scientific consensus says that it is settled (lol). Real science is observable. No one observed millions of years. Only God’s account of creation is accurate because he was there.
Oh look another anti-theists argument from the fallacy of appeal to authority. Why am I not surprised. "Serious" can only means anti-theists like me else they must all be liars.
...right.
@@currnhyde3123 said the guy who just ignores the last 200 years of advances in genetics, in geology and astronomy.
@@currnhyde3123 you know that correctly understanding geology is what you have to do when you need to prospect for mineral deposits or oil. The fact that we can accurately find and predict these types of things are common sense evidence on how geologists know about this stuff for example. Thung is that noone of this shiws that the earth is 6000 years old, because of course it isnt. Its weird to deny natural laws, when said natural laws are made by God. Science is undenia ly our best way to understand the natural world and nature. And given that god created nature as it is and works, denying this scientific knowledge is essentially denying how god has made our world.
All I know is I did not evolve from an ape. You may have. But I did not.
A sea slug then. Got it.
Wow amazing 🤩 God bless Answers in Genesis.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
Well said!
@Hogan's Heroes - How do you know this?
@@douglasdavis8395 Galatians 2: 16, 2: 21, Ephesians 2: 8, 9, 10, Romans 4: 5, 6, and Romans 11: 6, clearly seperate faith from works of any kind.
Jonah 3: 10 calls turning from sins, "works ".
Repentance of sins is a lifetime of works and has never saved anyone or contributed in any way to salvation.
If repentance of sins helps save you in any way then it had better be perfect repentance.
God's standard is absolute perfection, not your best efforts.
Trying doesn't count.
Not even one sin is allowed to be in Heaven.
The book of James says that if you follow the whole law and offend in one point you are guilty of all.
Oops, so much for helping out with your salvation by attempting to repent of your sins.
God grants repentance unto the acknowledgement of the truth.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
How can you possibly trust Christ alone for salvation when you are also trusting in your performance?
You absolutely can't.
@@colonalklink14 - The bible is not a reliable source of information. You have zero evidence of 'god.'
@@colonalklink14
Amen
You are misinterpreting H. Scripture. Verse one clearly states that the heavens including the earth were created in a beginning. This beginning in several scriptures is said to be an eternity ago. Ask for scriptures if you like.
The creative 6 days were not 24 hour days.
While we haven't been told how old the earth is, it most certainly is not only 6000 years.
BONE Crushing video !!!! SO much for Dating methods !!!
Yep! I will actually sell you the instrument required to ensure all of this is correct. I have an ICP-MC-MS that will helop you out. The key point is to look at all Isotopes instead of just one of them. For example Isotopes of Primoridal vs Radiogenic Lead is facinating, and it is the exact answer to your "assumption" 1. And 36Argon helps to determine if 40Argon capture has occured. Multi-Collectors are soooo cool 😍
Umm no this does not answer assumption 1 because the assumption itself is impossible to "answer" in the context your using.😂 Unless you can go back in time and measure/test all the matter in the universe right before and after the big bang to show via the scientific method that during the massive burst of energy that created the universe, all elements werent given a predisposed decay point that seems much older than it is... Can you prove to me that it all wasn't "contaiminated" as soon as it came into being? Keep thinking you are smarter than you are genius... it might get you somewhere.
you state that some atoms are unstable because they have too many particles in their nucleus. (I assume you meant neutrons)
that is incomplete because many unstable isotopes have fewer that normal number of neutrons.
it just adds to the impression that you are not trying to educate about the facts
He never claimed it was complete.
I believe that it should be an apparent source. Carbon dating ??
I'm a Christian, and I give God all the glory for creating the universe billions (if not more) years ago and allowing it to evolve. Genesis 1-3 is not literal, and not intended to be. It baffles me how narrow minded you have to be to assume that humans and other homo sapien ancestors with whom we interbred have only been around for 5,000 years when we have Chinese writing from almost 12,000 years ago and have fossils of HUMANS that are within the 50,000 years that Carbon dating works without error......otherwise, the Grand Canyon and its layers started that way? And God thought it funny to put ancient animal fossils buried in the layers from the start?
All that matters in this life is that Jesus's teachings help one find transformative character growth in their life and a hopefulness that calms the fear of death. Dust to dust is even in the Bible.
Science is the study of the world that God created for us to take care of.
Let's honour God by taking better care of the planet that we were created to take care of.
Im just trying to start really understanding this topic so I have a solid foundation to debate it. Where can I study on how exactly it works in depth? Obviously I dont understand the equations in the references you use when I read them. Id like to be able to deefend my argument rather than having to resort to someone else to explain it for me like showing someone this video.
add a single drop of water the whole system slows
The scientific community have veiled the truth so much that any attempt to debunk is an arduous task - that plus the very vocal supporters comprising of atheists and theistic evolutionists, make that task almost unbearable.
Don't forget the lying, cherry-picking creationists.
Solar system formation has light emitting from hot swirling gases, small rocky planets forming first, then gas giants and finally the system's star (sun). Exactly how Gen1 describes it.
Science is always changing but Bible is constant. When in doubt trust Lord.
Tell that to Enoch.
@@TylerShacklefordDurden not at that level yet myself.
@@tbs3322 his book was deleted for being slightly more comic books than the new testament comic book Jesus parts they stole from Odin.
So thankful for this common sense display.
Scientific methods are flawed. Science confirms young earth. Hilarious.
The 4th day was not the day the celestial bodies were placed but the day the authorship and purpose of the celestial bodies was announced. The darkness on the face of the deep was the darkness on the sea floor not the sea surface. The face of the waters and the face of the deep were different things. The spirit of God that moved over the face of the waters was the "breath of God" - the wind, not the Holy Spirit. The third day dry land appeared as the continental surfaces were uncovered by the "gathering of the waters". Before dry land appeared the water was shallow enough over the continental surfaces for there to be light where previously darkness was upon the deep. The sun predated the first day because all the celestial bodies were created in the beginning. The aforementioned wind would have been driven by thermal convection. Finally the mist that watered the entire surface which became the ocean that covered the entire earth did not freeze. That happened before the first day. The first day is not the first day the surface was exposed to the sun but the first day in the 6 day making process. Create - form from nothing, Make - transform for service. With these considerations, the ages of the rocks are less important with respect to scriptures.
God creating light solves the distant starlight problem because it reveals the light hitting the Earth didn't really emanate from stars.
Even though there are large differences in the various radiometric dating methods, they all give ages in the thousands of millions of years order of magnitude. So how do you reconcile that with the young earth age of < 10000 years? Hard to believe that there would be that much error in the initial condition/contamination/decay rate assumptions to give that great a difference. Then again, the examples you gave of dating Mt St Helens rocks and other recent volcanic eruptions show it can be way way off.
I think the point was that the results were inconsistent, therefore, unreliable.
Something is going on with the audio..
Zircons are absolutely older than the rock they were found in. They’re close to indestructible and get mixed in with the magma that formed the granite. They don’t get a reset because they didn’t melt.
Granite was never formed from molten magma. Believed me...Scientists have tried to duplicate the process. Never works.
Um no.. zircon is very soft and they melt..
They were faster in the past because of relativity when God stretched out the heavens so if the universe is expanding faster today then decay rates are slower than they were in the past because decay rates slow during acceleration
Praise the lord 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Without the first specie how do u get more species?
God made all the different kinds. They didn't evolve into different kinds. A whale can't turn into a horse.
What happens to everything, after it has spent one year, covered by three miles, of hot volcanic filled water?!
The global flood explains everything we see, which is why “scientists” claim there has been no global flood
😳
Just to clear things up a tad, when he says ashuming, he means assuming. ; )
Great lecture.
its only 4 billion years old
Only a fool would say in his heart…There is no God.
No Abrahamic god at least
I hope Comedy Central picks this up. This is just too funny to pass up. I cant believe people still think the earth is only a few thousand years old and cherrypick science...which is exactly what they accuse others of doing. Not a surprise why they never debate anyone. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Perfect logic, I vote for any scientist saying too many "sciency" thing to be burned like in the good old days, like what the church did to Galileo and all those other pumpous blasphemers
The bible is a book written about 340AD. Many impotant parts left out by the authors ...
It is not even the a whole, complete book.
That's a know lie created by anti-theists. We have whole Bibles dating to before 340AD (codex vaticanus) and many many physical documents of whole books and portions of books that go back into the 200sAD and fragments that go into the 100sAD and that's *only* the New Testament. We have many more fragments called the dead sea scrolls that date to the 200sBC to the 30sAD and we have historical records of translations of the complete Old Testament and apocrypha being translated in Greek during the 200sBC called the Septuagint. On top of this just from earthy Church leader quotes of the Bible we could recreate the whole Bible many times over. Their quotes were not short.
You need to read a book on Bible preservation instead of repeating lies you blindly beleived from people who hate Christians.
Thank you so very much for your extremely valuable insight and knowledge, may the Lord Jesus continue to bless you, keep up the excellent work 👍🙏😇
Well then science is wrong, because the Bible speaks of an ancient Earth
Now take 1% of that scepticism Snelling parades, and apply it to the existence of Moses, or Joshua, or for that matter anything in Genesis.
I hate to be disagreeable but this is a five-year-old video and I know that even recently they have found the remains of dinosaurs and humans in the same geologic strata in numerous places so that's kind of a strange statement you made
Assumption number four is violated by boring subject matter.
I came up with a metaphor that I really like to explain this to people. It’s like a person taking an absurdly large container from inside a shed that has a spout on it. The man then pours in one bottle of water and a very slow drip begins to come out of the spout. Carbon dating is the equivalent of seeing that container dripping and saying “wow this container must have been here for millions of years based on how little water is left in this thing and at the rate it is dripping out of the spout“
No, it's more like if someone left a note saying there is 100 liters of water in a tub and it is losing water at 1ml per second, and since i know there is only 50 liters left, then 50,000 seconds must have passed since that note was written
@@nothing-om6fn except nobody can leave a note. I appreciate your efforts though well done.
@@haydenblack5648ehhh, it's more like nature leaving a note.
You see all living organisms are constantly taking in and giving out carbon, leaving them in a constant state of balance with the atmosphere and when these organisms die, they stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere and the carbon starts decaying at a predictable rate.
If we know the atmosphere content at the time of death (I'll cover that in a lil bit) and we know how much carbon is left in the organism, then we can tell how long ago it died.
This method only works up to 60k years and only accurately up to maybe 40k because at that point there is so little carbon it's impossible to accurately measure it.
Now for why this works even though we don't know the atmospheric content from 10,000 years ago? Since we know that carbon dating works on trees from times we know of carbon content in the atmosphere, then we can assume it also works on trees from back then. So by first getting the age of those trees back then usually through dendrochronology, then we can make a calibration curve to get accurate results. This can work on just about anything we know the age of beforehand, I just know that trees were the best ones to use to make that calibration curve.
heiderblack *** I jus do not get it ***
@@haydenblack5648How many versions of the bible are there? Which one do you choose to believe and follow? There’s no graves, bones, skeletons, or really any evidence at all of the people from the Bible actually existing outside of the stories it tells.
What about carbon dating?