Yeah amen. It’s up there with them finding C14 in everything that has carbon.. oil, coal, “ancient” fossils, even ancient diamonds from miles under the earth. That’s why they don’t use carbon-dating for anything older than 4000 years, even though it’s half-life of 5800 years should allow carbon-dating of things as old as ~60,000 years depending on its overall carbon content. Actually C14 in ancient diamonds is what convinced me. Only poss thing theyve come up with is neutrino background - which explains one 100,000th of the amount theyre finding. Either carbon dating is completely wrong or uranium dating is completely wrong. No way to reconcile uniform decay rates over history, and hence no basis for their dating. When 100M year old stuff has a carbon date of 6,000; it’s time to admit you don’t know what you thought you did.
10:24 Also notice the pics provided have double the zoom (50 microns) only on the water sample, so that makes them look more disperse and less intact. “Oh we soaked them in blood at a constant temperature and took apart the blood mechanically and put the iron on the protein and visually called that ‘intact’ and the other ‘degraded’ “ What a bunch of liars.
Isn't it funny that there aren't any evolutionists rolling their eyes in the comments at this video. This is one that's hard to dismiss. Even the scientist who discovered this is still scratching her head, though she isn't able to come to the logical conclusion yet.
Fantastic program Ray. Wow this is powerful evidence if I ever saw it for YEC. Thanks to your guest also.
Yeah amen. It’s up there with them finding C14 in everything that has carbon.. oil, coal, “ancient” fossils, even ancient diamonds from miles under the earth. That’s why they don’t use carbon-dating for anything older than 4000 years, even though it’s half-life of 5800 years should allow carbon-dating of things as old as ~60,000 years depending on its overall carbon content. Actually C14 in ancient diamonds is what convinced me. Only poss thing theyve come up with is neutrino background - which explains one 100,000th of the amount theyre finding. Either carbon dating is completely wrong or uranium dating is completely wrong. No way to reconcile uniform decay rates over history, and hence no basis for their dating. When 100M year old stuff has a carbon date of 6,000; it’s time to admit you don’t know what you thought you did.
Lawrence Krauss got angry.. Hahaha
10:24 Also notice the pics provided have double the zoom (50 microns) only on the water sample, so that makes them look more disperse and less intact. “Oh we soaked them in blood at a constant temperature and took apart the blood mechanically and put the iron on the protein and visually called that ‘intact’ and the other ‘degraded’ “ What a bunch of liars.
We need to double ,triple down on these Evolutionists with the Word!
You are dead RIGHT straight up
Very Good. But no definitive dinosaur DNA has been found just yet. It'll be exciting when it's found.
They found blood cells
@@josuejumalon, mammal red blood cells don't have a nucleus, so no DNA. I think reptiles (dinosaurs) do, but it must be too degraded.
@@josuejumalon if youre thinking of dr Mary Schweitzers work, what she found werent soft tissues so much as microscopic soft tissue remnants
Isn't it funny that there aren't any evolutionists rolling their eyes in the comments at this video. This is one that's hard to dismiss. Even the scientist who discovered this is still scratching her head, though she isn't able to come to the logical conclusion yet.
Thank you both..it's nice to learn the Proteins works in every living being and animals.God Bless you.
Exelent program!
The tacit freezer critically weigh because find curiosly scribble save a troubled unshielded. bright, burly sphynx