I don't think we need to be a great expert on the subject to see that life must have started on this planet with everything completely done , so creation makes perfect sense . For life to sustain itself , everything has to exist ready .
@@andrewrowney7601 Evolutionary geneticists study how genetic variation leads to evolutionary change. Geneticts support evolution. Do you want to try something else?
@@FECtetra1918 genetic variation does not lead to evolution - all it can lead to is adaption. Evolution requires an increase in the amount of genetic variation, however, mutation reduces the amount of genetic variation. A wolf has more genetic variation than a dog because dogs have lost some genetic information through mutation over successive generations (or selectively bred in the case of pure breeds). The dog is a subset of the wolf species or 'kind'. To postulate that a dog over millions of years could turn into a monkey is not science - not only does it fail the error of extrapolation but it also has no scientific evidence for any possible driving mechanism which can add new genes.
I just love how he brought the gospel up God has said his word is eternal!!! Whatever is in the scriptures is true and true and true They'll will try everything possible to dispute it...but they wont change a thing Praise be to our lord Jesus christ forever and ever
Why do people praise outright lies about science?! You'd rather make up facts to support a false religion than seek actual truth??? Please tell me you don't vote.
@@rommel-777 I revisited your comment and THINK you tried (and failed) to call me a vegan. Since I crush more animal protein per day thanks to contrast prep so I can step on stage and see my toes (unlike the average Jesus freak eating Twinkies with a 40" waist), I'll say try again. I'm just an educated meathead who fought religious extremists overseas and came home from deployment to find that his country filled itself with religious nut jobs while he was away. I only hope you all can embrace science and nutrition before we lose what made this country great and my kids have to carry the load for an ungrateful nation who thanks me for my service and then wishes I'd keep quiet.
@@kosardb, thanks for your contribution to world peace, but your evolution inspired pseudoscience is certainly unwelcome here ! You seem to know everything there is to be known about the universe, but please, come down from your high horse of 'scientific' pride !😢
In the secular paper I read on C14 in diamonds, the lab technicians (not the scientists doing the study) suggested the C14 may have come from contamination in "micro fractures" in the diamonds. But no study was done to vet this out and, if it were true, would strongly suggest that C14 couldn't possibly work on any porous material, ever. But it does work - to the extent that the proper calibration can be applied to correct the 'carbon age' - so apparently the "contaminated diamond" explanation has no foundation whatsoever. Also, the technicians never once suggested that the C14 measured in the diamonds should be calibrated out of the reading. Very interesting indeed.
The bonds in diamonds are so tight that contamination doesn't occur. Another thing most do not tell you is that modern radiocarbon labs also measure carbon 13. This allows them to calculate and account for modern contamination. In other words, they cannot appeal to modern contamination if modern contamination is already accounted for in their calculation. Dr Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in testing all 12 diamonds which came from at least six different places. See: creation.com/carbon-14-diamonds-talkorigins Also, FYI, other proposed objections have been dealt with here: • creation.com/diamonds#objections • creation.com/c14-dating#counter-arguments
The idea of calibrating the C14 reading makes it largely useless as a true measure. No real scientist trusts C14 because it is virtually impossible to prove that the calibration is based on the correct data. It IS useful in comparing things found together in the same climate and region, but in the end, you have no true starting point. This is true of all radiometric dating to some extent. We have to use what we have, and radiometric is one of the better tools we have, but it cannot be trusted to be 'true.'
@@creationministriesintl Thanks for the response. The paper to which I am referring (I believe) is one that Andrew Snelling has cited in the past, and the one over which he was (falsely) accused of lying about. The more interesting evidence that the C14 was indeed insitu in the diamonds was the fact that one of the samples was cut into six pieces and all six pieces yielded very similar carbon ages. This surprised the scientists and the lab technicians and strongly argues against micro fracture reservoirs as well as the tight lattice structure to which you are referring.
@@TheReaverOfDarkness Misrepresent what they said? Really, you have read the paper? They clearly stated a pre-existing belief in that paper that the diamonds were millions of years old and could not reasonably have any C14 in them, making the suitable (by assumption only) for a calibration standard capable of refining the method to *5* figure year dating.
I grew up on the "Jurassic coast" Dorset and found a fossilised log. The bark was crystallised but the inside was coal. Within the coal was thin soft elastic strands running all over. Veins. Shame it was too heavy to carry home. So I totally agree with the bible and young earth...😊
I've listened to several discussions on this topic. Never understood what C-14 even was, much less the issues pertaining to using it as a dating method. I get it now. Thank you.
@@JDawg-ol6jh he left out so many things that reconcile those issues. C14 is only one of countless methods....and the others pick up where C14 leaves off. He outright lied to you. Don't thank him.... demand better from him.
It a carbon atom drifting down from space all live builds the cells in there body the carbon 14 atom becomes traped as part of the cell when the cell dies the carbon 14 starts to decay it half life takes about 50,000 years to decay it can be measured.
If you listen to creationists, you will not get the "issues" with it. They have proven over the decades that they don't know how to properly apply Carbon Dating. There's a technique to this and if you don't apply it properly, it's just Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have seen little evidence that creationists do this well. How do I know? Because working scientists don't give these results the time of day. If they meant something, they surely would. There's big prizes to be won if this is true. What do they know that the creationists don't? You might look into it. When I was in the ninth grade, we ran a very clever experiment showing how gravity and acceleration worked. My data had one clearly "wrong" point in it. Did I run to the Universities, with papers and videos showing how Newton and Einstein were both wrong? I did not. I checked my equipment (done on the cheap -- this was a public school) and found out the error in my gear. Einstein and Newton were not overthrown. But, if I didn't pay attention to these things, I might have written an internet posting breathlessly saying how science "got it wrong".
@@kosardb Did you watch the video or are you so insecure in your belief that you have to put down anyone with a different opinion to the one you have been programmed to believe?
Ola Amigo! Science itself is by no means evil in itself, as with everything, evil People can use science for evil purposes, or to promote an evil agenda. God allows us to use science to improve our lives, and the world, but as with anything else, we can also use it to do evil. Gracias! Y Via Con Dios, Amigo! 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Although I find such discussions fascinating, it is not the most convincing argument to support the existence of creation. I live in a natural laboratory also called a farm. I can testify from many years of personal observation that every living thing is perfectly designed and functions in perfect order. I might add that in all my years here I have not encountered ANY evidence of evolution. The cliffs along the river that wrap around my property have rock formations that were clearly made from a flood. As to the question whether the earth is new I believe it is but my relationship with God is not dependent on that alone but from the enormity of my personal experiences.
@waderivers99 They're assertions, and they're ignorant claims. Having worked on a dairy farm, I don't know why you would even make such ridiculous claims.
@vladtheemailer3223 Your perspective is tainted. You breathe oxygen all day long without ever having to think about it. You don't make it or have to work for it. Your body is constantly fighting infections you are not even aware of. The earth functions absolutely perfect as well providing an abundance of life that replenishes ubiquitously. The earth and moon are unquestionably in constant perfect orbit. We are in the precise distance from the sun to be a self sustainable habitatal planet. Yeah, I say that fits the definition of perfect.
It only takes about 5 minutes of research to find out that the levels of C14 found in diamond are so small that they can't be distinguished from things like measurement errors and contamination.
And how do you know that every single diamond ever tested had such a miniscule amount of c14 in them? Does your source include all diamond tests in regards to c14? Also, the fact that there even is c14 in them is evidence enough.
@@christianriddler5063 Ah, but is there, absent contamination? Just because the instruments say it is there doesn't mean it is if the object being measured is going to have it in the quantities claimed. It's not like we can count individual C14 atoms ourselves. Strictly speaking. half life means it never does go all the way to zero. There will be some C14 in any diamond if it form from biological material. But when the amount that is left is very small (and expected to be such for other reasons in this case), then it's simply an instrument being misused and likely to fail since it is being used outside of its limits. An ordinary ruler is not a micrometer, but if you press it into service that way, someone will record some kind of answer. Doesn't mean it is any good.
One question I have is how C14 could travel from the atmosphere where it forms to deep in the crust, completely separated from the atmosphere, to be captured in diamonds forming under great heat and pressure. Dr Harwood also said that C14 dating only works on the remains of living organisms which were able to assimilate it while alive. Obviously, diamonds do not have a biological source. I am sure the question has been asked before, so I am wondering how it has been answered.
@ why not? Diamond is formed from carbon. If C14 is present with C12, why wouldn't it be used to form the carbon matrix of the diamond? My question is, how would C14 get down to where the diamond forms? The hardness of the diamond actually works against tour argument. It couldn't contaminate the intact crystal. It would have to be incorporated into the matrix at formation.
There was no C14 in the samples. C14 dating only goes back to 50,000 years because for anything older than that, false positives in the data cause the error rate to be too high. At the very least, cosmic rays can hit a transistor in teh sensor and create a false positive, but there are many other ways. Human sensors are not capable of being as accurate as the man being interviewed pretends. Do you believe anything man makes is perfect? If the answer is "No", then why do you think that C14 sensor is perfectly detecting only C14? If it's not perfect, it has a breaking point where it has to fail. Correct? That breaking point is 50,000 years. They're detecting 65,000 years. It's a broken result, not an indication of C14 in the carbon.
If a tree is deciduous and goes dormant in the winter then it will have 1 ring per year. The ring comes from going dormant then growing again in spring.
@@julesverne2509 It is not as simple as that. Other events than seasons can create rings. Periods of drought, heatwaves, dry spells, can all affect tree growth. In New Zealand we have two dormant periods per year, in the cold of the winter and in the hot dry summer. Two tree rings per year is common.
Yeah and we have had recorded times where there was pretty much little to no summer for a few years. Ice rings don't work either. Ww2 planes were recovered after being landed in Greenland and they would have supposedly been down there for thousands and thousands of years instead of the 40 to 50 year they were there. Radiometric dating has many many problems. One big one is Ukrainian labs fusion experiments shoe when those radioactive isotopes are made the parent daughter atoms fall out in the same ratios we see today. Soft tissue in fossils supposedly dated from 65 mil to 500 million years old is a huge problem. Forensics data from SCIENCE proves those fossil can't be more then thousands of years old. There is NO mechanism foe soft tissue to last into deep time. Sorry Evo is full of flaws frauds and fairy tales. You need to really study it and probably shouldn't make comments an 7 year old yec could correct you on
If there is a dry season then the rings are just narrowed, it is still a year per ring (I can't find anything in my research that supports what was said in the video yet), the rainy seasons or seasons with more growth have wider rings. Which is why the rings aren't the same width and some are a lot wider than others. I believe the info in the video on this specifically may be wrong. Not commenting on anything else, just the tree ring thing..
@@IXIII-IXIII even then the oldest trees found are around 4500 years old. I'm unaware of anything older then that. Aside from that c14 is found in coal, diamonds and fossils. Even fossils that are supposed to be 500 million years old. Diamonds are supposed to be billions of years old and far too hard for c14 to leach into or out of. Yet they find high amounts of c14. Far more then they want to admit and it's not just trace background noise. They have disproven that Ilk of an excuse. That's just the beginning of the flaws in the dating methods.
Fantastic interview! Congratulations and thank you. I think that discussion would though really become even more interesting with the Robert Gentry's work coming into place.
@@statutesofthelord My evidence is the entire body of research into radiocarbon dating and radiometric dating in general. All of which demonstrate that the interviewee in this video is lying the entire time. Take, for example, his entire spiel about C14 in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur bones. What he doesn't tell you is that for coal, the new C14 is, based on geological evidence, the result of uranium-thorium decay inciting the same chemical reaction that turns N14 into C14 in the atmosphere in the coal. In diamonds the dates recorded are indistinguishable from the same tests on an empty chamber, and the same goes for dinosaur bones. While dating methods are not infallible, they are better supported then the unproven word of an unproven God.
I am CONFIDENT that we can find petrified logs in an ooooold pine forest, and then cut down one of the oldest trees in said forest and find a match for the rings. I’ve always wanted to do this.
If there is a dry season then the rings are just narrowed, it is still a year per ring (I can't find anything in my research that supports what was said in the video yet), the rainy seasons or seasons with more growth have wider rings. Which is why the rings aren't the same width and some are a lot wider than others. I believe the info in the video on this specifically may be wrong. Not commenting on anything else, just the tree ring thing..
35:03 regarding Kathleen Kenyon's dates and the timeline of Jericho and egyptian artifacts, Egyptologist Dr. David Rohl has a different interpretation of the mismatch- namely that there are some flawed assumptions in the Egyptian chronology. This would mean that the timeline of the Exodus would be shifted to be much closer to Kenyon's timeline. And there are several other archeological sites that support this theory. (More details in his books and also the film "Patterns of Evidence: the Exodus".) I believe in the authority of scripture, but there are SO many assumptions on dates regardless of the discipline. We should not be too quick to point fingers to elevate or disregard a body of work. I don't think we will ever know exact dates for past events other than astronomical events like eclipses.
There is also the issue between the masoretic text and three others: septuaging, samaritan and josephus. The latter have the flood 650 years earlier. At around 3000BC, instead of 2350 of the MT. NathanH83 video "Were the pyramids built before the flood" goes in depth of this.
@i7Qp4rQ the Septuagint puts the flood at 3300 BC, about 1000 years further back than the Masoretic, which fits history much better. It also adds 1500 years to total human history for a total 7500 instead of 6000 years.
@@redemptous Care to give the exact numbers from the text? The video made it clear it's 650 years, not 1000. The antedeluvian timeline wasn't included, iirc.
@i7Qp4rQ This is too complicated because it involves adding the ages of many different individuals over many generations. Perhaps you can Google "septuagint versus masoretic chronology"
Given the ongoing debates and discussions among scientists regarding the theory of evolution, why do we still teach it to our children in schools as a fact rather than as a hypothesis proposed by humans?
Because it has not been a hypothesis for a long time, but a scientific theory!!! And “theory” in this context has an opposite meaning to the colloquial term.
@@Nils-gi5bvit’s not even a good hypothesis! Darwin extrapolated the differentiation of bird types within a species ( finches) into a concept of trees and apes developing from trilobites ( or some such) a leap of faith if ever there was one, and his effort to provide support for his rejection of Divine authority!
@@appaloosa42Forget Darwin. He was the originator of the theory. We have so much more data and methods today than Darwin could ever have dreamed of. Evolution is now the binding foundation of the life sciences. And as I said before, it is no longer a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. And that means exactly the opposite of the rather denigrating colloquial term. You may not like it, but that is the reality.
Everyone used to get their heat by fire and that was a lot of carbon going into the air. Since we mostly use Hydro Electric, Natural Gas, and Solar/Wind in the region I live, I'm sure for the density of people we have, it is much less carbon coming from those.
The current count is from the creation of "modern mankind ". The six days of creation were not 24 hour days. Each could be millions of years. The sun was "created" on day 4. How was time measured before. Time and motion are interelated.
My biggest gripe with carbon dating is that atmospheric radiation levels are always variable. They are never a constant due to solar cycles, sun spots, coronal holes, and coronal mass ejections. If atmospheric radiation levels were a constant, carbon dating could work, but because it's variable instead of constant carbon dating is flawed from the get-go.
He makes a really good point that mainstream old-earth geologists come into the field with a strong bias. One that has been taught to them in school and is self-confirming and self-perpetuating. But his beliefs are also based in bias. Like theirs, his analysis of the evidence is based on existing beliefs and is self-confirming. Logically the optimal way to determine the most scientific conclusion, the way to find the unbiased truth would be to provide the evidence to a group of researchers who have never learned of or been exposed to either the old earth evolutionary theory or the new earth creationist perspective. They would take the evedence as is and come to their best conclusion without an emotional attachment to a particular worldview.
The thing is: No one knows everything. To conduct a truly comprehensive analysis, one would need to consider every factor that interacts or could potentially interact with the observed data, requiring expertise across all relevant fields. For genuine scientific inquiry, particularly with the extensive application of Bayes' theorem, a view encompassing all relevant factors is necessary to reach a sound conclusion. This level of completeness is virtually impossible, which is why everyone inevitably holds some degree of bias.
C 14, wow that is very interesting because I just read in Matthew 1 that Abraham to David was 14 generations and David to captivity was 14 Generations and from captivity to Yeshua was 14 generations. I wonder there is a connection here. GOD is so great
Now finish the job. Do you live in Europe? If you do, you'll discover that many of the surviving buildings and artifacts are below today's ground level. They are not 100 feet below ground level. It's a couple of feet in about 2000 or more years. Dover's cliffs alone are 350 feet above sea level. Even done at your superficial level, if we go by crude, historical depositions I just cited, we get about 350,000 years. Minimum of course. There's a lot of deposited soil to account for. And the type of deposition varies. Some of it doesn't settle as fast as silt in a snow globe. Some of it compresses over time, too, which can matter. Some of it consists of layers that clearly happened differently than the ones above or below it, too. Different colors, different chemistry, different processes. Geologists started where you did, but when they got serious about how things got deposited, they realized earth had to be "at least" millions of years old. But, you'll make a good creationist. Find one fact, extrapolate it incorrectly and bam, "evilution" is finished.
@curious968 Well..within these silt layers are animals which have been obviously caught in a moment..with silt suddenly overtaking them, the only explanation viable. Yes..the way water drains away can explain layers as one area drains and allows silt to settle and a later inundation repeats the process, with the effects of the moon on tides also possibly a factor..as well as the forces of a spinning earth affecting water away from it's equator..(lm no expert)
@@compositioncompilation My prior reply was lost. Try again. You are not an expert, nor am I. But "flood geology" doesn't work and fairly obviously so even with only mild exposure to the science. There are many different kinds of silt, all different in their chemical composition and how they are formed. Limestone, particularly, is ubiquitous and has lots of fossils, especially marine. But it forms very slowly and in calm conditions. If there is disruption (say, a year's long world-wide flood) it won't form at all during that time. We have many places in the world with limestone in layer 1, sandstone in layer 2, limestone in layer 3, shale in layer 4, limestone in layer 5 and so on in any order at all. Each is formed differently. How does that happen in a flood? I've seen the creationist hydro-whatever it is that supposedly explains it and it is embarrassing. Still waiting for a good answer on that one. The standard answer -- many different depositions over vast time periods -- makes much more sense. Intriguingly, not only do we date these layers so that they don't overlap, we discover that many, many fossils appear in specific layers and those layers only. That just can't happen in a turbulent, world-wide flood when all of these layers are supposed (by "flood geologists") to have been laid down at the same time. Animals and plants should intermix in any order. Moreover, really strange dodges like "dinosaurs were heavier" as an "explanation" don't really work because some dinosaurs were the size of chickens. It's the sheer uniformity of the extinct life that, for one crucial thing, makes a world-wide flood untenable. To put it simply: Not only do humans not appear with T. Rex, T. Rex does not appear with Stegosaurs. Life is far more stratified than even this simple summary. Creationists need to take their own flood account much more seriously. It implicitly makes a long series of very strong predictions of what we should see. We see none of it, really. Some things, some of the time being true proves nothing. But that's all I've ever seen.
@curious968 Scientists continue to learn.. and how quickly layers can form , a canyon carved out, exposing ideas that have long been believed as flawed. The detail of start of life also is missing , a gap no one has been able to replicate under laboratory conditions. Insisting it took place , is no answer, neither is laughing at those who ask for proof or answers , an answer.
@@compositioncompilation So what? We have long known that canyons can "sometimes" form quickly. That doesn't remotely imply that all of them do. We know that the Grand Canyon did not form quickly. Did you know that the area containing the canyon is _uplifted_ from between 4000 to 5000 feet above where the Colorado River flows today? This may not be obvious to those that only visit the popular south rim, but if one troubles to go to the north rim, the very trip to that north rim makes it obvious. So, how does the canyon get carved in the first place if it formed during the great flood? Water still flows down hill. On any theory, on any timeline, the canyon has to be carved while it is being uplifted by that immense distance. Otherwise, the river just runs around the bluff and carves nothing. There is no hint that such an uplift occurred in historical times, which is what it would take to make Genesis work for the Canyon. To make it work would have it rising about a foot per year right to the magic time when the Spanish first found it and saw no evidence of ongoing uplift and none at such a rate seen since. How convenient! And how totally contradicted by what we know about plate tectonics, which caused the uplift. Or, we could reach the obvious conclusion that whatever happened somewhere else, the Canyon was not carved by some "great flood" around 2430 BCE. The trouble with "it happens fast sometimes" is that it isn't nearly enough. It has to happen fast all the time and that's just not true.
Based on what? Creationists who have proven over and over again that they don't know how these things work? A lot of scientific tools have limits. If you wield them incorrectly, you'll get bad results. In fact, one of the first things that real scientific papers do is look for these kinds of errors. If radiometric dating was as faulty as creationists suggest, we'd not be finding oil and gas, because unless you live in Saudi Arabia, you need accurate radiometric dating to know where to drill for oil and gas.
@@detijdlijnserie That sort of thing is ongoing. But, there is lots of evidence that the decay rate is pretty darn constant. It's basic nuclear physics. It would, in fact, be very helpful if these decay rates could be easily and routinely altered (see, for instance, nuclear energy waste). There are Nobel prizes in physics awaiting someone who can demonstrate this to science's satisfaction. There's nothing special about creationist claims here, other than the fact that they usually get it wrong.
@@detijdlijnserie Earlier reply vanished. Decay rates are being questioned all the time. It would be exceedingly useful if the decay rates of the elements could be sped up. For one thing, we could do something useful about nuclear waste. For openers. People look, they do not find. There's Nobels prizes to be won here if variance could be proven out. However, there is no reason, in theory or in actual measurement, to expect any sort of rate variance in nature. You may as well wish that electricity arbitrarily varies in its voltage for no good reason. It's the same kind of thing.
And that ruler is science. Not a bronze age book that didn't even know the Earth was a sphere. (They had words for spheres, or at least similar words or descriptors, but never used them to describe the world.)
@GeoRyukaiser Probably why the author of the oldest book, Job, described it as: He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, And hangeth the earth upon nothing. Job 26;7
That's just how sedimentary layers work. As new layers are laid the old layers are compressed and sink under the weight of the new. In the case of coal most of the material that was laid is plant material because the microbes that cause trees to decay today didn't exist yet. Then, once the environment changed, sediment built up over the top, burying the dead plants. Then, as stated before, the new sedimentary layers kept building up, the weight of which compressed the plant matter more and more as more and more tons of sediment built up. The combination of this pressure, and becoming gradually deeper underground, resulting in lots of heat. It's this heat and pressure that triggered the chemical reactions that turned the plant matter into coal. Oil, on the other hand, is formed from marine organisms, mostly plankton, that underwent a similar chemical reaction under the same conditions.
I always told myself "I'll put the Bible as the highest authority until I learn differently". That was well over 20 years ago. If I believe something it's because I've proved it to myself. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, I just haven't seen it yet.
it seems unlikely that you have proven anything at all from the Bible, but as you state that you have, I would be most interested to learn what those things are and how you proved them true. Could you give us a couple of examples? or...as seems more likely to me, you simeply have just over time given in and not bothered to consider the bible as a book, written by men, to control other people.
The comment about earth's magnetic field is missing a bit of information. The magnetic field is weakening but only because the poles are close to a flip. Magnetic orientation is one characteristic geologists use to learn more about how an area formed. Scientists believe that the magnetic poles have flipped at least 183 times over 83 million years. With the rate of reversals being more random than not and the average amount of time it took for the last 4 reversals being around 7,000 years, it is difficult to factor in how it would affect carbon dating. I'm not in any field that uses carbon dating. I look into other sciences more out of curiosity. I have seen mentions on how archeologists use known events to date artifacts that depict a major geological or astronomical event. It is how archeologists corrected their timelines. A large mural showing a solar eclipse that correlated with other writings of the event and astrological calculations lead scientists to know the time and date of that solar eclipse which showed them that their estimations were off on when a lot of events took place. That brings up a question about the earlier comment about the scientist that dated Jericho earlier than the Exodus, which many archeologists still question the date or even if it occurred. Did she state that it was earlier than the Exodus? If so, what date did she have for the Exodus and how did she reach that conclusion? There are several moving parts, differing ideas, and new discoveries that change how those ideas are formed. The points made are interesting and worth looking further into but I am not yet convinced from this one conversation. Thank you, for your point of view.
You cannot use "carbon dating" to figure out how old the earth is. It is only capable of spanning about 60,000 years. It can prove the earth is _at least_ that old, and it does, but that's all it can tell anyone regardless of their attitudes about the Bible. You might look into Potassium Argon or Uranium Lead radiometric dating methods. Same idea, much more useful isotopes for this. Those give us the billions of years you're looking for.
The assumptions which underpin C14 dating are not well-explained and, I dare to say, not honestly taught. I took geology course in college, and the decay rates were communicated as being as ironclad as the fundamental constants of nature: “c”, “G”, The Plank Constant, etc.
I love how this channel goes out of their way to give explanation to why God created us and earth even though all they need is their faith and already know he exists they want to gather as many souls as possible that dont believe we just want everyone to be saved😢❤
@@EwayPtown even people who do believe need this stuff. It helps build a foundation of faith. It helps reinforce the truth when all of the tormenting lies that He doesn’t exist pummel your brain constantly.
@@alecferguson1004 Well, I cannot speak for everyone, but I really don't need any of this. As someone once said, even if God told me Jonah swallowed the whale (instead of the other way round), I would still believe Him!
In Central Ontario I have a one of a kind tree, that grew out of clay clumps from its root and only reproduces via the root in another tree dead stump -it will not clone or root from its branches, nor produces any seed. the clay clumps were deposited by the last glacial advance. The tree has to predate it and was burned and preserved with unburnt wood intact and dry, I have a sample and the new grove grew after the fire in surrounding stumps. Not so easy to get a new discovery checked out, they do not seem to care, not a single person in any field. Why do i need to spend $$$$ to get a new discovery tested?
My lamproite vein shows 2 upheavals, the first was a shattering of gemstones of every type in to grains of sands, (Adam and Eve had a gemstone garden) the second brought them up from the depths, from under Ocean sedimentary layers. (Noah's flood and poles freezing and glacial advance and retreating until weather settled.)
As a creationist reminded me recently, fossils are not the actual bones. They are rocks formed by sedimentation over many years. So, yes, there very well could be carbon 14 in those rocks. As to the age of the earth, carbon dating doesn't work because it does not work for even a million years. A variety of isotopes are used to determine the age of rocks, and when the various dates agree, that is taken to be correct.
I guess you have to decide how you want to define the word fossil. Real, actual dinosaur bones have been found frequently. Hadrosaur bones in Canada, for example. These were laying on the ground and were ignored for years because people thought they were cow bones. There is even a geologist field "trick" to determine if a fossil is a rock or an actual (dinosaur) bone. Touch your tongue to the 'fossil'. If your tongue sticks to it, it is real bone. If not, it is a rock.
@@keithmaggard9024 Not a bad idea, except there is no such thing as "known decay rate" for soft tissue. The decay rate of soft tissue is subject to a number of variables, all of which have to be accounted for. In any case, soft tissue very seldom fossilizes. Almost all fossils are of hard body parts; bones, shells, carapaces, etc. If you can date the rock in which the fossil is found, that is a pretty good indication of how old the fossil is.
@@mmaimmortals However, fosslized bones cannot be younger than the rock is which they are found. If you can get the age of the rock, you can get the age of the fossils.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 When they tested the age of newly formed rocks, from know events like Mt St Helens eruption, they got ages of millions of years, when the rock was only a few years old. So the rock cannot date the fossils very accurately either.
One thing to note, when in the Bible does it mention how old the earth is? God made Adam and Eve as adults, so what is to say he made an earth the same way, already centries old
Years learning, and then years working in a field often leads to those who have not, missing everything, misunderstanding esoterics, nuance, and basic principles, let alone the more complex points.....
There are also examples of events that are dated to >>6,000 years ago by more than one method, e.g. by both radiometric dating and dendrochronology. Again, thanks ChatGPT: "1. The Younger Dryas Climate Event (~12,900 - 11,700 years ago) • Radiocarbon Dating: Organic materials, such as plant remains found in sediment cores, have been radiocarbon dated to around 12,900 years ago, marking the abrupt onset of the Younger Dryas, a period of sudden cooling. • Dendrochronology: Tree-ring data from preserved ancient trees show a clear pattern of narrow rings, indicative of stress caused by a rapid decline in temperature. This tree-ring evidence aligns closely with the radiocarbon dates. • Corroboration: This combined evidence has helped establish the timeline of the Younger Dryas event, showing its sudden onset and duration, long before any written records. 2. Volcanic Eruptions and Their Climatic Impact (e.g., Mount Mazama, ~7,700 years ago) • Radiocarbon Dating: The eruption of Mount Mazama, which created Crater Lake in Oregon, has been radiocarbon dated using charcoal and other organic remains buried beneath the volcanic ash layer. The dates point to around 7,700 years ago. • Dendrochronology: Tree-ring patterns from preserved trees show evidence of a significant environmental disturbance around this time, including a year of very narrow rings corresponding to the impact of the eruption on local and regional climate. • Corroboration: The alignment of the radiocarbon dates with the dendrochronological evidence provides a precise date for the eruption and its effects, even though it occurred long before written records. 3. The 8.2 Kiloyear Event (~8,200 years ago) • Radiocarbon Dating: Radiocarbon dating of lake sediments and ice cores from Greenland indicate a cooling event around 8,200 years ago, likely caused by a sudden influx of glacial meltwater into the North Atlantic. • Dendrochronology: Tree-ring records from ancient oaks and other long-lived species show a clear reduction in growth rates, suggesting cooler and drier conditions during this time period. • Corroboration: The combination of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology helps establish the timing and magnitude of this abrupt climate event, well before the advent of historical records. 4. Holocene Pine Chronology in Europe (~11,000 - 9,000 years ago) • Radiocarbon Dating: Subfossil pines preserved in bogs have been radiocarbon dated to early Holocene periods (11,000-9,000 years ago). These dates align with warming and ecological shifts following the end of the last Ice Age. • Dendrochronology: Tree-ring sequences from these preserved pines have been used to create a continuous dendrochronological record, which matches the radiocarbon timeline. Narrow rings in the sequence correlate with known climatic anomalies identified through radiocarbon dating. • Corroboration: This continuous tree-ring record, when matched with radiocarbon dating, provides a detailed, year-by-year climatic history for a period predating written records. 5. Dating of Megafauna Extinctions (e.g., Mammoths in North America) • Radiocarbon Dating: The extinction of mammoths and other megafauna has been dated using radiocarbon analysis of bone collagen, showing that many species disappeared around 11,000 - 10,000 years ago. • Dendrochronology: Dendrochronological data indicate environmental stress and abrupt climate changes around this time, including shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns that would have impacted megafauna habitats. • Corroboration: The synchrony between the radiocarbon dates for extinction events and the tree-ring evidence for climate change suggests a connection between environmental shifts and the loss of these species. Conclusion These examples highlight the powerful synergy between radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology in constructing a reliable timeline for prehistoric events. Even in the absence of written historical records, these methods provide a robust framework for understanding environmental changes, climatic events, and their impacts on ancient ecosystems."
It does. Secular Scientists are the ones who discovered this. They even figured out how to measure the effects of that fluctuating on C14 in the atmosphere. They use that data to calibrate C14 testing. General rule of thumb; if you aren't an active researcher in a field and you think you came up with something new... chances are it's something active researchers thought of years ago.
I would think that solar flares would also skew the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there is no accurate way to account for that back in history.
Yes, the amount of C14 in the atmosphere can fluctuate. Since this has been recognized, controls have been carried out using other methods and correction factors have been determined.
It would give the same erroneous results as coal. Any C14 found would be the result of uranium in the surrounding rock decaying into thorium, the shed particles triggering the same reaction in N14 contained in the coal and oil that happens in the atmosphere, making tiny amounts of C14.
@alangardner1746 Sorry you've had trouble with that. Please contact us at creation.com/contact and we'll be able to get this sorted. (When you contact us, please be sure to mention which video you were on when you had trouble with the offer, and what email address you were using. Thanks!)
Perhaps l was the only one fascinated by a snow globe .. It settles in very short space of time.. Using that information, add in the extraction or drainibg away of the water, its not difficult to imagine silt would rapidly bring conditions consustent with the fossil record and lsyers of sedimentary rock forming in very little time.
The bible does not say the Earth is about 6,000 years old. The bible clearly shows that God operated on a planet that already existed, like, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (paraphrasing) what day of creation was that? Answer: None! The bible is silent as to when the Earth was created.
You are correct. The bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is outside of the six days of creation. I believe this is the point where God created the time, space, and matter of the universe. However, if God created time then he is not limited by it. He merely picked a point in time of the universe 6000 years ago and made life on earth.
@@zackmckay6603 I'd also argue that life began on Earth 6,000 years ago, but how about all the evidence that scientists claim life was on Earth millions of years ago?
17:37, the assumption of the ratio is here very important and the crux of the whole argument - assumptions are conjectures are opinions are believes and thus subjective vis-a-vis the faith of Jesus Christ which is the objective and extra-human truth and will only be discernible by those whose minds have been opened to it, Luke 24:45.... we must be content and accept that there are blind people as it is not in our power to give them vision and understanding - we have to voice the truth though [Matt28:19], the battle has been fought and won by God , Prov21:31, Deut 20:4.... - trying to prove His creation without His word is a waste of breath, and many a 'Christian apologist' is the victim of the notion that they can somehow convert people by their intellect - then Scripture is just a veneer for pride; I know, I was there.
Mark and Bronte: Very good, especially the observation that the earth probably would have started without C14 in the atmosphere and therefore it would have made things appear much older than they are. That being said though, you two really irritated me by not differentiating Carbon dating from the other radioactive methods. Maybe you mentioned other methods at some point in passing but since most non-technical people use the term "Carbon dating" to mean ANY radioactive dating method your discussion is misleading. You should have stressed that C14 dating is just one of many techniques and the others pertain to much longer time periods. So it was rather infuriating that you failed to do that. As a matter of fact it borders on dishonesty, so I'm personally disgusted about it. It is NOT a minor point. A lot of people are going to watch this and make fools of themselves when they try to tell someone that radioactive dating can't go back millions of years. So even though you were very good about discussing C14 dating, you get a C- in my book for the overall presentation. I expect A+ presentations from CMI.
We can now see stars that are millions and billions of light-years away. So what that means is it took that long for light to reach the planet Earth. So I guess what you're saying is the Earth was the last thing that was created. But that's false that wasn't true. That's not true
@@dougjstl1 there are many assumptions made to estimate the distance of these stars. Just like when they tell us what other planets are made up of. They’re just guessing.
Nobody says the earth is 6000 years old. Only that it’s been 6000 years give or take since man was created. The earth was created at an indeterminate time before that- in the beginning.
I'd like to know why scientists are so confident in the consistency of the half-life principle over such long spans on time. We have only known about Half-Life for a century. It seems anti-scientific to suggest that the external environment of a sample would have absolutely no impact on the outcomes of radioactive decay over the long term.
If you have some experimental evidence that subatomic behaviour has changed for no particular reason during the life of the Universe, please present it.
One of the reasons we know is that we can see the relative abundance of elements in distant stars. Well ,distant stars are time machines. All elements not named Hydrogen were produced almost entirely in stars. All of them have a decay to them, though some a very long lived. But, most are measurable on an astronomical time scale. If the half lives varied substantially, we'd see it in the stars, literally.
Some of this was interesting for casting doubt on the accuracy or C14, e.g. sea food diet vs land-based diet and tree ring growth frequency. Carbon-14 simply isn't used for dating beyond about 60,000 years and even that's pushing it. Fossils are often dated by determining the ages of volcanic ash deposits using potassium-argon and argon-argon dating, amongst others, and then interpolating between the layers. Other methods for dating rocks exist and can be used to calibrate each other. My beef with the whole situation is that the scientific method is supposed to start with observed data then progress via repeatable experiment to established theory. Creationists start with their preferred young-Earth interpretation of the words in Genesis and look for evidence to back themselves up, while their opponents look for evidence to back up their preferred assertion that the Bible is false.
Agreed. This applies also to the multitude of different religions and their theological theories and doctrines. People start with their beliefs as a concluded dogma, then spend a good part of their life searching for snippets of text or evidence and construct in a way to narrate or to support the original concluded dogma. Imagine presenting a conclusion in a scientific journal as a finding before you have have found it - then at the end of the paper, to say you will be back again when you find the evidence. People confuse hypothesis with conclusion - in science and religion.
If Carbon 14's half life is almost the 6,000 years the Earth is supposedly old then that means we should find at least a quearter Carbon 14 on literally everything. Doesn't that mean then, that if we do NOT find carbon 14 on a fossil then it must be older than the halflife of carbon?
With C14 you can only test carbonaceous material, i.e. usually substances from formerly living organisms. If you no longer find any C14, the sample is older than approx. 50-60,000 years. You will then need a different method to make a further statement.
@Nils-gi5bv but it is reasonable then to assume that we could correctly identify fossils that are over 10,000 years old with the correct approximate date?
@@Geimouver Like any technical determination, the radiocarbon method inherently has an error rate. This also depends on whether you are measuring at the limit of the measuring range. At 10,000 years, you will probably get a useful estimate (e.g. +/- 150 years). At 50,000 years, i.e. already in the range of just possible measurement, the error is greater (e.g. +/- 3,000 years). Beyond that, it is no longer possible to make any statements with 14C. Then you have to use other methods.
He is incorrect. While Nitrogen-14 does decompose to Carbon-14 doesn't convert to back to Nitrogen-14. It decomposes to Carbon-13. If you an excpert to speak on this get someone from chemistry or chemical engineering.
@peppor I am completely sure of that. The number of protons determines what element an atom is. To go from carbon to nitrogen, the atom must gain a proton. Gaining can not be characterized as decomposition. If it decomposes, it would have to either lose a neutron or a proton. If it loses a neutron, it will remain the same element. If it loses a proton, it is now a different element.
@@sharifali5384 "Gaining can not be characterized as decomposition. If it decomposes, it would have to either lose a neutron or a proton." - It can. A neuton can turn into a proton via beta-decay. So it gains a proton by losing a neutron.
The only part I don’t agree with is that the earth was wiped clean of artifacts including ruins after the flood. Wiped clean of humans, yes, artifacts, no.
@ Historical demographers estimate that around 1800, the world population was only around 1 billion people. After 1800, this changed fundamentally: the world population was around 1 billion in 1800 and is now around 8 billion - 8 times larger.
@ yeah crazy huh. It’s almost as if there’s an anti life force that’s been really trying to mitigate birth rates in the last 40 years. According to the world economic forum over population is the greatest threat to humanity’s future or is it climate change? It seems to change
@@georg7120 The point that the science community has been incorrect about their dating. Since C-14 isn't millions of years old but thousands. Now put it into a young Earth context with all the evidence available, including c-14 in fossils, fossil tissues and hemoglobin, rock formations, rock strata, etc. So the point he's making is about how the evolutionists dating methods are incorrect
@georg7120 not every Christian believes the earth is only 6000 years old. But every athiest I have heard talk goes with their preachers of the religion of science, billions of years.
My question is if the floor did happen according to the Bible. Why didn't the 8 survivers write books in the Bible? N shouldn't we all have a better history if they knew what happened....
@@globalcoupledances that does not answer the question. I understand where the C14 originally comes from and how it decays. My question is, is it possible for C14 to be created in an inorganic sample? Is there a chemical pathway for this to occur?
Since fossil coal is very very old, it cannot be determined by C14. The measuring range ends at approx. 50,000 years. You can certainly determine charcoal from current wood. C14 is only stored through life processes. If C14 is nevertheless detected in fossil charcoal, it is probably due to contamination from mining. Some diamonds have inclusions of radioactive elements. In these exceptional cases, C14 atoms can be formed, similar to the processes in the atmosphere.
Dr. Harwood you really, really need to study the science and technology of carbon 14 dating before you pretend to be knowledgeable about the subject. You obviously do not understand carbon 14 dating and therefore you are leading that poor young lady astray with your ignorance.
"the biblical date of the global flood of Noah", what exactly is that date? I am asking because my bible does not specify that at all. And that certainly diminished the trustworthiness of this PhD in Electromagnetics.
The Bishop Usher chronology is widely used. It puts the flood circa 2430-ish, BCE. However, some creationists are now embarrassed by that date, because it is obvious that at least the Chinese and the Egyptians (and no doubt others) spanned that date -- indeed the whole century -- without drowning or otherwise dying out.
This video opens with the presenters stating falsehoods. It goes on to justify the writing of ancient people who had no knowledge of the the rest of the world nor the cosmos that has been discovered by scientists. I am sure that they are sincere, but equally sure that they are in the business for the money.
For starters C14 dating only works on material that used to be living and diamonds were not living. There is a background C14 in everything due to background radiation, cosmic rays etc. Nitrogen is hit by a cosmic ray and is changed to C14 and then a living organism absorbs this C14. When the living creature dies no more C14 is added so it begins to decay and you just measure the ratio of C14 to C12. C12 doesn't decay. You can't use this method back further than about 60,000 years , and the diamonds are millions of years to billions of years old. This fellow is wrong about dating methods. He should read up on the methods or take a course on it and then challenge the theories based on evidence. I have pieces of tree in my basement that I got from New Zealand and they were dug out of a swamp and are carbon dated to 50,000 years old. So there is very little C14 left in this wood. I was going to mount these as a clock on my wall but have had them stored in my basement since 1999 and don't really want to cut holes in them.
Challenge the theories? Okay. I downloaded a national database of radiometric dates in geology. The data isn't there that you suppose backs up an ancient earth. 1) The data is very messy and incomplete. 2) There are way, way too few radiometric "dates" calculated for any given sample - frequently only 1 or 2. 3) The database is full of examples of some alternate explanation given because the "age" determined was discordant. 4) The actual ratios are not given of any of the (typically 3 per system for isochron) isotopes used. 5) The r^2 value is not given for the isochron plot. 6) The r^2 values for other 'best fit' calculations are also not given. 7) There is no control group ever given: not for the methods collectively, or for the sites studied independently. 8) No hint is given whether historical records are ever consulted to see if events such as eruptions have happened in historic times. 9) There is no apparent standard for the data collection to even qualify for database entry. This is deduced from the utter lack of complete information that frequently accompanies any particular entry. 10) There was no mention of how many zircons were used to determine any one alleged age. We could probably go on. Age cannot be measured by any counting means whatsoever. Scientists would do good to recognize this problem.
On C14 dating in particular: You cannot measure age by counting any objects, isotopes included. C14 concentration in the atmosphere increases over time so the ratios must be calibrated to account for this. If you don't already know the age of the sample in question, you cannot accurately calibrate the ratios that are measured. Because C14 concentration increases over time, the older a sample actually is, the older it looks by the C14 age. This is why they use terms like "carbon years" or "carbon age" and "actual age". You do not have any 50k year old wood in your basement or anywhere else.
There's no point in arguing. They know they're lying. This channel was specifically made to spread "fake news". They understand that in the 21st century, when science knows so much, citing Bible verses doesn't work anymore, so they use scientific language to sound more convincing.
@@mmaimmortals C14 concentration does not increase over time. It will vary depending on cosmic radiation. But the amount of cosmic radiation can be figured out also and I believe the variation is small and insignificant. It may go up as the earth passes through the body of the milky way. I think we are currently above the milky way. Now they can calibrate all of this with tree rings and some trees live to thousands of years old, 6000 years. So you dig and find that a 6000 year old tree started to grow 6000 years ago in the bark of another tree that fell due to told age 6000 years ago. That gets you back 12,000 years and you can calibrate. Then you go to Greenland and take ice cores and you can measure the C14 and C12 in all the tiny bubbles and you can clearly see the seasonal changed in the snow packed ice and you are looking at millions of years. Then you go into the ocean and take sediment cores. You can see the layers and when the poles of the earth switch. You can calibrate all these varied methods with each other and they don't take very much tweaking since they are pretty close already. There must be another 50 methods to determine age and they all match up with each other. You could never have such an giant coincidence in 50 different data methods. You are nitpicking carbon dating and it is not perfect but it is pretty good. Your counter arguments are very very extremely weak indeed. The swamp in New Zealand was shipping this wood to a furniture wood place in the northern states where they make expensive furniture. $25,000 for a bench seat. I have two large piece that I purchased directly from the swamp company when I was in New Zealand. I give them to my kids to take to school for the science classes. These trees have many rings and they are buried very deep and there were many many thousands of years of trees growing and dying. You can analyze how a new tree started grown after an older tree fell and keep digging down adding on the thousands of years and you know when you count the rings and then C14 date it you get a pretty close match. The trees that are 6000 years old are the best to analyze and they match up perfectly with c14 dating.
What this group ignores is that the YEC stand which they support is that the universe is only 6,000 years old based on the genealogies found in Genesis 5 and Luke 3. If science proves that the Earth is just 2x that it even more, the YEC would not be correct. It doesn't have to prove a billion years, just over 12,000 (and it has). So the truth of the Genesis interpretation is NOT in the YEC interpretation.
Problem is, historical science makes too many assumptions. The origin of the universe can't be replicated nor can we observe it like we do when testing scientiific hypothosis. Given that fact, any conclusions regarding the origin of the universe falls into the philosophical realm and Einstein once said, that scientists do not make good philosophers. Think about this, if it is true that God made Adam in a fully adult form, how old do you think a scientist would think Adam is if we were there to observe him? We would assume his age to be older than he actualy was.
There is more evidence for a young earth and universe than for an old one. How do you explain comets without inventing Oort clouds? How do you explain so many young blue stars? There should be a lot more nebulae than can be observed from supernovae remnants, enough to fill the sky probably
@ not to mention the distance of the moon from the earth and how far it has traveled from the center of the earth. Doesn’t line up with billions of years
@@jacobostapowicz8188 hogwash. To the contrary. There is way more evidence for an old universe. I also repeat that if the universe is proved to be just 12,000 years old the YEC is dead as an interpretation. The truth is in the word just that the YEC isn't it. Instead of praying about the truth to be known, they double down on p as pseudo science. That isn't what God wants.
These radiometric readings are all based on ratios of two things. The problems is you have to know the original atarting ratio, and you can never know those. They date rocks with the ratio of urainium vs lead (lead isotop 208) in zircon. However zircon decomposes when exposed to water, so the lead inside will get washed out, leaving the precieved date near the surface looking younger than the bottom (water also travels down so the pb 208 will be higher at the bottom due to that). Ratio dating is just bad.
Human history goes back way further than 4,000 years. For example it's agreed in archaeology that Gobekli Tepi is about 12,000 years old, and that was a bitter pill for the scientific establishment to take because they hate admitting that human history goes back that far
First disbelief - then lying? Being honest - both were lying. The progression demonstates the evolution of ever more nuanced lying. Cause for small celebration.
@5:15 Avoid use of "billion”, “trilion” and so on, as there are two scales of those names for big numbers: long scale and short scale. So without that “it's like a thousand billion” it was impossible to know what was the number that guy was saying about.
@@NateWilliams190 Fragments from wikipedia's article titled "Long and short scales" , specially for you: « Short scale In the short scale, a billion (in many countries called a "milliard") means a thousand millions (1,000,000,000, which is 109), a trillion means one thousand billions (1012), and so on. Thus, a short scale n-illion equals 103n+3. Long scale In the long scale, a billion means one million millions (1012) and a trillion means one million billions (1018), and so on. Therefore, a long scale n-illion equals 106n. In some languages, the long scale uses additional names for the intermediate multipliers, replacing the ending -ion with -iard; for example, the next multiplier after million is milliard (109); after a billion it is billiard (1015). Hence, a long scale n-iard equals 106n+3. » and « To avoid confusion resulting from the coexistence of the two scales, the International System of Units (SI) recommends using the metric prefix to indicate orders of magnitude, associated with physical quantities. » As you see, your assumptions about my intellect were wrong.
I don't think we need to be a great expert on the subject to see that life must have started on this planet with everything completely done , so creation makes perfect sense . For life to sustain itself , everything has to exist ready .
Says who?
@@FECtetra1918says geneticists ...microsymbiosis eliminates the possibility of positive gradual sequential mutation
@@andrewrowney7601 Evolutionary geneticists study how genetic variation leads to evolutionary change.
Geneticts support evolution.
Do you want to try something else?
@@FECtetra1918 genetic variation does not lead to evolution - all it can lead to is adaption. Evolution requires an increase in the amount of genetic variation, however, mutation reduces the amount of genetic variation. A wolf has more genetic variation than a dog because dogs have lost some genetic information through mutation over successive generations (or selectively bred in the case of pure breeds). The dog is a subset of the wolf species or 'kind'. To postulate that a dog over millions of years could turn into a monkey is not science - not only does it fail the error of extrapolation but it also has no scientific evidence for any possible driving mechanism which can add new genes.
@@andrewrowney7601 isn't evolution just adaptation over the course of time
I just love how he brought the gospel up
God has said his word is eternal!!!
Whatever is in the scriptures is true and true and true
They'll will try everything possible to dispute it...but they wont change a thing
Praise be to our lord Jesus christ forever and ever
Love your channel!!! Please continue spreading the truth. God bless you all
Why do people praise outright lies about science?! You'd rather make up facts to support a false religion than seek actual truth??? Please tell me you don't vote.
@kosardb are you referring to veganism? Believe the "science" is behind that,
@kosardb oh are you referring to veganism? Because we know the signs really backs up that religion. I feel the same exact way buddy
@@rommel-777 I revisited your comment and THINK you tried (and failed) to call me a vegan. Since I crush more animal protein per day thanks to contrast prep so I can step on stage and see my toes (unlike the average Jesus freak eating Twinkies with a 40" waist), I'll say try again. I'm just an educated meathead who fought religious extremists overseas and came home from deployment to find that his country filled itself with religious nut jobs while he was away. I only hope you all can embrace science and nutrition before we lose what made this country great and my kids have to carry the load for an ungrateful nation who thanks me for my service and then wishes I'd keep quiet.
@@kosardb, thanks for your contribution to world peace, but your evolution inspired pseudoscience is certainly unwelcome here ! You seem to know everything there is to be known about the universe, but please, come down from your high horse of 'scientific' pride !😢
In the secular paper I read on C14 in diamonds, the lab technicians (not the scientists doing the study) suggested the C14 may have come from contamination in "micro fractures" in the diamonds.
But no study was done to vet this out and, if it were true, would strongly suggest that C14 couldn't possibly work on any porous material, ever.
But it does work - to the extent that the proper calibration can be applied to correct the 'carbon age' - so apparently the "contaminated diamond" explanation has no foundation whatsoever.
Also, the technicians never once suggested that the C14 measured in the diamonds should be calibrated out of the reading. Very interesting indeed.
The bonds in diamonds are so tight that contamination doesn't occur.
Another thing most do not tell you is that modern radiocarbon labs also measure carbon 13. This allows them to calculate and account for modern contamination. In other words, they cannot appeal to modern contamination if modern contamination is already accounted for in their calculation. Dr Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in testing all 12 diamonds which came from at least six different places.
See: creation.com/carbon-14-diamonds-talkorigins
Also, FYI, other proposed objections have been dealt with here:
• creation.com/diamonds#objections
• creation.com/c14-dating#counter-arguments
The idea of calibrating the C14 reading makes it largely useless as a true measure. No real scientist trusts C14 because it is virtually impossible to prove that the calibration is based on the correct data. It IS useful in comparing things found together in the same climate and region, but in the end, you have no true starting point. This is true of all radiometric dating to some extent. We have to use what we have, and radiometric is one of the better tools we have, but it cannot be trusted to be 'true.'
Very interesting how you misrepresent what they said in order to fit your pre-existing beliefs.
@@creationministriesintl
Thanks for the response. The paper to which I am referring (I believe) is one that Andrew Snelling has cited in the past, and the one over which he was (falsely) accused of lying about.
The more interesting evidence that the C14 was indeed insitu in the diamonds was the fact that one of the samples was cut into six pieces and all six pieces yielded very similar carbon ages.
This surprised the scientists and the lab technicians and strongly argues against micro fracture reservoirs as well as the tight lattice structure to which you are referring.
@@TheReaverOfDarkness
Misrepresent what they said?
Really, you have read the paper?
They clearly stated a pre-existing belief in that paper that the diamonds were millions of years old and could not reasonably have any C14 in them, making the suitable (by assumption only) for a calibration standard capable of refining the method to *5* figure year dating.
I grew up on the "Jurassic coast" Dorset and found a fossilised log. The bark was crystallised but the inside was coal. Within the coal was thin soft elastic strands running all over. Veins. Shame it was too heavy to carry home. So I totally agree with the bible and young earth...😊
Interesting.
This was around 1980... I was 10 years old and thought it strange then...
I've listened to several discussions on this topic. Never understood what C-14 even was, much less the issues pertaining to using it as a dating method. I get it now. Thank you.
@@JDawg-ol6jh he left out so many things that reconcile those issues. C14 is only one of countless methods....and the others pick up where C14 leaves off. He outright lied to you. Don't thank him.... demand better from him.
@@kosardb No evidence of lying of course, or even why lying should be wrong if we are rearranged pond scum.
It a carbon atom drifting down from space all live builds the cells in there body the carbon 14 atom becomes traped as part of the cell when the cell dies the carbon 14 starts to decay it half life takes about 50,000 years to decay it can be measured.
If you listen to creationists, you will not get the "issues" with it. They have proven over the decades that they don't know how to properly apply Carbon Dating.
There's a technique to this and if you don't apply it properly, it's just Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I have seen little evidence that creationists do this well.
How do I know? Because working scientists don't give these results the time of day. If they meant something, they surely would. There's big prizes to be won if this is true.
What do they know that the creationists don't? You might look into it.
When I was in the ninth grade, we ran a very clever experiment showing how gravity and acceleration worked.
My data had one clearly "wrong" point in it. Did I run to the Universities, with papers and videos showing how Newton and Einstein were both wrong? I did not. I checked my equipment (done on the cheap -- this was a public school) and found out the error in my gear. Einstein and Newton were not overthrown. But, if I didn't pay attention to these things, I might have written an internet posting breathlessly saying how science "got it wrong".
@@kosardb Did you watch the video or are you so insecure in your belief that you have to put down anyone with a different opinion to the one you have been programmed to believe?
Gracias desde España por combatir contra la ciencia del mal.
Ola Amigo! Science itself is by no means evil in itself, as with everything, evil People can use science for evil purposes, or to promote an evil agenda.
God allows us to use science to improve our lives, and the world, but as with anything else, we can also use it to do evil.
Gracias! Y Via Con Dios, Amigo!
🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Although I find such discussions fascinating, it is not the most convincing argument to support the existence of creation. I live in a natural laboratory also called a farm. I can testify from many years of personal observation that every living thing is perfectly designed and functions in perfect order. I might add that in all my years here I have not encountered ANY evidence of evolution. The cliffs along the river that wrap around my property have rock formations that were clearly made from a flood. As to the question whether the earth is new I believe it is but my relationship with God is not dependent on that alone but from the enormity of my personal experiences.
"perfectly designed" and "functions in perfect order" are subjective claims that you made.
600,000 children die annually from malaria. God's design?
@vladtheemailer3223 You're incorrect, only your assertion is subjective. That's OK, you have the right to be wrong.
@waderivers99 They're assertions, and they're ignorant claims. Having worked on a dairy farm, I don't know why you would even make such ridiculous claims.
@vladtheemailer3223 Your perspective is tainted. You breathe oxygen all day long without ever having to think about it. You don't make it or have to work for it. Your body is constantly fighting infections you are not even aware of. The earth functions absolutely perfect as well providing an abundance of life that replenishes ubiquitously. The earth and moon are unquestionably in constant perfect orbit. We are in the precise distance from the sun to be a self sustainable habitatal planet. Yeah, I say that fits the definition of perfect.
It only takes about 5 minutes of research to find out that the levels of C14 found in diamond are so small that they can't be distinguished from things like measurement errors and contamination.
And how do you know that every single diamond ever tested had such a miniscule amount of c14 in them? Does your source include all diamond tests in regards to c14?
Also, the fact that there even is c14 in them is evidence enough.
@@christianriddler5063 Ah, but is there, absent contamination?
Just because the instruments say it is there doesn't mean it is if the object being measured is going to have it in the quantities claimed.
It's not like we can count individual C14 atoms ourselves.
Strictly speaking. half life means it never does go all the way to zero. There will be some C14 in any diamond if it form from biological material. But when the amount that is left is very small (and expected to be such for other reasons in this case), then it's simply an instrument being misused and likely to fail since it is being used outside of its limits.
An ordinary ruler is not a micrometer, but if you press it into service that way, someone will record some kind of answer. Doesn't mean it is any good.
Thank You kindly for this eye-opening conversation !
Simply brilliant !😊
One question I have is how C14 could travel from the atmosphere where it forms to deep in the crust, completely separated from the atmosphere, to be captured in diamonds forming under great heat and pressure.
Dr Harwood also said that C14 dating only works on the remains of living organisms which were able to assimilate it while alive. Obviously, diamonds do not have a biological source.
I am sure the question has been asked before, so I am wondering how it has been answered.
The point is that diamonds are so hard, that however C-14 ended up in them, it was there from the time the crystal formed.
@ why not? Diamond is formed from carbon. If C14 is present with C12, why wouldn't it be used to form the carbon matrix of the diamond?
My question is, how would C14 get down to where the diamond forms?
The hardness of the diamond actually works against tour argument. It couldn't contaminate the intact crystal. It would have to be incorporated into the matrix at formation.
@@garrygraham That is the point. The C-14 must have been there when the diamond was formed. So it is an age limiter.
The existence of carbon 14 in Coal counters the argument.
There was no C14 in the samples. C14 dating only goes back to 50,000 years because for anything older than that, false positives in the data cause the error rate to be too high. At the very least, cosmic rays can hit a transistor in teh sensor and create a false positive, but there are many other ways. Human sensors are not capable of being as accurate as the man being interviewed pretends. Do you believe anything man makes is perfect? If the answer is "No", then why do you think that C14 sensor is perfectly detecting only C14? If it's not perfect, it has a breaking point where it has to fail. Correct? That breaking point is 50,000 years. They're detecting 65,000 years. It's a broken result, not an indication of C14 in the carbon.
If a tree is deciduous and goes dormant in the winter then it will have 1 ring per year. The ring comes from going dormant then growing again in spring.
@@julesverne2509 It is not as simple as that. Other events than seasons can create rings. Periods of drought, heatwaves, dry spells, can all affect tree growth. In New Zealand we have two dormant periods per year, in the cold of the winter and in the hot dry summer. Two tree rings per year is common.
Yeah and we have had recorded times where there was pretty much little to no summer for a few years. Ice rings don't work either. Ww2 planes were recovered after being landed in Greenland and they would have supposedly been down there for thousands and thousands of years instead of the 40 to 50 year they were there. Radiometric dating has many many problems. One big one is Ukrainian labs fusion experiments shoe when those radioactive isotopes are made the parent daughter atoms fall out in the same ratios we see today. Soft tissue in fossils supposedly dated from 65 mil to 500 million years old is a huge problem. Forensics data from SCIENCE proves those fossil can't be more then thousands of years old. There is NO mechanism foe soft tissue to last into deep time. Sorry Evo is full of flaws frauds and fairy tales. You need to really study it and probably shouldn't make comments an 7 year old yec could correct you on
If there is a dry season then the rings are just narrowed, it is still a year per ring (I can't find anything in my research that supports what was said in the video yet), the rainy seasons or seasons with more growth have wider rings. Which is why the rings aren't the same width and some are a lot wider than others. I believe the info in the video on this specifically may be wrong. Not commenting on anything else, just the tree ring thing..
@@julesverne2509 we have trees that go dormant twice a year or more, depending upon climate.
@@IXIII-IXIII even then the oldest trees found are around 4500 years old. I'm unaware of anything older then that. Aside from that c14 is found in coal, diamonds and fossils. Even fossils that are supposed to be 500 million years old. Diamonds are supposed to be billions of years old and far too hard for c14 to leach into or out of. Yet they find high amounts of c14. Far more then they want to admit and it's not just trace background noise. They have disproven that Ilk of an excuse. That's just the beginning of the flaws in the dating methods.
Fantastic interview! Congratulations and thank you. I think that discussion would though really become even more interesting with the Robert Gentry's work coming into place.
Yes!
Forty minutes of him lying is 'fantastic'? You've got strange standards.
@@GeoRyukaiser Geo, please provide evidence for your assertion.
@@statutesofthelord My evidence is the entire body of research into radiocarbon dating and radiometric dating in general. All of which demonstrate that the interviewee in this video is lying the entire time. Take, for example, his entire spiel about C14 in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur bones. What he doesn't tell you is that for coal, the new C14 is, based on geological evidence, the result of uranium-thorium decay inciting the same chemical reaction that turns N14 into C14 in the atmosphere in the coal. In diamonds the dates recorded are indistinguishable from the same tests on an empty chamber, and the same goes for dinosaur bones.
While dating methods are not infallible, they are better supported then the unproven word of an unproven God.
I can easily tell you how old my deciduous trees are. I cannot tell you how old my ficus trees are.
The formation of bark and rate of growth affected by wet seasons,means we know little in reality.
I am CONFIDENT that we can find petrified logs in an ooooold pine forest, and then cut down one of the oldest trees in said forest and find a match for the rings.
I’ve always wanted to do this.
If there is a dry season then the rings are just narrowed, it is still a year per ring (I can't find anything in my research that supports what was said in the video yet), the rainy seasons or seasons with more growth have wider rings. Which is why the rings aren't the same width and some are a lot wider than others. I believe the info in the video on this specifically may be wrong. Not commenting on anything else, just the tree ring thing..
So it is. And therefor you can us treerings to adjust carbon dating.
wow there are so many scientists here in these comments
35:03 regarding Kathleen Kenyon's dates and the timeline of Jericho and egyptian artifacts, Egyptologist Dr. David Rohl has a different interpretation of the mismatch- namely that there are some flawed assumptions in the Egyptian chronology. This would mean that the timeline of the Exodus would be shifted to be much closer to Kenyon's timeline. And there are several other archeological sites that support this theory. (More details in his books and also the film "Patterns of Evidence: the Exodus".)
I believe in the authority of scripture, but there are SO many assumptions on dates regardless of the discipline. We should not be too quick to point fingers to elevate or disregard a body of work. I don't think we will ever know exact dates for past events other than astronomical events like eclipses.
There is also the issue between the masoretic text and three others: septuaging, samaritan and josephus. The latter have the flood 650 years earlier. At around 3000BC, instead of 2350 of the MT.
NathanH83 video "Were the pyramids built before the flood" goes in depth of this.
@i7Qp4rQ the Septuagint puts the flood at 3300 BC, about 1000 years further back than the Masoretic, which fits history much better. It also adds 1500 years to total human history for a total 7500 instead of 6000 years.
@@redemptous Care to give the exact numbers from the text? The video made it clear it's 650 years, not 1000. The antedeluvian timeline wasn't included, iirc.
@i7Qp4rQ This is too complicated because it involves adding the ages of many different individuals over many generations. Perhaps you can Google "septuagint versus masoretic chronology"
@@redemptous As the video said: its 650 years, you only have to put forth ones involved; 6 gens x 100 years + 1 gens x 50 years .
Given the ongoing debates and discussions among scientists regarding the theory of evolution, why do we still teach it to our children in schools as a fact rather than as a hypothesis proposed by humans?
Because it has not been a hypothesis for a long time, but a scientific theory!!!
And “theory” in this context has an opposite meaning to the colloquial term.
@@Nils-gi5bvit’s not even a good hypothesis!
Darwin extrapolated the differentiation of bird types within a species ( finches) into a concept of trees and apes developing from trilobites ( or some such) a leap of faith if ever there was one, and his effort to provide support for his rejection of Divine authority!
@@appaloosa42Forget Darwin. He was the originator of the theory. We have so much more data and methods today than Darwin could ever have dreamed of. Evolution is now the binding foundation of the life sciences. And as I said before, it is no longer a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. And that means exactly the opposite of the rather denigrating colloquial term. You may not like it, but that is the reality.
@ nope.
@ Congratulations on your denial of reality.
Everyone used to get their heat by fire and that was a lot of carbon going into the air. Since we mostly use Hydro Electric, Natural Gas, and Solar/Wind in the region I live, I'm sure for the density of people we have, it is much less carbon coming from those.
The current count is from the creation of "modern mankind ".
The six days of creation were
not 24 hour days.
Each could be millions of years.
The sun was "created" on day 4.
How was time measured before.
Time and motion are interelated.
My biggest gripe with carbon dating is that atmospheric radiation levels are always variable. They are never a constant due to solar cycles, sun spots, coronal holes, and coronal mass ejections. If atmospheric radiation levels were a constant, carbon dating could work, but because it's variable instead of constant carbon dating is flawed from the get-go.
The problem has long been known to science. Correction values are used that were determined by applying other methods
He makes a really good point that mainstream old-earth geologists come into the field with a strong bias. One that has been taught to them in school and is self-confirming and self-perpetuating.
But his beliefs are also based in bias. Like theirs, his analysis of the evidence is based on existing beliefs and is self-confirming.
Logically the optimal way to determine the most scientific conclusion, the way to find the unbiased truth would be to provide the evidence to a group of researchers who have never learned of or been exposed to either the old earth evolutionary theory or the new earth creationist perspective. They would take the evedence as is and come to their best conclusion without an emotional attachment to a particular worldview.
Zircon crystals.
The thing is: No one knows everything. To conduct a truly comprehensive analysis, one would need to consider every factor that interacts or could potentially interact with the observed data, requiring expertise across all relevant fields. For genuine scientific inquiry, particularly with the extensive application of Bayes' theorem, a view encompassing all relevant factors is necessary to reach a sound conclusion. This level of completeness is virtually impossible, which is why everyone inevitably holds some degree of bias.
There is plenty of evidence and information to draw an accurate conclusion. These people are not going to give it to you.
Tree rings come from seasons. Ficus trees that grow all year round dont really have tree rings.
C 14, wow that is very interesting because I just read in Matthew 1 that Abraham to David was 14 generations and David to captivity was 14 Generations and from captivity to Yeshua was 14 generations. I wonder there is a connection here. GOD is so great
There isn't. It's just the result of cosmic radiation reacting with Nitrogen-14 atoms.
There is no greater meaning and there doesn't need to be one.
The seaside version of a snow globe was enough for me.
Silt settles very quickly.
Now finish the job. Do you live in Europe? If you do, you'll discover that many of the surviving buildings and artifacts are below today's ground level. They are not 100 feet below ground level. It's a couple of feet in about 2000 or more years.
Dover's cliffs alone are 350 feet above sea level. Even done at your superficial level, if we go by crude, historical depositions I just cited, we get about 350,000 years. Minimum of course.
There's a lot of deposited soil to account for. And the type of deposition varies. Some of it doesn't settle as fast as silt in a snow globe. Some of it compresses over time, too, which can matter. Some of it consists of layers that clearly happened differently than the ones above or below it, too. Different colors, different chemistry, different processes.
Geologists started where you did, but when they got serious about how things got deposited, they realized earth had to be "at least" millions of years old.
But, you'll make a good creationist. Find one fact, extrapolate it incorrectly and bam, "evilution" is finished.
@curious968
Well..within these silt layers are animals which have been obviously caught in a moment..with silt suddenly overtaking them, the only explanation viable.
Yes..the way water drains away can explain layers as one area drains and allows silt to settle and a later inundation repeats the process, with the effects of the moon on tides also possibly a factor..as well as the forces of a spinning earth affecting water away from it's equator..(lm no expert)
@@compositioncompilation My prior reply was lost. Try again. You are not an expert, nor am I. But "flood geology" doesn't work and fairly obviously so even with only mild exposure to the science.
There are many different kinds of silt, all different in their chemical composition and how they are formed.
Limestone, particularly, is ubiquitous and has lots of fossils, especially marine. But it forms very slowly and in calm conditions. If there is disruption (say, a year's long world-wide flood) it won't form at all during that time.
We have many places in the world with limestone in layer 1, sandstone in layer 2, limestone in layer 3, shale in layer 4, limestone in layer 5 and so on in any order at all. Each is formed differently. How does that happen in a flood? I've seen the creationist hydro-whatever it is that supposedly explains it and it is embarrassing. Still waiting for a good answer on that one. The standard answer -- many different depositions over vast time periods -- makes much more sense.
Intriguingly, not only do we date these layers so that they don't overlap, we discover that many, many fossils appear in specific layers and those layers only. That just can't happen in a turbulent, world-wide flood when all of these layers are supposed (by "flood geologists") to have been laid down at the same time. Animals and plants should intermix in any order. Moreover, really strange dodges like "dinosaurs were heavier" as an "explanation" don't really work because some dinosaurs were the size of chickens.
It's the sheer uniformity of the extinct life that, for one crucial thing, makes a world-wide flood untenable. To put it simply: Not only do humans not appear with T. Rex, T. Rex does not appear with Stegosaurs. Life is far more stratified than even this simple summary.
Creationists need to take their own flood account much more seriously. It implicitly makes a long series of very strong predictions of what we should see. We see none of it, really. Some things, some of the time being true proves nothing. But that's all I've ever seen.
@curious968
Scientists continue to learn.. and how quickly layers can form , a canyon carved out, exposing ideas that have long been believed as flawed.
The detail of start of life also is missing , a gap no one has been able to replicate under laboratory conditions.
Insisting it took place , is no answer, neither is laughing at those who ask for proof or answers , an answer.
@@compositioncompilation So what? We have long known that canyons can "sometimes" form quickly. That doesn't remotely imply that all of them do.
We know that the Grand Canyon did not form quickly.
Did you know that the area containing the canyon is _uplifted_ from between 4000 to 5000 feet above where the Colorado River flows today? This may not be obvious to those that only visit the popular south rim, but if one troubles to go to the north rim, the very trip to that north rim makes it obvious.
So, how does the canyon get carved in the first place if it formed during the great flood? Water still flows down hill.
On any theory, on any timeline, the canyon has to be carved while it is being uplifted by that immense distance. Otherwise, the river just runs around the bluff and carves nothing. There is no hint that such an uplift occurred in historical times, which is what it would take to make Genesis work for the Canyon.
To make it work would have it rising about a foot per year right to the magic time when the Spanish first found it and saw no evidence of ongoing uplift and none at such a rate seen since. How convenient! And how totally contradicted by what we know about plate tectonics, which caused the uplift.
Or, we could reach the obvious conclusion that whatever happened somewhere else, the Canyon was not carved by some "great flood" around 2430 BCE.
The trouble with "it happens fast sometimes" is that it isn't nearly enough. It has to happen fast all the time and that's just not true.
* TOO MANY ADS *
Thanks! Question: are there attempts within the evolutionary scientific community to question the decay rate of C-14?
Based on what? Creationists who have proven over and over again that they don't know how these things work?
A lot of scientific tools have limits. If you wield them incorrectly, you'll get bad results.
In fact, one of the first things that real scientific papers do is look for these kinds of errors.
If radiometric dating was as faulty as creationists suggest, we'd not be finding oil and gas, because unless you live in Saudi Arabia, you need accurate radiometric dating to know where to drill for oil and gas.
@@curious968 so you mean to say that the decay rate itself is not being questioned?
@@detijdlijnserie That sort of thing is ongoing. But, there is lots of evidence that the decay rate is pretty darn constant. It's basic nuclear physics. It would, in fact, be very helpful if these decay rates could be easily and routinely altered (see, for instance, nuclear energy waste).
There are Nobel prizes in physics awaiting someone who can demonstrate this to science's satisfaction.
There's nothing special about creationist claims here, other than the fact that they usually get it wrong.
@@detijdlijnserie Earlier reply vanished.
Decay rates are being questioned all the time. It would be exceedingly useful if the decay rates of the elements could be sped up. For one thing, we could do something useful about nuclear waste. For openers.
People look, they do not find. There's Nobels prizes to be won here if variance could be proven out.
However, there is no reason, in theory or in actual measurement, to expect any sort of rate variance in nature. You may as well wish that electricity arbitrarily varies in its voltage for no good reason. It's the same kind of thing.
love your work thank you
I never trust a builder who has a rubber ruler. There is only one Solid ruler.
Yep - and it's the Christians that use the solid rubber ruler to the nth degree.
Facts keep getting in the way of fairy tales.
So honest I don’t know what u mean by this can u elaborate
@@crazykarli61 they must not buy clothes
And that ruler is science. Not a bronze age book that didn't even know the Earth was a sphere. (They had words for spheres, or at least similar words or descriptors, but never used them to describe the world.)
@GeoRyukaiser Probably why the author of the oldest book, Job, described it as:
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, And hangeth the earth upon nothing. Job 26;7
So do Christian young earth apologists have any comment on Globeki Tepe and other Neolithic Pre-Pottery A sites?
See here!
creation.com/gobekli-tepe
RUclips gonna kill me with ads every 3 minutes
How did coal 27:25 get so far down under the surface? How did the soil buildup above the plant tissue? Why is oil different from coal?
That's just how sedimentary layers work. As new layers are laid the old layers are compressed and sink under the weight of the new. In the case of coal most of the material that was laid is plant material because the microbes that cause trees to decay today didn't exist yet. Then, once the environment changed, sediment built up over the top, burying the dead plants. Then, as stated before, the new sedimentary layers kept building up, the weight of which compressed the plant matter more and more as more and more tons of sediment built up. The combination of this pressure, and becoming gradually deeper underground, resulting in lots of heat. It's this heat and pressure that triggered the chemical reactions that turned the plant matter into coal. Oil, on the other hand, is formed from marine organisms, mostly plankton, that underwent a similar chemical reaction under the same conditions.
I always told myself "I'll put the Bible as the highest authority until I learn differently". That was well over 20 years ago. If I believe something it's because I've proved it to myself. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, I just haven't seen it yet.
But y did u put the bible? How did sumbdy tell u they spoke to a bush n u just believed it?
How did you prove the bible to yourself before you chose to make it the highest authority?
William and parody: give it up.
@@appaloosa42 ?
it seems unlikely that you have proven anything at all from the Bible, but as you state that you have, I would be most interested to learn what those things are and how you proved them true. Could you give us a couple of examples? or...as seems more likely to me, you simeply have just over time given in and not bothered to consider the bible as a book, written by men, to control other people.
This Channel is a blessing! Amazing work 💯
The comment about earth's magnetic field is missing a bit of information. The magnetic field is weakening but only because the poles are close to a flip. Magnetic orientation is one characteristic geologists use to learn more about how an area formed. Scientists believe that the magnetic poles have flipped at least 183 times over 83 million years. With the rate of reversals being more random than not and the average amount of time it took for the last 4 reversals being around 7,000 years, it is difficult to factor in how it would affect carbon dating. I'm not in any field that uses carbon dating.
I look into other sciences more out of curiosity. I have seen mentions on how archeologists use known events to date artifacts that depict a major geological or astronomical event. It is how archeologists corrected their timelines. A large mural showing a solar eclipse that correlated with other writings of the event and astrological calculations lead scientists to know the time and date of that solar eclipse which showed them that their estimations were off on when a lot of events took place.
That brings up a question about the earlier comment about the scientist that dated Jericho earlier than the Exodus, which many archeologists still question the date or even if it occurred. Did she state that it was earlier than the Exodus? If so, what date did she have for the Exodus and how did she reach that conclusion?
There are several moving parts, differing ideas, and new discoveries that change how those ideas are formed. The points made are interesting and worth looking further into but I am not yet convinced from this one conversation. Thank you, for your point of view.
Thank you so much for this excellent and informing interview. Every Christian should hear it.
How old is the earth if you use the carbon dating method correctly? And does that march the biblical understanding of creation?
You cannot use "carbon dating" to figure out how old the earth is. It is only capable of spanning about 60,000 years. It can prove the earth is _at least_ that old, and it does, but that's all it can tell anyone regardless of their attitudes about the Bible.
You might look into Potassium Argon or Uranium Lead radiometric dating methods. Same idea, much more useful isotopes for this. Those give us the billions of years you're looking for.
The assumptions which underpin C14 dating are not well-explained and, I dare to say, not honestly taught.
I took geology course in college, and the decay rates were communicated as being as ironclad as the fundamental constants of nature: “c”, “G”, The Plank Constant, etc.
The decay rates were indeed thought to be constant, but newer evisence suggests otherwise.
Its something that you have to make the effort to learn. Videos like these work because many christians are intellectually lazy.
@@vladtheemailer3223 and many aren’t such as Jason Lisle a Christian Astrophysicist. Look him up.
@@vladtheemailer3223 Great ad hominem, proving nothing other than lack of logic.
For C14 dating other assumptions is the earth has had a constant water volume/level and cosmic bombardment has been constant.
I love how this channel goes out of their way to give explanation to why God created us and earth even though all they need is their faith and already know he exists they want to gather as many souls as possible that dont believe we just want everyone to be saved😢❤
@@EwayPtown even people who do believe need this stuff. It helps build a foundation of faith. It helps reinforce the truth when all of the tormenting lies that He doesn’t exist pummel your brain constantly.
@@alecferguson1004 Except this channel spreads pseudoscience. They're willing to lie to people just to get them on their side. That's not good.
It's too bad it's a false religion based though
@@alecferguson1004 Well, I cannot speak for everyone, but I really don't need any of this. As someone once said, even if God told me Jonah swallowed the whale (instead of the other way round), I would still believe Him!
@@alecferguson1004 You have to reinforce the belief as much as possible because all evidence points against it!
In Central Ontario I have a one of a kind tree, that grew out of clay clumps from its root and only reproduces via the root in another tree dead stump -it will not clone or root from its branches, nor produces any seed. the clay clumps were deposited by the last glacial advance. The tree has to predate it and was burned and preserved with unburnt wood intact and dry, I have a sample and the new grove grew after the fire in surrounding stumps. Not so easy to get a new discovery checked out, they do not seem to care, not a single person in any field. Why do i need to spend $$$$ to get a new discovery tested?
My lamproite vein shows 2 upheavals, the first was a shattering of gemstones of every type in to grains of sands, (Adam and Eve had a gemstone garden) the second brought them up from the depths, from under Ocean sedimentary layers. (Noah's flood and poles freezing and glacial advance and retreating until weather settled.)
As a creationist reminded me recently, fossils are not the actual bones. They are rocks formed by sedimentation over many years. So, yes, there very well could be carbon 14 in those rocks.
As to the age of the earth, carbon dating doesn't work because it does not work for even a million years. A variety of isotopes are used to determine the age of rocks, and when the various dates agree, that is taken to be correct.
I guess you have to decide how you want to define the word fossil.
Real, actual dinosaur bones have been found frequently.
Hadrosaur bones in Canada, for example.
These were laying on the ground and were ignored for years because people thought they were cow bones.
There is even a geologist field "trick" to determine if a fossil is a rock or an actual (dinosaur) bone.
Touch your tongue to the 'fossil'.
If your tongue sticks to it, it is real bone.
If not, it is a rock.
@throckmortensnivel2850 date the fossils by the known decay rate of soft tissue
@@keithmaggard9024 Not a bad idea, except there is no such thing as "known decay rate" for soft tissue. The decay rate of soft tissue is subject to a number of variables, all of which have to be accounted for.
In any case, soft tissue very seldom fossilizes. Almost all fossils are of hard body parts; bones, shells, carapaces, etc.
If you can date the rock in which the fossil is found, that is a pretty good indication of how old the fossil is.
@@mmaimmortals However, fosslized bones cannot be younger than the rock is which they are found. If you can get the age of the rock, you can get the age of the fossils.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 When they tested the age of newly formed rocks, from know events like Mt St Helens eruption, they got ages of millions of years, when the rock was only a few years old. So the rock cannot date the fossils very accurately either.
One thing to note, when in the Bible does it mention how old the earth is? God made Adam and Eve as adults, so what is to say he made an earth the same way, already centries old
It only takes a very small amount of contamination to give artificially young ages. We have known this for decades.
Years learning, and then years working in a field often leads to those who have not, missing everything, misunderstanding esoterics, nuance, and basic principles, let alone the more complex points.....
There are also examples of events that are dated to >>6,000 years ago by more than one method, e.g. by both radiometric dating and dendrochronology. Again, thanks ChatGPT:
"1. The Younger Dryas Climate Event (~12,900 - 11,700 years ago)
• Radiocarbon Dating: Organic materials, such as plant remains found in sediment cores, have been radiocarbon dated to around 12,900 years ago, marking the abrupt onset of the Younger Dryas, a period of sudden cooling.
• Dendrochronology: Tree-ring data from preserved ancient trees show a clear pattern of narrow rings, indicative of stress caused by a rapid decline in temperature. This tree-ring evidence aligns closely with the radiocarbon dates.
• Corroboration: This combined evidence has helped establish the timeline of the Younger Dryas event, showing its sudden onset and duration, long before any written records.
2. Volcanic Eruptions and Their Climatic Impact (e.g., Mount Mazama, ~7,700 years ago)
• Radiocarbon Dating: The eruption of Mount Mazama, which created Crater Lake in Oregon, has been radiocarbon dated using charcoal and other organic remains buried beneath the volcanic ash layer. The dates point to around 7,700 years ago.
• Dendrochronology: Tree-ring patterns from preserved trees show evidence of a significant environmental disturbance around this time, including a year of very narrow rings corresponding to the impact of the eruption on local and regional climate.
• Corroboration: The alignment of the radiocarbon dates with the dendrochronological evidence provides a precise date for the eruption and its effects, even though it occurred long before written records.
3. The 8.2 Kiloyear Event (~8,200 years ago)
• Radiocarbon Dating: Radiocarbon dating of lake sediments and ice cores from Greenland indicate a cooling event around 8,200 years ago, likely caused by a sudden influx of glacial meltwater into the North Atlantic.
• Dendrochronology: Tree-ring records from ancient oaks and other long-lived species show a clear reduction in growth rates, suggesting cooler and drier conditions during this time period.
• Corroboration: The combination of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology helps establish the timing and magnitude of this abrupt climate event, well before the advent of historical records.
4. Holocene Pine Chronology in Europe (~11,000 - 9,000 years ago)
• Radiocarbon Dating: Subfossil pines preserved in bogs have been radiocarbon dated to early Holocene periods (11,000-9,000 years ago). These dates align with warming and ecological shifts following the end of the last Ice Age.
• Dendrochronology: Tree-ring sequences from these preserved pines have been used to create a continuous dendrochronological record, which matches the radiocarbon timeline. Narrow rings in the sequence correlate with known climatic anomalies identified through radiocarbon dating.
• Corroboration: This continuous tree-ring record, when matched with radiocarbon dating, provides a detailed, year-by-year climatic history for a period predating written records.
5. Dating of Megafauna Extinctions (e.g., Mammoths in North America)
• Radiocarbon Dating: The extinction of mammoths and other megafauna has been dated using radiocarbon analysis of bone collagen, showing that many species disappeared around 11,000 - 10,000 years ago.
• Dendrochronology: Dendrochronological data indicate environmental stress and abrupt climate changes around this time, including shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns that would have impacted megafauna habitats.
• Corroboration: The synchrony between the radiocarbon dates for extinction events and the tree-ring evidence for climate change suggests a connection between environmental shifts and the loss of these species.
Conclusion
These examples highlight the powerful synergy between radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology in constructing a reliable timeline for prehistoric events. Even in the absence of written historical records, these methods provide a robust framework for understanding environmental changes, climatic events, and their impacts on ancient ecosystems."
A very nice summary. Cheers from foggy Vienna, Scott
Has cosmic radiation remained at a constant rate, or does that fluctuate from time to time? I'm thinking it might fluctuate.
It does. Secular Scientists are the ones who discovered this. They even figured out how to measure the effects of that fluctuating on C14 in the atmosphere. They use that data to calibrate C14 testing.
General rule of thumb; if you aren't an active researcher in a field and you think you came up with something new... chances are it's something active researchers thought of years ago.
Gamma rays are not deflected by a magnetic field. Charged particles such as cosmic rays are and it is these that create C14 from nitrogen.
What about the skeletons that are dated by carbon dating to 30,000 years ago?
I would think that solar flares would also skew the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there is no accurate way to account for that back in history.
Yes, the amount of C14 in the atmosphere can fluctuate. Since this has been recognized, controls have been carried out using other methods and correction factors have been determined.
Great!
Carbon dating would be affected by a global flood. Interesting fun facts!
What about oul did we carbon date oil?
It would give the same erroneous results as coal. Any C14 found would be the result of uranium in the surrounding rock decaying into thorium, the shed particles triggering the same reaction in N14 contained in the coal and oil that happens in the atmosphere, making tiny amounts of C14.
It wont let me access the free ebook for some reason?
@alangardner1746 Sorry you've had trouble with that. Please contact us at creation.com/contact and we'll be able to get this sorted. (When you contact us, please be sure to mention which video you were on when you had trouble with the offer, and what email address you were using. Thanks!)
There is no debate on the age of the earth.
Perhaps l was the only one fascinated by a snow globe ..
It settles in very short space of time..
Using that information, add in the extraction or drainibg away of the water, its not difficult to imagine silt would rapidly bring conditions consustent with the fossil record and lsyers of sedimentary rock forming in very little time.
It doesn't. That hypothesis has been tested and found to not be true on any level.
The bible does not say the Earth is about 6,000 years old. The bible clearly shows that God operated on a planet that already existed, like, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (paraphrasing) what day of creation was that? Answer: None! The bible is silent as to when the Earth was created.
You are correct. The bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is outside of the six days of creation. I believe this is the point where God created the time, space, and matter of the universe. However, if God created time then he is not limited by it. He merely picked a point in time of the universe 6000 years ago and made life on earth.
@@zackmckay6603 I'd also argue that life began on Earth 6,000 years ago, but how about all the evidence that scientists claim life was on Earth millions of years ago?
We also need to examine the notion of "fossil" fuels
17:37, the assumption of the ratio is here very important and the crux of the whole argument - assumptions are conjectures are opinions are believes and thus subjective vis-a-vis the faith of Jesus Christ which is the objective and extra-human truth and will only be discernible by those whose minds have been opened to it, Luke 24:45.... we must be content and accept that there are blind people as it is not in our power to give them vision and understanding - we have to voice the truth though [Matt28:19], the battle has been fought and won by God , Prov21:31, Deut 20:4.... - trying to prove His creation without His word is a waste of breath, and many a 'Christian apologist' is the victim of the notion that they can somehow convert people by their intellect - then Scripture is just a veneer for pride; I know, I was there.
Mark and Bronte: Very good, especially the observation that the earth probably would have started without C14 in the atmosphere and therefore it would have made things appear much older than they are. That being said though, you two really irritated me by not differentiating Carbon dating from the other radioactive methods. Maybe you mentioned other methods at some point in passing but since most non-technical people use the term "Carbon dating" to mean ANY radioactive dating method your discussion is misleading. You should have stressed that C14 dating is just one of many techniques and the others pertain to much longer time periods. So it was rather infuriating that you failed to do that. As a matter of fact it borders on dishonesty, so I'm personally disgusted about it. It is NOT a minor point. A lot of people are going to watch this and make fools of themselves when they try to tell someone that radioactive dating can't go back millions of years. So even though you were very good about discussing C14 dating, you get a C- in my book for the overall presentation. I expect A+ presentations from CMI.
Correlations in the coral luv that pun
We can now see stars that are millions and billions of light-years away. So what that means is it took that long for light to reach the planet Earth. So I guess what you're saying is the Earth was the last thing that was created. But that's false that wasn't true. That's not true
@@dougjstl1 there are many assumptions made to estimate the distance of these stars. Just like when they tell us what other planets are made up of. They’re just guessing.
Nobody says the earth is 6000 years old. Only that it’s been 6000 years give or take since man was created. The earth was created at an indeterminate time before that- in the beginning.
@ nobody??? Really? Educate yourself
❤
Carbon dating is very inaccurate. It's a hypothetical
Why do you know that and the scientists didn‘t?
This is very logically intellectual in disproving evolution, completely.
I'd like to know why scientists are so confident in the consistency of the half-life principle over such long spans on time. We have only known about Half-Life for a century. It seems anti-scientific to suggest that the external environment of a sample would have absolutely no impact on the outcomes of radioactive decay over the long term.
If you have some experimental evidence that subatomic behaviour has changed for no particular reason during the life of the Universe, please present it.
One of the reasons we know is that we can see the relative abundance of elements in distant stars. Well ,distant stars are time machines. All elements not named Hydrogen were produced almost entirely in stars. All of them have a decay to them, though some a very long lived. But, most are measurable on an astronomical time scale. If the half lives varied substantially, we'd see it in the stars, literally.
Some of this was interesting for casting doubt on the accuracy or C14, e.g. sea food diet vs land-based diet and tree ring growth frequency.
Carbon-14 simply isn't used for dating beyond about 60,000 years and even that's pushing it. Fossils are often dated by determining the ages of volcanic ash deposits using potassium-argon and argon-argon dating, amongst others, and then interpolating between the layers. Other methods for dating rocks exist and can be used to calibrate each other.
My beef with the whole situation is that the scientific method is supposed to start with observed data then progress via repeatable experiment to established theory. Creationists start with their preferred young-Earth interpretation of the words in Genesis and look for evidence to back themselves up, while their opponents look for evidence to back up their preferred assertion that the Bible is false.
Agreed. This applies also to the multitude of different religions and their theological theories and doctrines. People start with their beliefs as a concluded dogma, then spend a good part of their life searching for snippets of text or evidence and construct in a way to narrate or to support the original concluded dogma. Imagine presenting a conclusion in a scientific journal as a finding before you have have found it - then at the end of the paper, to say you will be back again when you find the evidence. People confuse hypothesis with conclusion - in science and religion.
Why do you never debate people like Matthew McCurry, or Scott Hocknull?
If Carbon 14's half life is almost the 6,000 years the Earth is supposedly old then that means we should find at least a quearter Carbon 14 on literally everything. Doesn't that mean then, that if we do NOT find carbon 14 on a fossil then it must be older than the halflife of carbon?
With C14 you can only test carbonaceous material, i.e. usually substances from formerly living organisms.
If you no longer find any C14, the sample is older than approx. 50-60,000 years. You will then need a different method to make a further statement.
@Nils-gi5bv but it is reasonable then to assume that we could correctly identify fossils that are over 10,000 years old with the correct approximate date?
@@Geimouver Like any technical determination, the radiocarbon method inherently has an error rate. This also depends on whether you are measuring at the limit of the measuring range. At 10,000 years, you will probably get a useful estimate (e.g. +/- 150 years). At 50,000 years, i.e. already in the range of just possible measurement, the error is greater (e.g. +/- 3,000 years). Beyond that, it is no longer possible to make any statements with 14C. Then you have to use other methods.
@@Geimouver Once you get into the millions of years, you need other methods of dating. Fortunately, these exist.
Hoping that someone can send this video to Bill Nye, The Science Guy?
Shalom Alechim
Nothing in the bible says how old the earth really is. The bible says how long man has been on the earth is period.
He is incorrect. While Nitrogen-14 does decompose to Carbon-14 doesn't convert to back to Nitrogen-14. It decomposes to Carbon-13.
If you an excpert to speak on this get someone from chemistry or chemical engineering.
how sure are you of that?
English difficult thing writing?
@peppor I am completely sure of that. The number of protons determines what element an atom is. To go from carbon to nitrogen, the atom must gain a proton. Gaining can not be characterized as decomposition. If it decomposes, it would have to either lose a neutron or a proton. If it loses a neutron, it will remain the same element. If it loses a proton, it is now a different element.
@S_raB no simply forgot to add a comma followed by it.
@@sharifali5384 "Gaining can not be characterized as decomposition. If it decomposes, it would have to either lose a neutron or a proton."
- It can.
A neuton can turn into a proton via beta-decay.
So it gains a proton by losing a neutron.
The only part I don’t agree with is that the earth was wiped clean of artifacts including ruins after the flood. Wiped clean of humans, yes, artifacts, no.
Yep. Megalithic architecture of the Nephilim remains.
So you think 6 people repopulated the earth to the 8 billion people in a span of a few thousand years?
@ Historical demographers estimate that around 1800, the world population was only around 1 billion people. After 1800, this changed fundamentally: the world population was around 1 billion in 1800 and is now around 8 billion - 8 times larger.
@robertcarpenter3020 crazy we got 7 billion more people in over 200 years. Especially when the amount of births are declining
@ yeah crazy huh. It’s almost as if there’s an anti life force that’s been really trying to mitigate birth rates in the last 40 years. According to the world economic forum over population is the greatest threat to humanity’s future or is it climate change? It seems to change
After the flood I feel God recated all life on the earth but i feel God recreated the earth as well.
Great interview. I Only see a young Earth'.
How much carbon 14 is found in diamonds? Why don't you mention it?
Because Carbon 14 shows that the earth is much older than 6000 years.
As he said if it’s measurable the can only be 60-80000 years old max
Not millions
@Ian-nm2pg But much more than 6000!
@@georg7120 The point that the science community has been incorrect about their dating. Since C-14 isn't millions of years old but thousands. Now put it into a young Earth context with all the evidence available, including c-14 in fossils, fossil tissues and hemoglobin, rock formations, rock strata, etc. So the point he's making is about how the evolutionists dating methods are incorrect
@georg7120 not every Christian believes the earth is only 6000 years old. But every athiest I have heard talk goes with their preachers of the religion of science, billions of years.
@@liamliam5341Because his is supported by facts.
My question is if the floor did happen according to the Bible. Why didn't the 8 survivers write books in the Bible? N shouldn't we all have a better history if they knew what happened....
Can C14 be created in coal? I mean is it always losing C14 or is C14 being created as well?
C14 is in CO2 in the air. Used by plants to build organic material like cellulose. Cellulose later becomes coal
@@globalcoupledances that does not answer the question. I understand where the C14 originally comes from and how it decays.
My question is, is it possible for C14 to be created in an inorganic sample? Is there a chemical pathway for this to occur?
@@johnelliott5859 N14 + n -> C14 + p
Since fossil coal is very very old, it cannot be determined by C14. The measuring range ends at approx. 50,000 years. You can certainly determine charcoal from current wood.
C14 is only stored through life processes. If C14 is nevertheless detected in fossil charcoal, it is probably due to contamination from mining.
Some diamonds have inclusions of radioactive elements. In these exceptional cases, C14 atoms can be formed, similar to the processes in the atmosphere.
@@johnelliott5859 my response N14 -> C14 is hidden
Dr. Harwood you really, really need to study the science and technology of carbon 14 dating before you pretend to be knowledgeable about the subject. You obviously do not understand carbon 14 dating and therefore you are leading that poor young lady astray with your ignorance.
"the biblical date of the global flood of Noah", what exactly is that date? I am asking because my bible does not specify that at all. And that certainly diminished the trustworthiness of this PhD in Electromagnetics.
The Bishop Usher chronology is widely used. It puts the flood circa 2430-ish, BCE. However, some creationists are now embarrassed by that date, because it is obvious that at least the Chinese and the Egyptians (and no doubt others) spanned that date -- indeed the whole century -- without drowning or otherwise dying out.
Liars are as old as mankind
Mankind is to destructive to have been here 100s of 1000s of years we are stuck on stupid
Great video!❤
The only true question is not how but who
This video opens with the presenters stating falsehoods. It goes on to justify the writing of ancient people who had no knowledge of the the rest of the world nor the cosmos that has been discovered by scientists. I am sure that they are sincere, but equally sure that they are in the business for the money.
No evidence of stating falsehoods of course, or even why stating falsehoods should be wrong if we are rearranged pond scum.
@@jimster7277 what falsehoods did they state?
Really?
For starters C14 dating only works on material that used to be living and diamonds were not living. There is a background C14 in everything due to background radiation, cosmic rays etc. Nitrogen is hit by a cosmic ray and is changed to C14 and then a living organism absorbs this C14. When the living creature dies no more C14 is added so it begins to decay and you just measure the ratio of C14 to C12. C12 doesn't decay. You can't use this method back further than about 60,000 years , and the diamonds are millions of years to billions of years old. This fellow is wrong about dating methods. He should read up on the methods or take a course on it and then challenge the theories based on evidence.
I have pieces of tree in my basement that I got from New Zealand and they were dug out of a swamp and are carbon dated to 50,000 years old. So there is very little C14 left in this wood. I was going to mount these as a clock on my wall but have had them stored in my basement since 1999 and don't really want to cut holes in them.
Challenge the theories?
Okay.
I downloaded a national database of radiometric dates in geology.
The data isn't there that you suppose backs up an ancient earth.
1) The data is very messy and incomplete.
2) There are way, way too few radiometric "dates" calculated for any given sample - frequently only 1 or 2.
3) The database is full of examples of some alternate explanation given because the "age" determined was discordant.
4) The actual ratios are not given of any of the (typically 3 per system for isochron) isotopes used.
5) The r^2 value is not given for the isochron plot.
6) The r^2 values for other 'best fit' calculations are also not given.
7) There is no control group ever given: not for the methods collectively, or for the sites studied independently.
8) No hint is given whether historical records are ever consulted to see if events such as eruptions have happened in historic times.
9) There is no apparent standard for the data collection to even qualify for database entry. This is deduced from the utter lack of complete information that frequently accompanies any particular entry.
10) There was no mention of how many zircons were used to determine any one alleged age.
We could probably go on.
Age cannot be measured by any counting means whatsoever.
Scientists would do good to recognize this problem.
On C14 dating in particular:
You cannot measure age by counting any objects, isotopes included.
C14 concentration in the atmosphere increases over time so the ratios must be calibrated to account for this.
If you don't already know the age of the sample in question, you cannot accurately calibrate the ratios that are measured.
Because C14 concentration increases over time, the older a sample actually is, the older it looks by the C14 age. This is why they use terms like "carbon years" or "carbon age" and "actual age".
You do not have any 50k year old wood in your basement or anywhere else.
@@mmaimmortals Its wrong because it goes against your religious beliefs.
There's no point in arguing. They know they're lying. This channel was specifically made to spread "fake news". They understand that in the 21st century, when science knows so much, citing Bible verses doesn't work anymore, so they use scientific language to sound more convincing.
@@mmaimmortals C14 concentration does not increase over time. It will vary depending on cosmic radiation. But the amount of cosmic radiation can be figured out also and I believe the variation is small and insignificant. It may go up as the earth passes through the body of the milky way. I think we are currently above the milky way. Now they can calibrate all of this with tree rings and some trees live to thousands of years old, 6000 years. So you dig and find that a 6000 year old tree started to grow 6000 years ago in the bark of another tree that fell due to told age 6000 years ago. That gets you back 12,000 years and you can calibrate. Then you go to Greenland and take ice cores and you can measure the C14 and C12 in all the tiny bubbles and you can clearly see the seasonal changed in the snow packed ice and you are looking at millions of years. Then you go into the ocean and take sediment cores. You can see the layers and when the poles of the earth switch. You can calibrate all these varied methods with each other and they don't take very much tweaking since they are pretty close already. There must be another 50 methods to determine age and they all match up with each other. You could never have such an giant coincidence in 50 different data methods. You are nitpicking carbon dating and it is not perfect but it is pretty good. Your counter arguments are very very extremely weak indeed. The swamp in New Zealand was shipping this wood to a furniture wood place in the northern states where they make expensive furniture. $25,000 for a bench seat. I have two large piece that I purchased directly from the swamp company when I was in New Zealand. I give them to my kids to take to school for the science classes. These trees have many rings and they are buried very deep and there were many many thousands of years of trees growing and dying. You can analyze how a new tree started grown after an older tree fell and keep digging down adding on the thousands of years and you know when you count the rings and then C14 date it you get a pretty close match. The trees that are 6000 years old are the best to analyze and they match up perfectly with c14 dating.
Does the weakening magnetic field significantly contribute to climate change?
What this group ignores is that the YEC stand which they support is that the universe is only 6,000 years old based on the genealogies found in Genesis 5 and Luke 3. If science proves that the Earth is just 2x that it even more, the YEC would not be correct.
It doesn't have to prove a billion years, just over 12,000 (and it has). So the truth of the Genesis interpretation is NOT in the YEC interpretation.
I don’t think it matters, you believe in Jesus Christ you are saved. A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day to God .
Problem is, historical science makes too many assumptions. The origin of the universe can't be replicated nor can we observe it like we do when testing scientiific hypothosis. Given that fact, any conclusions regarding the origin of the universe falls into the philosophical realm and Einstein once said, that scientists do not make good philosophers. Think about this, if it is true that God made Adam in a fully adult form, how old do you think a scientist would think Adam is if we were there to observe him? We would assume his age to be older than he actualy was.
There is more evidence for a young earth and universe than for an old one. How do you explain comets without inventing Oort clouds?
How do you explain so many young blue stars?
There should be a lot more nebulae than can be observed from supernovae remnants, enough to fill the sky probably
@ not to mention the distance of the moon from the earth and how far it has traveled from the center of the earth. Doesn’t line up with billions of years
@@jacobostapowicz8188 hogwash. To the contrary. There is way more evidence for an old universe. I also repeat that if the universe is proved to be just 12,000 years old the YEC is dead as an interpretation. The truth is in the word just that the YEC isn't it. Instead of praying about the truth to be known, they double down on p as pseudo science. That isn't what God wants.
Didja conveniently forget about radiometric dating?
Nope!
creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies
These radiometric readings are all based on ratios of two things. The problems is you have to know the original atarting ratio, and you can never know those.
They date rocks with the ratio of urainium vs lead (lead isotop 208) in zircon. However zircon decomposes when exposed to water, so the lead inside will get washed out, leaving the precieved date near the surface looking younger than the bottom (water also travels down so the pb 208 will be higher at the bottom due to that). Ratio dating is just bad.
Human history goes back way further than 4,000 years. For example it's agreed in archaeology that Gobekli Tepi is about 12,000 years old, and that was a bitter pill for the scientific establishment to take because they hate admitting that human history goes back that far
See this article here for a look at Göbekli Tepe!
creation.com/gobekli-tepe
C14 datings can be prone to errors but there are other methods which give approximately 4 to 5 billion years for the earth's age.
C14 determinations are only good up to a maximum of 50-60,000 years anyway.
No it doesn't.
I'm finding this too hard to follow without any visuals.
A stationary world is what we experience not this idol 🌏
If you cannot accurately present the opposing view then please let someone else do so. It makes your position look weak.
6:04
First disbelief - then lying? Being honest - both were lying. The progression demonstates the evolution of ever more nuanced lying. Cause for small celebration.
@5:15 Avoid use of "billion”, “trilion” and so on, as there are two scales of those names for big numbers: long scale and short scale. So without that “it's like a thousand billion” it was impossible to know what was the number that guy was saying about.
Seriously? You're saying that his defining a trillion as a thousand billions is beyond your understanding?
@@NateWilliams190 Fragments from wikipedia's article titled "Long and short scales" , specially for you:
«
Short scale
In the short scale, a billion (in many countries called a "milliard") means a thousand millions (1,000,000,000, which is 109), a trillion means one thousand billions (1012), and so on. Thus, a short scale n-illion equals 103n+3.
Long scale
In the long scale, a billion means one million millions (1012) and a trillion means one million billions (1018), and so on. Therefore, a long scale n-illion equals 106n.
In some languages, the long scale uses additional names for the intermediate multipliers, replacing the ending -ion with -iard; for example, the next multiplier after million is milliard (109); after a billion it is billiard (1015). Hence, a long scale n-iard equals 106n+3.
»
and
«
To avoid confusion resulting from the coexistence of the two scales, the International System of Units (SI) recommends using the metric prefix to indicate orders of magnitude, associated with physical quantities.
»
As you see, your assumptions about my intellect were wrong.
If God is eternal then how can a day be like a thousand years to God?
@@WilliamVoisen is Like meaning it’s an example. As time is so different..