Can We Trust Radiocarbon Dating? | Lesson 10 - Basics of Biblical Archaeology

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 11 янв 2025

Комментарии • 278

  • @kentslocum
    @kentslocum Год назад +46

    Whenever someone finds out that I'm a Christian, they inevitably say something along the lines of, "why do you believe in that unscientific nonsense?" When I ask why they think Christianity is unscientific, they always bring up radiocarbon dating as "proof" that the Bible is untrue. Thank you very much for explaining the truth!

    • @noahlarson1861
      @noahlarson1861 Год назад +13

      ​@@someguy5438"It doesn't agree with what I think, so it's just not science!" 😂😂

    • @noahlarson1861
      @noahlarson1861 Год назад +13

      @@someguy5438 You mean like evolution does? 🤣

    • @MisterDoctorAustin
      @MisterDoctorAustin Год назад +10

      @@someguy5438 a preconceived notion... like a hypothesis? Like, a scientific hypothesis that you're trying to test? Bruh, that IS science

    • @MisterDoctorAustin
      @MisterDoctorAustin Год назад

      @someguy5438 you're actually describing the illogical thought processes that people in the "radiocarbon dating is flawless science" camp are basing their arguments on. They will throw out all evidence saying that radiocarbon dating has issues (based on archeological and historical record) and will instead try to change the evidence to fit their radiocarbon dating timeline. In this video, evidence is produced, analyzed, and held up to the creationist paradigm as a way of analyzing the veracity of certain claims. No new facts have been manufactured to make the point in the video, but facts have to be created in order to explain why radiocarbon dating doesn't match archeological or historical timelines.

    • @noahlarson1861
      @noahlarson1861 Год назад +11

      @someguy5438 No, it's evolutionists who twist the evidence to fit the theory.
      But none of this has anything to do with that. This guy is literally just detailing what they found at this site and showing it does not contradict the Bible.

  • @Shivey-Caroline-7-23
    @Shivey-Caroline-7-23 Год назад +19

    Thank you brother Doug for sharing this study. Proverbs 25:2, It is the glory of God (Yah) to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. HalleluYah Amen!

  • @VSFilly
    @VSFilly Год назад +18

    Appreciate your teachings. I'm a nurse and still cannot grasp all..but absolutely comprehend the concept (very interesting!)
    I am intrigued with the Biblical account of King Hezekiah. He was an impressive young King!
    I love science and wholeheartedly embrace what many call the 'young Earth'. Thank you again.

  • @hayswhite
    @hayswhite Год назад +11

    I need this book to come out. I can’t wait! I love this channel Such a blessing ❤❤❤

  • @guidokuwas
    @guidokuwas 11 месяцев назад +1

    Thank you so much for this series, Mr Petrovich. I love how you take the Scriptures literally, just as I do. You make the Bible come alive with your archeological teachings.

  • @GGable
    @GGable Год назад +6

    This has been a great series, thank you!

  • @MisterDoctorAustin
    @MisterDoctorAustin Год назад +4

    This was incredibly enlightening. I'd always assumed that the decay rate of radiocarbon had slowed down at some point, but the biblical connection to post-flood lifespans and the gradual decline there also coinciding with the gradual decline of radiocarbon decay rates makes everything click into place. Awesome lesson!!!

    • @MisterDoctorAustin
      @MisterDoctorAustin Год назад +1

      @annieoaktree6774 Then why do we find discrepancies when trying to match radiocarbon dates with historically confirmed dates before 1400BC? You speak with confidence, but your point is invalidated by basic scientific and historical data.

    • @MisterDoctorAustin
      @MisterDoctorAustin Год назад

      @annieoaktree6774 It only took a few seconds of googling to find a comprehensive study from Cornell University where they found flaws and variations in radiocarbon dating based on environmental factors that threw off the radiocarbon dating by several years over the span of just a few decades. Imagine how far off those dates would drift after thousands of years. I'm not sure how you can back up the claim that we don't find discrepancies when we literally have ivy-league universities confirming that they exist and admitting that we don't have an accepted method in the scientific paradigm for dealing with thise discrepancies. It's OK that we don't know everything, but comments like yours, which make objectively false claims regarding the availability of evidence, muddy the waters in ways that make it impossible to actually reach a consensus on the truth of things.

    • @samburns3329
      @samburns3329 Год назад +1

      @@MisterDoctorAustin "It only took a few seconds of googling to find a comprehensive study from Cornell University" : Do you mean this 2018 study?
      *Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates*
      Researchers did a detailed study of one specific area of the Middle east and found its radiocarbon signatures may vary from the INTCAL13 calibration by as much as *19 years.* That's for a date of 3000 YBP. 19 years is less than 0.1% error. It's only a problem for high resolution dating in that specific area. Even if this was a systematic error across all 14C dating (which it is not) that would only give an error of less than 200 years for values of 30,000 YBP. You'll be happy to know the latest INTCAL20 calibration curves have corrected even this small anomaly with a calibration data set ten times deeper and more accurate than INTCAL13. 🙂

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад +1

      ​@@MisterDoctorAustin: _"Then why do we find discrepancies when trying to match radiocarbon dates with historically confirmed dates before 1400BC?"_
      That's the question. I have a theory. Kind of obvious. I'm surprised he didn't mention it. The problem isn't the decay rate but the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere. It was lower before the flood. (Not sure why, but for the same reason there were no rainbows before.) So for at least a couple thousand years after the flood, the concentration increased at an exponentially decreasing rate as it approached equilibrium.

    • @anthonypolonkay2681
      @anthonypolonkay2681 Год назад +4

      Yall don't need to listen to Annieoaklies or whatever. I already had a back abdvfourth with em, abd when you present them with evidence they just call you a liar, and claim to have won.

  • @GodGuy8
    @GodGuy8 Год назад +8

    Been wanting to know more about how to counter the decay rate argument the old earth people use. Gonna watch closely!

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 Год назад

      Estimated of the age of this good OLD earth are based on many different kinds of radiometric testing, as well as other observations. Radiocarbon dating is only good on materials still containing organic stuff.

    • @metapolitikgedanken612
      @metapolitikgedanken612 Год назад +1

      @@stevepierce6467 He said decay rate argument. This would also apply to non-radiocarbon techniques. But there is a problem with applying the scientific method in the past. You can't verify on it, you can't go back and observe it. You have to rely on present day observation and transpose them in the past. And there is also an issue, if you calibrate this using several methods. And that is when there was a general factors affecting all those rates.
      So as far as the decay rates are concerned, they may give you indications, but they aren't 100% proof neither.
      As far as other radioactive decay rates are concerned, this may also have been subject to leaching or other factors affecting the compositions there. It's a methodological issue, before it becomes a technical one.

  • @tdzenda
    @tdzenda Год назад +3

    1400 years BC also coincides with the time a year was extended by one day (Joshua 10:13).

  • @JennaD7207
    @JennaD7207 3 месяца назад +2

    I believe in the Bible but i was taught evolution not creation. And ive always felt conflicted, so i prayed about it and asked God to reveal to me the truth. The next day i came across a video by chance that explains that the world is about 6 1/2 thousand years old. That video explains how the carbon dating isnt completely accurate, and explains the world through creation beliefs. I felt so relieved, like it all suddenly made sense. I dont doubt the Bible at all. Plus, scientists dont account for the world flood. But there is a lot of evidence suggesting the flood really happened. I think the formula used in carbon dating is not always able to be used but scientists always wanna use the same formula for everything, all the time. Look at how long people lived at the beginning of time. A lot different then today.

  • @samburns3329
    @samburns3329 Год назад +5

    What is really hilarious (and very telling) at 11:50 he shows *calibration corrected* radiocarbon dates which agree with his other historic chronology. You can see "Calibrated date (calBCE)" right on the bottom of the slide. Then at 27:35 he shows radiocarbon dates which are *NOT* calibration corrected and complains they are inaccurate. This lends credence to the "being deliberately deceptive" hypothesis. 🙂

    • @settledown444
      @settledown444 Год назад +2

      That's pretty damning evidence for deliberate deception. I wonder why none of the creationists here will comment on it?

    • @metapolitikgedanken612
      @metapolitikgedanken612 Год назад +1

      On whose side? And why would that be a problem. If somebody is 'deliberately deceptive' (I do agree though. But mostly it is conclusion jumping). There is also the issue that calibration can be set up to meet certain goals that are assumed to be true a priori.

    • @docsavage30
      @docsavage30 Год назад

      It's hard to reach another conclusion.

    • @metapolitikgedanken612
      @metapolitikgedanken612 Год назад

      @@docsavage30 Nobody said an empirically-rational approach is easy.
      And I get logic can appear tricky.

    • @thadofalltrades
      @thadofalltrades 11 месяцев назад +1

      He quotes Manfred Bietak at around 24:00. Bietak is questioning whether there needs to be a rethinking of the 14C dating. Are you going to now say Manfred Bietak is being deceitful?

  • @5.56_Media
    @5.56_Media Год назад +6

    No.
    Evolutionist William Stansfield said "there is no absolutely reliable long term radiological clock"
    Too many assumptions have to take place for it to be reliable.
    Such as the rate of decay has always been the same throughout history, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is the same as it always has been and is based on the assumption that the geologic column is correct.
    When they tested the method with 3 sheets of known ages (as a control test) the results came out 1100 years off, twice,
    When in reality the sheets were from 3000 B.C.

  • @bc288
    @bc288 8 месяцев назад +2

    great video but i have a quick question, if the radiocarbon dating is consistently (or exponentially?) off before 1400 bc, then could you just find the linear trend and predict from there?

    • @bc288
      @bc288 8 месяцев назад

      or did i miss something?
      genuinely

    • @bc288
      @bc288 8 месяцев назад

      also sorry but could there be a different dating method that could like bypass or be more accurate before 1400 bc?

  • @CrayonboxAviationAdventures
    @CrayonboxAviationAdventures Год назад +4

    Thanks for the video. Great explanation.

  • @peterdavis9403
    @peterdavis9403 11 месяцев назад +1

    Perhaps the Pre-Flood atmosphere reduced the Carbon 14 production (ergo uptake rate) and if the Flood did not relieve ALL of the "extra atmosphere" in the year of the Flood, but released the remainder exponentially decreasing to the equilibrium of 1400 BCE.

  • @chilkat_river
    @chilkat_river Год назад +1

    This is so interesting. We were just learning about how carbon is created inside of stars.
    The process is called the ‘triple alpha process’ because it is a nuclear fusion reaction in which three helium nuclei (alpha particles) fuse to form a carbon nucleus, thereby releasing energy.

    • @steveOCalley
      @steveOCalley Год назад +2

      But that specifically makes carbon-12, and our sun is not hot enough for triple-alpha fusion. C-14 is largely produced by cosmic radiation on N-14

    • @chilkat_river
      @chilkat_river Год назад +1

      @@steveOCalley Yes, our sun is too small to create carbon. There are billions of stars large enough to do that. I'm trying not to troll this channel. It's good to hear from someone who understands how elements are created.

    • @steveOCalley
      @steveOCalley Год назад +1

      @@chilkat_riverFor sure! I just want to address this fellow’s pride, which leads him to extol his own ideas as somehow profound. In reality he presents one question, that of accuracy in C-14 dating, and not opening the door to the long history of legitimate scientific study that this very question has long ago inspired. In traditional Biblical study one asks hard questions and struggles to understand what is not clear. The principles of science can be found in legitimate bible study. Instead, he arms people to doubt without legitimacy. That’s why I’m here.

  • @coachsalling
    @coachsalling 5 месяцев назад

    Excellent presentation and explanation.

  • @davidpatrick1813
    @davidpatrick1813 Год назад +2

    Interesting and useful. Thank you,.

  • @docsavage30
    @docsavage30 Год назад +1

    When does misrepresentation cross into bearing false witness?

  • @roblangsdorf8758
    @roblangsdorf8758 Год назад +5

    Also, it should be noted that coal, which was laid down during the flood seems to produce Carbon14 dates of 40,000 to 60,000 years. This would be consistent with plants that grew before the destruction of the preflood environment.

    • @dalepeterson5609
      @dalepeterson5609 Год назад +1

      Very good point. However, we must be willing to acknowledge the facts pointed out in this presentation that the rate of 14C decay was exponentially different before during and a few thousand years after the flood.

    • @nookymonster1
      @nookymonster1 Год назад +2

      Coal was NOT laid down by the floods. The history
      of coal is far more interesting than such silly nonsense.

    • @michi9816
      @michi9816 Год назад

      ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@dalepeterson5609this is nonsense and made up to cover the inconsistencies and errors of young earth creationists theories. laws of physics have not changes the last couple of thousand years. in fact there is a strong argument radioactive decay could was not as fast as you claim: heat. radioactive decay causes heat and with a rate that high life would not be possible. properly done radiocarbon dating is quite accurate. there are many methods and all of them are based on laws of physics and if dating is done from different labs, the results are the same. C14 dating is working for probes between 300 and 60.000 years old. the age of stone coal is between 280 and 345 million years.

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 Год назад +1

      @@nookymonster1 Exactly how was coal laid down in deposits, like those found in Wyoming, that dozens of feet thick, by the classical swamp teachings? The classical swamp deposits should have roots throughout them, but the real deposits have layers of bark, etc.

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 Год назад +1

      @someguy5438 Can you please site examples of coal being tested for C14? They are out there to be found.

  • @dukdog
    @dukdog 10 месяцев назад +1

    My theory for some time has been similar, but instead of a change in decay rate I've been wondering if it were a change in atmospheric composition. The modern estimated ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 today is approximately 1 to 1,000,000,000,000. They assume upon death that this is what exists in the body and then they find how much smaller the ratio is. But if the ratio was smaller to begin with, things would start to appear drastically older. 2 things that could cause this are as follows. But first we must remember that Carbon 12 becomes Carbon 13 and Carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere due to being ionized by radioactive photons.
    1. If the upper atmosphere were composed in a different way so as to shield the planet from radioactivity it would lower this ratio drastically. It could also have the effect of the possibility longer life spans due to not being bombarded by radioactive solar rays that might cause things like cancer when you walk outside. This would be theoretically achievable with a preflood high concentration of water in the upper firmament (the planet looking more like a gas giant from space) and would also explain the interesting differences in weather patterns reported in pre flood literature.
    2. A reset occured when massive quantities of unionized carbon from under the crust flooded the atmosphere in a global apocalyptic catastrophic siesmic event instantly dropping the ratio. This, however is less likely to explain preflood discrepancies though, all preflood items should be expected to date accurately in this model (or this model alone) with post flood items looking more ancient than preflood.
    If you're looking for a change in decay rate you're trying to line up a new linear model that intersects our current model around 1400 BC. But with any of these models you should also (or instead?) look for a exponential model (or logarithmic?) which bigins post flood and reaches its limit at around 1400 BC as the first few centuries will saturate faster than the last few as it nears our current levels. Things right after the flood under the current model would look millions of years apart when they were mere decades while those close to th 1400s BC would look centuries apart instead of decades.

    • @dukdog
      @dukdog 10 месяцев назад

      Forgot to mention, not sure what the model preflood would look like, but it should be evaluated separately.

    • @Nils-gi5bv
      @Nils-gi5bv 8 месяцев назад

      Effects that contribute to fluctuations in the 14C content of the atmosphere have long been known and even Libby had already suspected that fluctuations and thus incorrect determinations are possible. These errors have long been adjusted by calibrations using other independent methods. In any case, they were never so large as to lead to massive errors.

  • @technicianbis5250
    @technicianbis5250 11 месяцев назад

    @ 16:51 "what does radio carbon dating"
    Willard Libby the father of radiocarbon dating stated it was only accurate to 5,500 years so king david living 3,000 years ago backed up by radiocarbon dating is not an issue for creationists.

  • @JacoBecker
    @JacoBecker 7 месяцев назад

    Thank you so much for sharing. Praise our Good LORD CHRIST JESUS! HE is able; HE saves and HE Redeems.

  • @francisbusa1074
    @francisbusa1074 Год назад

    Thank you Dr. Petrovitch for acknowledging the problem in trusting the translations/versions derived from the Masoretic Text where the timeline of Biblical archeology is concerned.
    However, according to S. Douglas Woodward's calcs there are probably at least two or more centuries to add into the timeline since the Creation of Adam.
    I appreciate your take on C14 dating.

    • @dasan9178
      @dasan9178 Год назад

      The Masoretic text originates from the 8th century AD. Jerome was actually ideally situated in the 4th century as a scholar with advanced knowledge/expertise in ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin. He had access to ancient Hebrew and other Biblical documents that no longer exist today, as well as other scholars of Hebrew and Greek with knowledge, expertise and access to yet more. Jerome’s work on the NT and OT is far more reliable and complete than the later translations based on the Masoretic.
      The most accurate translation of the Bible remains the Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheims (a nearly exact translation, the main shortcoming being that Latin words say much more than English). All other Bible translations have not only dramatically changed and dumbed down the language, but also removed whole books, chapters and verses.
      A quick comparison of the books and chapters in early Bibles in relationship to later Bibles easily confirms that a great deal of content was removed at the beginning of Protestantism…NOT added as has been alleged.

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      The Septuagint has a contradiction between the death of Methuselah and the flood drowning all people who weren't on the ark (check the timeline and you'll find that the LXX has him dying 13 years after the flood, despite how he wasn't on the ark). The LXX is definitely incorrect because of the unsolvable paradox, meaning it can't be trusted.

    • @francisbusa1074
      @francisbusa1074 Год назад +1

      ​@@AutoEngineerVideos
      I'll check that out. Thanks.

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      @@francisbusa1074you're welcome.

  • @alanbutler7712
    @alanbutler7712 Год назад +7

    Amen! The Bible holds the answer and standard every time !!

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 Год назад

      Yep, the bible holds the answer and it may not be questioned. Science is full of questions which are begging to be answered. (Paraphrase!)

    • @oldironsides3992
      @oldironsides3992 Год назад

      ​@stevepierce6467 Do you choose not to believe in God?

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 Год назад

      @@oldironsides3992 Yes, indeed. Until some evidence can be shown that a god, any god at all, exists, I choose not to believe. But even in my old age, I would go to war to defend your right to believe. I would hope you would fight also to defend my right not to.

    • @oldironsides3992
      @oldironsides3992 Год назад +1

      @stevepierce6467 atleast we can agree to the defense of each other's rights. Amen. Your previous paraphrase above is a contradiction of itself.

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 Год назад

      @@oldironsides3992 Not a contradiction at all, rather a juxtaposition which shows in stark black and white the difference between dogmatic fundamentalist religious people and those who are open to seeking verifiable truth about the world. For you, one particular set of religious beliefs is the final and unalterable answer (never mind all the other sets of beliefs which contradict yours), whereas for me, here is the world, full of mysteries worthy of delving into, and a sense of excitement (yes, still at age 74) at learning what new discoveries have been made. Hubble and Webb telescopes fill my mind with bubbling percolating questions while bringing me great pleasure at what new horizons have just been opened. Where is the shame in knowing (knowing, not believing) that we are very closely related to monkeys and that we share a common ancestor with them. Look at the behavior of any simian, or any animal for that matter, and you will see a universal nobleness among them that is exhibited among us "superior" humans less frequently. I for one am proud to know I am a cousin of apes (and even a 17th cousin thrice removed of oak trees (we share 50% of our genes).

  • @southpawjimmy9735
    @southpawjimmy9735 Год назад +1

    Could this just mean the math on the dating is wrong? Like the farther the target is the wider you miss by being off a degree and the closer you are it appears you're hitting a bullseye every time.

  • @paulhease1007
    @paulhease1007 Год назад

    Doug -- An C14 offset of 120-160 years for Jericho in 1406 doesn't really match a slowly increasing (exponential?) increase starting from zero at 1400 BC does it??? Unless that is the initial offset and it increases from there??? I am confused.

  • @AutoEngineerVideos
    @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад +2

    If the Septuagint is correct about chronology, Methuselah would've died 13 years after the flood. How could that be correct if he wasn't on the ark and the flood was global, wiping out everyone except the eight people on the ark? As an archaeologist, the presenter should know that he needs to check his sources to see if they're correct or not. I've also noticed in previous episodes that he has made stuff up, saying that certain things "probably happened," when the Bible says that something else happened that excludes his suppositions. If "Genesis is history," then you need to BELIEVE EVERYTHING it says, AND the account in the Septuagint CANNOT be the true account because the numbers DON'T ADD UP! The fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan Bible agree with the Septuagint in its timeline in Genesis only confirms that they had a common source, not that they're all correct. This is an obvious case of "the majority" being wrong. If you do some digging into the facts of history, you'll find that the story of the Septuagint being translated separately by seventy Jewish scholars, and miraculously being identical for all seventy versions was a lie that was spread to try to give the Septuagint an appearance of authenticity. If the Masoretic text is not the inspired Word of God (or at least, an accurate representation of history), then none of them are! Be careful what you use as your source material, and DO NOT try to force fallible and erroneous man-made "science" onto the Bible!

    • @cosmictreason2242
      @cosmictreason2242 Год назад

      To be fair, the Septuagint is the version cited in the Gospels so God considered it a good enough translation to be usable.

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      @@cosmictreason2242most passages are probably good enough, but there are inaccuracies. Where a conflict exists, the Masoretic should be used. Also, the age of the Masoretic text is a smoke-screen because vowels weren't added to the Hebrew until the Masoretic text, but the Hebrew Bible existed prior to the Masoretic, and as it says in the New Testament, God gave the Jews the oracles of God (ie: the Bible at the time when Paul wrote the passage I'm alluding to) to preserve them. God didn't give the Old Testament to the Greeks to preserve. In other words, the New Testament specifically states that we should look to the books as preserved by the Jews, not the Samaritans and not the Greeks.

  • @janehelbert7551
    @janehelbert7551 Год назад +2

    This is fascinating!

    • @helpmaboabb
      @helpmaboabb Год назад

      Yes, it is. The bogus scientific delivery is peculiarly American... reminds me of the "Ark" exhibit and dinosaurs next to men in animal skins.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад +2

      ​@@helpmaboabb Wow. So you hate the Bible, hate science and hate Americans. Ouch.

    • @technicianbis5250
      @technicianbis5250 11 месяцев назад

      @@helpmaboabb
      Typical, because a creationist tells you something they must be lying or misinformed?

  • @GodFirstnl
    @GodFirstnl Год назад

    Could it be that the atmosphere wasn’t saturated yet with C14 up until 1400bc, just because the earth is young?

  • @RichAbe23
    @RichAbe23 Год назад +1

    This is interesting regarding changes in decay rate in radiocarbon dating going back before 1400 BC. This might be why Secular scientists are taking what normally would be considerably slow decay rate and coming to the conclusion of “millions” of years when testing various earth samples.

    • @michi9816
      @michi9816 Год назад

      the decay rate did not change. it is based on physical laws valid since the universe starting to exist many billion of years ago. the decay rate young earth creationist claim, would lead to an enormous amount of heat life could not sustain. this is clearly debunked, which has clear consequences: it is proved, earth is some 4.5 billion years old and the theory of young earth creation is debunked.

    • @501Mobius
      @501Mobius Год назад

      The decay rate doesn't change. The rate of carbon 14 created did. It is caused by cosmic rays which impact carbon in the atmosphere. This can vary to a degree because of solar activity, Earth's magnetic field changes or just extreme events in the galaxy and beyond. But it isn't digital. It doesn't just change by 150 years between 1400 and 1401 BC. It is gradual and fluctuating. You can find charts of the changes online. The block changes are not accurate for the years they cover. They have been mapped and accounted for by synchronisms with tree-rings to over 10,000 years.

    • @anthonypolonkay2681
      @anthonypolonkay2681 Год назад

      ​@@501Mobius
      Yeah except the tree ring data itself falls to the same issue of only verifying the results that confirm the deep ages. And any data that does not fall close to, or match the slope closely enough is counted as anomalous, or contaminated even though its the majority of data points that fall into that category. Ratios that support the ascribed age dont mean anything if they are just one of many different ratios measured from the same sampling base, and are just subjectively chosen/rejected based on how well they fit the conclusion.
      That is if you are talking about petrified/ancient tree ring counting.
      Obviously if you are talking about modern dendochronology they way they sort out the wrong ratios, from the correct ratios is because it's a contemporary organism, and we know independent from radioisotope measurements how old it is, so based on that whenever we get a sample that reads a ratio that wouldn't put it at a contemporary age then we throw that one out.
      But you don't have that for ancient/petrified trees.

    • @anthonypolonkay2681
      @anthonypolonkay2681 Год назад

      @annieoaktree6774 oh your the guy I already schooled in the other comment. That makes a lot of sense.

    • @anthonypolonkay2681
      @anthonypolonkay2681 Год назад

      @annieoaktree6774 so far you've been the only one with just claims, and name calling. I mean if you think that's how truth is decided then good for you, but if you expect others to give you the same credit you are giving yourself then that's actually funny.

  • @YHWH_is_ELOHIM
    @YHWH_is_ELOHIM Месяц назад

    I thought that the verse saying that man's days shall be 120 years meant that they had 120 years before the flood.

  • @cosmictreason2242
    @cosmictreason2242 Год назад

    Im gonna need strong reasons for shifting dates farther back than implied by the patriarchal genealogies and the date of the temple's destruction. Has to be better than "i don't understand how egypt and China etc can arise between 2200-1600"

  • @ClarkRiggins
    @ClarkRiggins Год назад +1

    You finding a would inform the dating of Gobekli Tepi and Carahan Tepi that are dated 12000 plus BC?

    • @cosmictreason2242
      @cosmictreason2242 Год назад

      They are absolutely not that old. Those dates are sheer fantasy

  • @dasan9178
    @dasan9178 Год назад +1

    WHAT IF…the rate of entropy has drastically accelerated through the ages?
    After all, in the beginning, there was no entropy/decay. When Adam fell, all of creation fell with him. Even so, the rate of entropy was much slower than today (as evidenced by the very long lifespans and greater health of humans).As the rate of entropy increased, lifespans became progressively shorter. In Adam’s day, a human could expect to live close to 1000 years. At this time, we’re lucky to live anywhere near 100…or maybe not so lucky considering how sick and disabled the average person over 80 tends to be. That’s quite a change in so short a time.
    So, shouldn’t Carbon 14 dating be taking an increased rate of entropy into account? If a changing rate of entropy were plugged into the algorithm, what would happen next?

  • @501Mobius
    @501Mobius Год назад +1

    Outside the 14C matter I was surprised anyone would put down Saul's years as king. That is because there is contradictory values for it, based on how it is determined. Take for example: that the ark was brought to Kiriath-jearim [1 Sam 7:1] before Saul became king [1 Sam 10:4] . And was there 20 years [1 Sam 7:2]. Yet was removed from there [2 Sam 6:1-6] 7 1/2 years [2 Sam 5:5] into David's reign. Do the math. That is less than 20 years.

    • @all41tja
      @all41tja Год назад +1

      Less? Would not the "20" years end when 1Sa 14:18 Saul ask for the Ark? Even if he put it back, it would not have been there continually?

    • @501Mobius
      @501Mobius Год назад +1

      @@all41tja I had thought that, but the ark never moved. The 'withdraw your hand' must have meant stop what you were doing. There is no evidence of it having moved.

    • @501Mobius
      @501Mobius Год назад +1

      The date of Saul also begets a credibility problem. Because of the dates Saul begins his reign 111 years after Jephthah begins his. That is 1406 -1049 -111 = 246 years after the start of the conquest. Jephthah however claimed in Judges 11:26 Israel lived on the banks of the Arnon 300 years. 300 > 246.

    • @bookofrevelation4924
      @bookofrevelation4924 Год назад

      ​@@501Mobiusthese are but a few.
      I've found several more.
      My conclusion so far is that the exact dating is closest when supported by the book of Jubilees.
      Beyond that I'm thinking exact dates are difficult to record and keep as written records, and perhaps some dating is kept ambiguous intentionally by God to test hearts.
      If the goal is producing the Holy Spirit in human flesh hearts with it's fruit, then is exact dating needed or even important?

  • @chris.asi_romeo
    @chris.asi_romeo Год назад +1

    Great video.👏💯

  • @davejohnston5925
    @davejohnston5925 Год назад

    I remember reading as a young adolescent back in the mid 1960's that the Earth's atmosphere was bleeding off into the vacuum of space ergo the below experiment may answer some questions???
    and I wouldn't know how to set up to test this hypothsis:
    1. Select organic materials nominally found in the region (Levant).
    2. Increase atmospheric pressure by 2 or greater
    3. Reduce Ultraviolet light to 1/4th of current level observed at ground level
    4. Increase humidity levels by 25 to 35 % of current values in the region (levant).
    $. Observe the rate of decay... See Genesis 1:6-8. Therein may lie the reason.

  • @DennyGayTk-421
    @DennyGayTk-421 Год назад

    "scientists" get really bent out shape when you question their religion. Thanks Doug.

  • @lynnmitzy1643
    @lynnmitzy1643 Год назад +8

    I think it was Del Tackett that said they tested rocks on Mt St Helens . They knew these rocks were created in 1980 eruption but they 14C test dated to millions of years.

    • @shdwbnndbyyt
      @shdwbnndbyyt Год назад +1

      True. The same is true for other recent volcanic eruptions, the dates always test out to millions of years... as long as they do not tell the testing lab where the samples were coming from.

    • @davoforrest5
      @davoforrest5 Год назад +5

      Hey just a little correction, rocks are not usually tested for Carbon -14, because they are not organic material ( based on carbon atom) , but better tested with K-40 or U-235 or U-238. Nevertheless certainly radiometric dating comes with many assumptions and other problems. Not trying to be difficult so please taking comment in the spirit it is offered 👍

    • @haggismcbaggis9485
      @haggismcbaggis9485 Год назад

      Yes. Radiometric rock dating does work well for eruptions less than 2,000 years. The youngest volcano accurately dated is Vesuvius. Not enough decay has occurred to be measured in the lab.

    • @steveOCalley
      @steveOCalley Год назад

      If that man said those words, he is being vain and dishonest. C-14 dating is worthless for over 50,000 years ago. If he speaks on this, people must have told him this already.

    • @cosmictreason2242
      @cosmictreason2242 Год назад +1

      @@steveOCalleydavo already corrected op. Mt st Helen's lava dome was K-Ar dated to 1.5 million years when it was 20 or 30 years old

  • @dasan9178
    @dasan9178 Год назад

    Dr. Petrovich is either wrong about the meaning of 120 years (*Gen. 6:3 - see below for text), or there is a double meaning in that passage (???). Reference discussion at 37:34 min.
    Simple math shows that the period of time between God’s statement in Genesis 6:3 and the onset of the Great Flood was …. 120 years. The key is the timing of Methuselah’s death on Noah’s timeline of events. It’s not hard to put it together.
    * Gen. 6:3: “My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”
    Could this passage reflect BOTH God declaring a time limit on His patience (the time remaining until He unleashes the Great Flood) AND His decision to limit future human lifespans to 120 years?

  • @int31cm
    @int31cm Год назад +1

    very well done. Thank you.

  • @georgemay8170
    @georgemay8170 Год назад

    Could it be that God made sure that the rate of decay before 1400 B.C. is not to be known for a reason? Believing in Him by the gift of faith born in us by the power of the Holy Spirit to believe the atonement of His Son "trumps" the evidence, i.e., believing in Him by evidence? However, the archaeological evidence does help our confidence in the sense that we can be more of a "sting" in our proclamation of the Gospel.

  • @masada2828
    @masada2828 2 месяца назад

    The Flood was 1665 years after creation or, 2335bc, the Exodus was 1446bc, the Temple commenced construction in 966bc, King David started to rein as King 40 years before in 1006bc.

  • @carltonhobbs
    @carltonhobbs Год назад

    In the debate over LXX vs. Masoretic timing, an important side issue is how Josephus understood the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1. Namely this: It was 480 years of independence not counting 112 years when Israel was subjugated in the era of Judges and not free. So a chronology count would make it 592 years and puts the Exodus in 1558 BC.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад

      Dr.Petrovich very convincingly puts the exodus at 1446 BC. He's solid.

    • @carltonhobbs
      @carltonhobbs Год назад

      @@KenJackson_US It's almost as if Dr. Petrovich is admitting that Josephus and I are right without knowing it by mentioning "the 100 to 150 year offset". Josephus told us it was 112 years.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад

      ​@@carltonhobbs According to Dr.Petrovich Jacob moved his family to Egypt in 1876 BC and the exodus was 430 years later in 1446 BC. What is 480 years?

    • @carltonhobbs
      @carltonhobbs Год назад

      @@KenJackson_US 480 years [of independence] is 1 Kings 6:1, the period from Exodus to Temple. But also per Paul in Act 13, that period included at least 573 years. So if Petrovich uses the simple misunderstanding of 1 Kings 6:1, but agreeing on 966 BC as date for Temple, then both 1446 BC and 1876 BC have to be adjusted ~100 years more ancient.

  • @DevinAdint
    @DevinAdint Год назад

    The issue I have with Thiele's timeline is it runs a muck with Ezekiel 4 which Israel's sin starting with Jeroboam setting up idols to the siege of Jerusalem as being 390 years yet Thiele's timeline of the kings has it shrunk by 50 years down to 340 years. Further, as I read Kings and Chronicles the idea of coregency is not apparent for many reigns in scripture. In fact for example, he overlaps Amaziah and Uzziah's reigns because Amaziah was defeated by Jehoash even though it's clear Amaziah was not exiled and was brought back to Jerusalem. Uzziah wasn't make king until the people got fed up paying tribute and killed Amaziah and made Uzziah king at age 16. The siege and destruction of Jerusalem is dated to around 586BC plus 390 years places Solomon's death at 978BC and the beginning of his reign to between 1016-1018BC depending upon the ex/inclusion of the 2 year siege. This places David's reign to about 1058BC and the beginning of Saul's reign to about 1098BC. Then there are further issues with the period of the judges. Moffatt when he translated the Septuagint bracketed the 480 years from the exodus to the temple as being a scribal note because it doesn't appear in all manuscripts. Also in Acts 13 Paul says the period of the judges was 450 years which would make the period from the exodus to the temple more like 580 years.

  • @kongilian
    @kongilian Год назад

    What happened around 1400BC to screw with the isotopes? Joshua's long day?

    • @haggismcbaggis9485
      @haggismcbaggis9485 Год назад

      He says that Moses died. Moses had Holy light beams shining out of his head that must have normalized carbon ratios in the atmosphere.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад +1

      Probably nothing happened at a particular time. I suspect the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere was at a lower concentration after the flood than it is today, so it was increasing yearly but at an exponentially decreasing rate. 1400 BC was just the knee of the curve where it became close enough to call it even.

  • @jaywinters2483
    @jaywinters2483 Год назад +2

    Could be climate change around 1400 BC. We know there were grizzly bears in the Holy Land. David killed a bear & depictiond back then show the characteristic hump of grizzlys. We also know the Negev was more of a jungle & lions lurked in the vegetation around the meandering river of Jordan. Look at the alpine meadows in North
    east USA, You can tell the water levels were higher. In upstate NY the rivers were a lot higher a few centuries ago. In my life alone I've seen surface waters descend. We know winters were worse. The winter of 1757 was one of the worst ever. Israel is a desert now compared to what it was. It could also be solar in origin. (?)

  • @shdwbnndbyyt
    @shdwbnndbyyt Год назад

    Two changes that could affect the radiocarbon dating would be the creation of C14, for which the canopy above mentioned in Genesis (or the possible "fogs" mentioned by the scientists) would reduce the radiation intensity, or the decay rate of C14. I know there is some evidence of other radionucleides having had variable decay rates that I have read about in the scientific literature over the past 3-4 decades.

    • @dougmoore4653
      @dougmoore4653 Год назад

      it doesn't have to be the decay rate but HOW MUCH C14 is in that current atmosphere. and a young earth would suggest 3000+ yrs ago there was less C14 absorbed during those years and would give a reading the would need to be adjusted for (his offset)

    • @shdwbnndbyyt
      @shdwbnndbyyt Год назад

      @@dougmoore4653 Sorry if I was not clear, the "or the decay rate of C14" was the second of the two changes that could affect the radiocarbon dating ( first part of sentence), and not a part of the first change -- the creation rate of C14.

    • @haggismcbaggis9485
      @haggismcbaggis9485 Год назад

      ​@dougmoore4653 Isn't that what calibration curves are for? Such as those from the Hohenheim dendrochronology.

    • @shdwbnndbyyt
      @shdwbnndbyyt Год назад +1

      @annieoaktree6774 Of course most scientists who hold the establishment view make the assumption that when a rock is formed, only the parent radionucleide is present... never any of the decay products. They also assume (which has been disproven by the same establishment, but downplayed) that the decay rates have been stable for millions and billions of years. Just an FYI. I am a chemist, who studied to be a nuclear engineer until Three Mile Island ruined the prospects of a career in that field.

  • @randomvintagefilm273
    @randomvintagefilm273 Год назад

    What about the rock testing. Is it isotopes?

    • @dougmoore4653
      @dougmoore4653 Год назад

      rock testing is for certain rock elements that decay and the parent / daughter ratio would have to be known in the initial rock formation to get accurate readings.

  • @rodneyh7151
    @rodneyh7151 Год назад +2

    The Bible is true been proven true so many times .

  • @King_of_the_Monsters-605
    @King_of_the_Monsters-605 Год назад

    Not enough chances to just read the screen at times. Maybe show both speaker and screen more often.

  • @janehelbert7551
    @janehelbert7551 Год назад +1

    Don't you have to know the original level of carbon-14?

  • @craigroiosr3205
    @craigroiosr3205 Год назад

    Isn't 1400 bc when earth started having near pass bys with mars?

  • @jeromejacobsen2130
    @jeromejacobsen2130 Год назад

    Remember that Carbon 14 is made by cosmic rays converting a Nitrogen Proton to a Neutron. Eventually through decay the C14 reverts back to Nitrogen. What if the earth, as created, had no initial C14 in the atmosphere? The generation of C14 would then begin, but the atmosphere would be low in C14 until it reached a point at which production rate equaled the decay rate. The age of samples are determined by comparing the ratio of C14 to C12, higher levels of C14 indicate a young age, lower C14 indicates an older sample. If the new earth had no C14, the result would be that things that died early in history would have a low initial C14 level, and testing today would indicate an age much older than it really was. As C14 in the atmosphere increases over time, the C14 dating would gradually converge onto the real age of the organisms. Dr. Petrovich's presentation would seem to indicate the C14 stability was reached about 1400 BC. The problem is how to test this. I wonder if one could C14 test the rings of a long-lived tree, such as a bristlecone pine - comparing the age of the inner (youngest) rings to the outermost (newest) to see if the ages are linear or exponential. But that depends on if the Carbon in the various rings does not migrate around from ring to ring.

    • @samburns3329
      @samburns3329 Год назад

      14C calibration is done back to 55,000 YBP and shows the claims in this video are completely wrong. See the calibration results at INTCAL20.

    • @jeromejacobsen2130
      @jeromejacobsen2130 Год назад

      @@samburns3329 Thanks for the info. Could you help me understand your first statement? What event from 50K Years ago do we have knowledge of that was used to calibrate C14 decay?

    • @samburns3329
      @samburns3329 Год назад

      @@jeromejacobsen2130 Historic atmospheric 14C/12C ratios were calibrated back to 55,000 years, not 14C decay rate. 14C decay rate is assumed to be constant because there is zero evidence and zero known mechanism which would cause it to ever change. The same goes for all radiometric decay series.

    • @jeromejacobsen2130
      @jeromejacobsen2130 Год назад

      @@samburns3329 If you watched the video, you would know that Dr. Petrovich presented evidence that there is a discrepancy between known historical dates and the C14 date. So how can you say there is no evidence? And your use of the word calibrated confuses me. Since there is no known historical event from 55 K years ago we can compare the C14 dating to, there can be no 'calibration'.

    • @samburns3329
      @samburns3329 Год назад

      @@jeromejacobsen2130 There is no discrepancy. The dates he cited were off because he didn't include the well known 14C calibration offsets as determined in the INTCAL20 Calibration Curves. Whether he did this by accident or deliberately is the question. We have plenty of natural yearly phenomena which can be traced back to way earlier than 55,000 years - lake varves, ice cores, ocean basin cores, cave stalactites, coral growth bands. So we do have lots of historical things earlier than 55,000 years.

  • @dougmoore4653
    @dougmoore4653 Год назад +1

    carbon dating suggests that the carbon absorbed 3000 yrs ago = same as today
    BUT if the earth is younger then there was LESS carbon absorbed 3000+ yrs ago and you will get numbers greater then they really are like a 50,000 yr old mammoth.
    we also know carbon has not reached maximin in our atmosphere which also suggests a young earth.

  • @sanders194539
    @sanders194539 Год назад +4

    I always thought that the 6,000 year old time line was a bit short for the complex civilizations to exist during the time of Abraham as described in the Bible. But the English translations suggest about a 6,000 year time line, so perhaps a bit is lost from the Hebrew translation. A 7,000 time line does seem more probable.

    • @herr.schmidt
      @herr.schmidt Год назад

      Exponential Growth is sometimes hard to imagine. The US had 2 Mio. people 250 years ago. India had 350 Mio. people 75 years ago.

    • @sanders194539
      @sanders194539 Год назад

      Yes, I have done the math, populations have grown at a tremendous rate, but I still think the 6,000 year timeline may be a bit short. There was likely a great deal of mortality during the Ice Age.

    • @herr.schmidt
      @herr.schmidt Год назад +2

      @@sanders194539 Why do you think that? Wasn't glaciation just in Northern Europe and North America, both regions of the world that were settled much later? The first civilizations emerged in the Middle East and North Africa. When the Sahara was still wet.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад

      ​@@sanders194539: _"But the English translations suggest about a 6,000 year time line, ..."_
      You're talking about English translations of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. I was very pleased to hear him say that the Greek translation, the Septuagint, is more accurate on that point.
      He didn't say it, but the reason is probably that the scribes hated hearing that Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, so they removed 650 years from the timeline, which shifted Shem into Abraham's lifetime. To this day, all Rabis claim Melchizedek was Shem, which would destroy the claim in the book of Hebrews if that were true.
      The Greek OT was more widely distributed, so they didn't have the opportunity to corrupt it.
      Another translation, the Samaritan Pentateuch, agrees with the Greek, as do early copies of Josephus.

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      @@sanders194539 read my comment on how the Septuagint's timeline sets up a contradiction in Methuselah and the flood. If the Masoretic isn't correct, then none of them are correct.

  • @rldcafe2500
    @rldcafe2500 Год назад +1

    One point I would raise up.... We now know that time is NOT constant because the speed of light is not constant. This would seem to to have "some' impact to the dating process. The question would be, to what extent?

  • @DavidLeeMenefee
    @DavidLeeMenefee Год назад

    Today the geomagnetic field strength is 0.5 Gauss. 1400 years earlier or in 625AD the geomagnetic field strength would have been 1.0 Gauss and 1400 earlier than that or in 775BC it would have been 2.0 Gauss and 1400 earlier than that or in 2175BC it would have been 4.0 Gauss.
    Thus, 14C content would not be constant, it shows significant variations. This is caused by changes in the Earth's geomagnetic field strength. A strong geomagnetic field sheilds Earth from cosmic rays and reduces the ratio of 14C to 12C thus a decrease of 85.7% should be expected. Increased strength of the Earth's Magnetic Field may be responible for "too old" dates from 1400 AD to 300 BC, and "too young" before 300 BC. Adjust your dates by increments down to 14.3%.

  • @spatrk6634
    @spatrk6634 4 месяца назад

    imagine this being your source of education

  • @cosmictreason2242
    @cosmictreason2242 Год назад

    120 years was the countdown to the F lood. Men lived up to 160 years for at least 500 years after the flood. The idea that the judgment would take that long to occur ia ludicrous. I can't take this guy seriously

  • @EarlyChristianBeliefs
    @EarlyChristianBeliefs 11 месяцев назад

    Fascinating...

  • @jacktbugx1658
    @jacktbugx1658 Месяц назад

    How you carbon 14 evidence test MYTHOLOGY

  • @MattKingsley-zy7dn
    @MattKingsley-zy7dn Год назад +1

    Great presentation.
    Isaiah 51:6
    Hebrews 1:11
    psalm 102:26
    2 Peter 3:10
    I agree with the Septuagint dating of an extra 1,386 years of human history.

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      So you agree that Methuselah died 13 years after the flood, despite him not being on the ark (only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were on the ark - no mention of Methuselah on the ark), and all people other than the eight on the ark being drowned in the flood?
      Look at the account and calculate the numbers. If the Septuagint is correct, then Genesis is not an accurate representation of history. See my other comment for more details on this matter. If the Masoretic is incorrect, then none of them are correct!

    • @MattKingsley-zy7dn
      @MattKingsley-zy7dn Год назад

      @@AutoEngineerVideos No I do not.
      There is very strong evidence that the 167 years of age of Methuselah in the modern LXX is a scribal error. Since historical writings of early historians all testify that Methuselah was 187 yo when he begat Lamech. Therefore putting Methuselah's death before the flood.
      An excellent paper 'methuselah-primeval-chronology-septuagint' pdf by answers research journal.
      It's on google search and is a very well put together piece.

  • @John-is9nj
    @John-is9nj Год назад

    The older dates from C14 means that the intake of atmospheric C14 by plants was less before 1400, possibly due to less cosmic ray activity or shielding of cosmic rays by the atmosphere (perhaps water vapor) that lowered the amount of C14 in the atmosphere.

  • @roblangsdorf8758
    @roblangsdorf8758 Год назад

    It is important to review how Carbon14 is created.
    Doesn’t it involve cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere and hitting a nitrogen molecule?
    How much greater would the earth's magnetic field have to be deflect enough cosmic rays to reduce the production of C14?
    Russell Humphreys has determined that the current half-life of the earth's magnetic is about 1400 years. What this suggest about why radio carbon gives older dates as we go further back?
    The question is, Why don't we find a gradual off set starting more recently?

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      Very recent 14C dates are skewed because of increased 14C in the atmosphere because of nuclear bomb testing. Anything before that is only a guess because they use data from gas bubbles in ice cores, but they assume that there's only one ice layer per year, when the layers could be from multiple snow storms in each arctic/antarctic summer (causing the layered effect that they assume to be summer/winter). Because of this, their calibration against "actual" 14C levels are probably historically inaccurate. Essentially, it's all an attempt to "prove" the creation without a Creator. While it's interesting to try to reconcile science and the Bible, ultimately, we weren't there at the time, so we really don't know, so we have to choose faith in God or faith in man.
      If I recall correctly, most 14C is made by the solar wind, so the required increase to earth's magnetic field isn't as much as it would have to be if cosmic rays were the driving factor (but I could be mixed up on that).

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 Год назад

      @dannybarrett1742 When they do carbon dating, they recognize that anything that was living after 1945 will be contaminated by the impact of A bombs that blew up from that date onward. (I haven't looked into the details of exactly how the A-bomb impacted C14. All I know is that it has increased it.)
      But dates before 1945 AD and after about 2000 BC seem to be pretty good. Prior to that, archeologists recognize that C14 gives dates that are too old.

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 Год назад

      @dannybarrett1742 When they do carbon dating, they recognize that anything that was living after 1945 will be contaminated by the impact of A bombs that blew up from that date onward. (I haven't looked into the details of exactly how the A-bomb impacted C14. All I know is that it has increased it.)
      But dates before 1945 AD and after about 2000 BC seem to be pretty good. Prior to that, archeologists recognize that C14 gives dates that are too old.

    • @samburns3329
      @samburns3329 Год назад

      @@roblangsdorf8758 _But dates before 1945 AD and after about 2000 BC seem to be pretty good. Prior to that, archeologists recognize that C14 gives dates that are too old._ Not true. 14C dating gives ages accurate to within 1-2% going back 50,000 years.

    • @AutoEngineerVideos
      @AutoEngineerVideos Год назад

      You didn't address the bulk of what I said, but rather, you said some things that actually show aspects of how I'm correct, but you say it in a way that makes it sound like you're correcting me. You then follow it up with a bogus claim of the dates being within 1-2% to 50kya. That's quite typical of atheists. Address the fact that there's no way for anyone to know if the "annual" layers are really annual, or in fact multi-layers per year.

  • @emeqgershown3064
    @emeqgershown3064 Месяц назад

    Radio-carbon dating can be accurate but there must be outside methods to confirm the findings. With many biblical sites it confirms scripture and Persian records, but the region of the near and middle east is largely stable over generations of time. In other areas carbon dating has been proven very unreliable. Several small volcanoes that poured out lava showed this inconsistency. Samples of the lava flow taken were taken 30-40 yds apart, on the same flow; some of these showed tens of thousands of years difference between samples. Unless these flows were able to stay pliable for thousands of years as they creeped along, then the radio-carbon molecules are not decaying at an even rate in these locations. Given such testable proof, why would anyone choose this method to date the earth? I will stay with the One who created all things, He is never wrong; though there are times when we fail to ask Him to reveal His words, and that leads to discrepancies.

  • @bradpeterson9325
    @bradpeterson9325 Год назад

    Refreshingly unbiased scientific reporting well presented here.

    • @1VFA666
      @1VFA666 Год назад

      The nonsense in this video is about as far from unbiased actual science as one can get.

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 Год назад

      Unbiased? Coming from a fundamentalist christian site?

  • @anomalous77
    @anomalous77 Год назад

    Seems more like the 120 years was from the time God announced the flood to Noah and instructed him and when the flood occurred. And then bringing up the 1000 years is as to a day, etc. didn't follow the argument. You lost me there.

  • @John..556
    @John..556 Год назад

    Carbon dating is the pcr test of archaeology. And yes I say that with absolutely 0 proof. So come at me bro😅

  • @steveOCalley
    @steveOCalley Год назад

    The initial words of Ecclesiastes should be graven into the doorway to all inquiry, as hubris is the deadly sin most dangerous to the person seeking answers. Our speaker could be more helpful if he mentioned that his area of presentation is not original to himself and that the questions which arise have been discussed extensively before. His thoughts do not rise to the conclusion that carbon dating is not legitimate, and shouldn’t be assumed. A large helping of modesty and history about the question would make this presentation scientifically tolerable.

  • @mlauntube
    @mlauntube Год назад

    Dear Dr. Doug Petrovich, this subject is incredibly important and must be propagated throughout the world. Please remake this video in two versions: one for your contemporaries, and one for the general public. All the parts of your talk that would go into a peer reviewed publication need to be retold as if you are trying to educate your 10 year old child. Please start the video for the general public with a road map of what you are going to prove and how you will prove it. The way you presented is so hard to follow.

  • @fossilfishleg9188
    @fossilfishleg9188 Год назад +1

    This is a load of unscientific babbling.

  • @martinbeckmann9376
    @martinbeckmann9376 Год назад

    Plaster as waterproofing? I don’t think so.

    • @Sawyersmaple
      @Sawyersmaple Год назад

      A plaster comprised of clay is an excellent waterproofing technique on stone. The Romans would do that to line the aqueducts that carried water for miles. People still do this today for man-made ponds, lakes, and streams.

  • @KenJackson_US
    @KenJackson_US Год назад

    I LOVE IT! I've talked to too many people that have total faith that radiocarbon dates are absolutely correct. If they contradict the Bible, then the Bible is obviously wrong, they say. But here we have secular scientists finally agreeing that there's a problem with very old dates. And now we know the cutoff date to believe the results: 1400 BC!

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад +1

      ​@annieoaktree6774 Do you even know what a protein is? If you understood the details of proteins you would lose your faith that all life evolved from a microbe.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад

      ​@annieoaktree6774 I deal with scoffers like you routinely. You think you're standing on science, but you're standing on 19th century mythology. The last half century of molecular biology leaves no room for the myth that all life evolved from a microbe. There's no mechanism. Accumulating mutations accumulates damage. It would take more than a trillion trillion trillion years to evolve even one new kind of protein. Do the math. Learn some science.

    • @steveOCalley
      @steveOCalley Год назад

      @KenJackson_US there’s no such thing as “absolute faith” in radiocarbon dating. It’s been studied for many years, and when data doesn’t correlate with expectations, scientists try to learn why. Scientific approaches to calibration of radiocarbon age determination have proceeded since day one. That is scientific rigor where what is discussed here by Petrovich is not really science as it doesn’t ask why. To use his argument in Biblical analysis-the gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke are in significant concordance. Gospels are meant to be concordant. The Gospel of John differs from the others. Therefore we prove that it cannot represent God’s word with any likelihood. Do you understand?

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад +1

      @annieoaktree6774 Clearly not an adult. I'm guessing 7th grade.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US Год назад +1

      @annieoaktree6774 Don't be afraid to learn, young lady.

  • @mookyyzed2216
    @mookyyzed2216 11 месяцев назад

    Gonna save you all 44 minutes... No, you can't trust carbon dating.

  • @umvhu
    @umvhu Год назад +1

    "My book" "My book" "My book" ?

    • @5.56_Media
      @5.56_Media Год назад

      Also when has it ever been part of tue Scientific method to not question? When he tells us its important not to question this understood method.
      His use of the term which was invented "evolution" is so plentiful these reasons it makes it hard for me to continue to watch and listen to his content.

  • @sidjoosin6549
    @sidjoosin6549 Год назад

    Basically average population from our own families to big populations have rate of doubling ≈100 years.
    If we have today human population 7-8 billions it approximates to 32 doubling, and far from 33.
    It gives us ≈3200 years from 1 man and 1 woman and not even 3300.
    And it is explained only by flood that age of Earth 2 times older than 3000 years, yet we have little population as 3000 years ago humanity was restarted and we counting Y dna from Noah, not from Adam.
    And may Allah be pleased by your work

  • @humberto6219
    @humberto6219 Год назад +1

    On Adam's first day of creation he was an adult male with age probably around 20 years old. Same with Eve
    On their first day of Creation the trees, animals, the Earth and Universe were already aged
    When God created the Universe the Universe could had been billions of years aged on the first day of it's Creation

    • @haggismcbaggis9485
      @haggismcbaggis9485 Год назад +1

      I am not sure how Precambrian organic structures such as limestone would fit into this model. God creating things that already dead.