Carbon 14 dating: CrEvo Rant #101 with Wazooloo

[neverfearchrisishere]

WOOHOO! Congratulations! A creationist that bothered to read the first page on carbon dating - and then gets it wrong as he fails to get past paragraph one,

The carbon-14 levels are NOT declining to zero - they are declining to the normal levels in all carbon... which is far from zero... The carbon-14 levels are elevated in living material - NOT exclusive to biological material.

Perhaps read more than just the first paragraph on the subject your talking about next time....

[metalsusa1]

@neverfearchrisishere Hello, over the pond.

This is what creationist do, they muddy the waters to confuse people that already have no bloody idea what science says in the first place. It's much easier to make false claims then the hours and hours it would take to explain why there false. Let's face it even if you took that time the a-holes who believe what they want to believe wouldn't be the wiser for it.

I have friends in Verwood Dorset.

[Samuelwhatshisface]

Ah yes, one more thing, you say there would be *no radioactive carbon*, when you mean there would be negligible carbon when compared to the initial amount (samples are generally useless if the radionuclide has undergone more than 8 half lives), while there would still be small amounts (eventually there would be 0 once the final nucleus releases it's energy, but then it falls down more to probability on the individual nuclei, rather than a full radiometric model)

[Samuelwhatshisface]

Sources would be nice; I've been looking for the "Proceedings of the Second International

Conference on Creationism", i.e. where the information comes from for the coalified wood (I must say, a biased source), but is rather expensive for the drivel that I regularly find in it's genre... Apologies for not being able to fully evaluate this, but I'm interested in the other examples you espouse (diamonds and the such like). As well as your definition of 'lots', on the atomic scale, would be nice.

[BenWalburn]

@Samuelwhatshisface Ah, dismissal based on.... Nothing. You cannot fully evaluate this because you cannot (or will not) evaluate it.

Biased source? No duh. But is that bad? If yes, then you have dismissed all seccular sources as well. If not, then you have no argument, therefore mentioning "biased source" only serves the purpose of increasing the amount of characters in your comment.

And for "lots" I believe that a good definition would be "more than you would expect, given the estimated age."

[Samuelwhatshisface]

@BenWalburn When did I dismiss anything? I apologised for not being able to evaluate it, but did I ever dismiss it? If my comment implies that, I'm sorry, I meant that I'm skeptical but unable to make a final judgement.

Well I've seen Ian say '10x', which isn't really. When you drop past ~8 half lives, the proportion of active to decayed nuclei drops considerably (why it is no longer considered a useful sample)...

[Samuelwhatshisface]

@Samuelwhatshisface *Correction, 10x was on a separate website quoting similar events, my mistake. This is why I was interested in what 'a lot' meant on the atomic scale to Ian.

Apologies, Ian.

[BenWalburn]

@Samuelwhatshisface Your phrasing implies the dismissal of the evidence. You did not take it seriously, instead you expressed your disagreement and left it as if your disagreement was enough. If you did not mean it to sound like a dismissal, then I apologize.

[Samuelwhatshisface]

@BenWalburn ... Some calculations; if negligible (close to zero) radioactive nuclei, then it would be assumed that from an initial concentration of 1 ppt (10^-12) [concentration of C-14: wiki, unable to find any more credible sources], and in one mole (6.02E+23), there are 6.02E+11 initial active carbon 14 nuclei, if that drops close to zero (~10-1000), then 10x this number is still negligible when compared to the initial number of nuclei

[Answerquestions1]

finding samples with c14 in the precambrian is like finding a rabbit in the precambrian

[metalsusa1]

These You Tube "scientists" make me laugh. This guy is just spewing creationist nonsense he learned from Ken Ham. Has this guy ever worked in a laboratory, ever collected samples, ever learned the methods and procedures that go into dating a sample?

Why doesn't Ian gather his evidence against carbon 14 dating and submit it to peer review. Oh, that's right there's a world wide multi generational conspiracy to hide the truth about dating methods.

What a joke!

[BenWalburn]

@metalsusa1 because if he did, it wouldn't get anywhere. Evolutionists don't like it when you mess with their religion. Science is controlled by majority rule. Since the majority accepts carbon dating and evolution, those will not be questioned.

Have you ever worked in a laboroatory, collected samples, learned the methods and procedures that go into dating a sample? Probably not, you're just a whiny child. Besides, it doesn't take a degree to realize the flaws in carbon dating.

[metalsusa1]

@BenWalburn Your ignorance is very obvious. Science is interested in testable and repeatable evidence not popular opinion. You have spent too long allowing creationist nonsense and mischaracterizations to muddy your thinking.

Learn what science actually says and stop embarrassing yourself.

[BenWalburn]

@metalsusa1 You are still using ad hominem. You say I'm ignorant yet don't show how I am.

Science IS interested in testable and repeatable experiments. However, evolution is neither testable nor repeatable, yet scientists are still interested in it. You have spent too long allowing evolution nonsense and mischaracterizations to muddy your thinking.

How about you learn what science actually says, that way I don't have to continue to embarrass you publicly.

[metalsusa1]

@BenWalburn Good luck to you. Please no more nonsense, it's starting to hurt.

If you are truly interested in learning what science has to say visit a science website and leave me alone.

[Fusion840]

IAN - you need to keep this going - you are destroying allot of arguments out there. Can you possibly do a rant on the #2 Chromosome? Thanks!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Fusion840 Are you kidding? Ian has no idea what he's talking about.

[metalsusa1]

@TheScienceFoundation "Carbon 14 Dating"

Is it not shocking to you that Ian is actually convincing people that carbon 14 dating is fundamentally flawed? Does the fear of hell make people's brains fall out? The only thing Ian convinces me of is he did win the hot dog eating contest 10 years running.

[odinata]

@Fusion840

Why doesn't the science agree?

[Ledwix]

Noah's Ark is one of the most insane stories ever believed in, at every level.

[marek0086]

@Ledwix~ What a stupid thing to say!

Have fun living in your fantasy world.

[metalsusa1]

@Ledwix "Noah's Ark is one of the most insane stories ever believed in, at every level".

It shocks me the level of dumb fuckery in this country. The comment that stands out is someone said to you, "What a stupid thing to say! Have fun living in your fantasy world". He's telling you your living in a fantasy world!! Now I've heard it all.

[rhn94]

ugh .. moron ..

[Cactarpus]

Carbon 14 in coal deposits correlates with a surrounding uranium-thorium series. New carbon 14 is produced from surrounding radiation from other sources. 

[Galmozzi99]

6000 or 4.5 billion either way there is not enough time for Evolution.  Good video.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Galmozzi99 Of course there is, the first life appeared 3.8 bya

[AndrewBouchierUK]

@Galmozzi99 4.5 billion is more then enough time for evolution remember there has been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life on earth and if that does not make you think then tell me how do you work out the time that is needed for Evolution?

[CristoenMexico]

@AndrewBouchierUK How i would work out the time that is needed for Evolution? Easy...Evolution didn't happen. *gasp*. now im anit-science and dont understand evolution. And i would argue there has only been 1 mass extinction on "history of life on earth" and that was a global flood. (which deposited the layers and fossils we see today)

[AndrewBouchierUK]

@CristoenMexico so you dont care that Earth is around 4.5 billion years old you also dont seam to care that there has been at least five mass extinctions and you can argue that there was just one mass extinction but you would be wrong on so many levels its funny that you think a global flood is possible its impossible but then i think you would just fill in the many problems with crap to make it work e.g. Building the Ark

[AuntyMabele]

@AndrewBouchierUK At least five mass extinctions? What possible evidence do you have confirming this?

[AndrewBouchierUK]

@AuntyMabele I can give you links if you like we can see if there was mass extinctions when evolutionary branch's come to an abrupt end 251 million years ago 95% of evolutionary branch's abruptly ended

[ttcmp0]

I suppose the ranter is talking about the RATE research? Can somebody here point out the research papers and in which scientific journals it was published?

It seems to me that the RATE group's findings have been debunked, trying to find some sources... difficult as I think few took the RATE group serious..

[AndyG792]

What amazes me is that these antagonistic, name calling students can sit in a classroom and just absorb without question what they are told and when someone shows an opposing side with sound logic and truth, they fight it tooth and nail. I suppose it is a normal human response to not want to admit that they have been duped all these years. They are angry internally and that's the reason that they resort to name calling. It is a way of dealing with the denial of being deceived.

[urbman29]

im a creationist,but what u said*based on my learning skills from chemistry about half life* is wrong.Carbon -14 decays into half,then to half of that,then half of that,then half of that.until nothing is left.Or was i taught wrong?

[judesama11]

no one knows if HE exists. just as we dont know about how the universe was formed. we have theories, such as the big bang, but it hasnt been indefinately proven. the bible isnt really a good source of information, being that its been rewritten a lot. dont get me wrong, i want there to be a god on the other side, and from the people who have been there(NDE), the bible means less that nothing in the whole scheme. life's answers arent at all in that pretty little package you call the bible.

[Orenotter]

@judesama11

The bible hasn't been rewritten, and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a myth.

[judesama11]

@Orenotter ok, if thats what you want to believe. prove that it hasent been written when in fact there are more versions of the bible than there are flavors of ice cream at baskin robins. besides, its been re-written in other languages, so by definition, it has been REWRITTEN! listen, the point is that every religion thinks that they are right. this cant be helped, but you are just adding to unnecessary diversity and hatred among all of us. do yourself a favor, and think how others feel.

[AndyG792]

@judesama11 Originally the Bible was not rewritten, but rather translated from one language to another. this is not rewriting or changing the meaning. There have been attempts at making versions that are easier to read by sentence restructuring, and using a thesaurus to use a variety of words to say the same thing.  That's why I use the KJV and only use the other versions as a help for hard to understand passages. But to say that the bible has been rewritten is a misconception.

[AndyG792]

@judesama11 At the Tower of Babel, when all the people spread to all the world; they all knew the same God and history. whoever was keeping a family tree and history was the one to have the story straight. The rest went by memory and as time went by much of the stories changed and variations of gods and religions came out in the same way that stories change when you play the game "Telephone" with a group of people. That's why there are some stories common to all cultures such as a global flood

[judesama11]

@Orenotter oh yeah, and i am still waiting for that proof that your talking about. maybe a websearch or something. until then, you are full of shit.

[psycofloyd]

Truth is a person and His name is Jesus Christ! Keep up the great work Ian! God knows your labors and will bless you.

[stevebritgimp]

And the leap at the end is priceless. Clearly Brahma created the universe.

[stevebritgimp]

There's a bit in the middle of this video, where different things are listed, with different ages. Bit puzzled - 500 million year old carbon dioxide? Anyway, so Juby's saying there is excess C14, isn't that another way of saying you can't use Carbon dating for old ages. And isn't that what scientists say? Why does he need to make that 'all science is wrong'. I haven't put that very well, but isn't this just sales patter?

[squallion777]

common guys, how long is it going to take you to figure out that you've been lied to, God gave you a brain, and all you can do is think with satins, he's decieved you and now he's laughing at you, Satin himself has seen God and knows that he exisists, but hes lied to you and you belive it....How does it feel to know the one that told you the lie that you believe, knows the truth, your being decived by the master of lier's. start using the brain God gave you.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@squallion777 Videos like this, full of demonstrable deception, certainly don't help in revealing deception against god.

Ian is lying for jesus.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TiaSweetheart28 Ignoring the blatant strawman, as opposed to a wizard doing it?

[Vegavis]

The claim that there was too much C14 in the coal to be accounted for by contamination is false because the ratio is largely consistent with amounts present in living organisms; the larger excesses are found in younger oils and are again best explained by bacterial contamination. I would discredit the sources as well as they present false information which does not in any way reflect proper scientific method and literature.

[Vegavis]

First, C14 decays in 50 000 years, not 100 000. Second, in regards to uranium-thorium decay and excess C14, the ratios in uranium minerals are found to be proportional to C14, not 99%. Third, any C14 in fossils and hydrocarbons is indeed a result of contamination as the living tissue was replaced by other minerals. C14 is found in oil and coal only in trace amounts and could also result from bacteria contamination. Mentioning C14 in diamonds is pointless because it isn't organic.

[Thompsond10]

Amazing Ian, absolutly amazing! It really is too bad that there are alot of people out there who will continue to ignore the truth. I pray that their eye's will be open to your message and that of the gospel, amen.

[lawilson200]

Ian, I have a better question for you. Where did you get that funky photographer's jacket? It is certainly not helping you. Even in costume, you have an amazing ability to completely screw up a simple explanation as C14 dating. Like, OY! You can't date that, there is no f$&%ing carbon in it. Thankfully, the science of geochronology is well established and no Ian, unless you are dating an archeological site, C14 dating is not used.

[IloveYOUviruses]

Ian, what's the rate of decay of the evolutionary icons?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@IloveYOUviruses 0.0%

As starkly contrasted by the creationists rate of doing everything they can to disregard reality and cling to ignorance, 100%

[IloveYOUviruses]

@TheScienceFoundation May I remind you that C14 in coal seams is a known fact?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@IloveYOUviruses May I remind you that fungi can contaminate coal and uranium can decay certain particles into C-14

[Stianchez]

Hahahaha You rock Wazooloo!!!

[Orenotter]

wait... how can carbon (element 6) break down into nitrogen (element 7)?

[urbman29]

@Orenotter there is a carbon cycle.Look it up.very fascinating.Itll explain

[Orenotter]

@urbman29

I'm familiar with the carbon cycle, but i looked it up anyway.  The carbon cycle is biochemical. We're talking about radioactive decay. How is it possible for an element to break down into a heavier element?

[urbman29]

@Orenotter i took chemistry this year.Haha,my fav subject.

[Orenotter]

@urbman29

Lovely for you. So would you answer my question, please?

[urbman29]

@Orenotter let me read the question and get back to u on it.im trying to remember how this works precisely so i can give u a good answer

[Orenotter]

@urbman29

Thanks, but i just found out. The neutron emits an electron and an antineutrino, becoming a proton.

[urbman29]

@Orenotter nice job.haha

[onceforgivennowfree]

Great video - again! You need to keep making these regularly!!

[fellowservant34]

Evolutionist's often invoke carbon dating in debates as if it somehow bolsters evolution theory while being a huge problem for biblical creation....As you've so brilliantly demonstrated Ian, nothing could be further from the truth. Great job!

[daviatu]

@TheScienceFoundation that video, as far as i could tell, supported the accuracy of radioactive dating. in this video, ian juby is saying that radioactive dating supports the young-earth theory. so the video that you just linked is actually in support of this video

[TheScienceFoundation]

@daviatu Except that it doesn't. Carbon dating alone puts the age of the earth 10x older than what YEC's claim. That's not even getting into radiometric dating.

[GillumTyler]

@TheScienceFoundation That's why he said C-14 is accurate with a factor of 10.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@GillumTyler I said carbon dating alone, Radiometric dating puts creationists off by a factor of about a million.

And no, carbon dating doesn't have a margin of error of a magnitude, there are errors such as contamination but other than that it's incredibly accurate.

[ivanisavich]

"Perhaps you should be asking what the creator wants of you"

And thus, the creationist's agenda is revealed. Not to discern truth, but instead to get others to follow their made up laws and scriptures.

[jebus6kryst]

Not enough time for evolution? Is that a tacit omission that he accepts evolution, but does not think there was enough time for it?

HAHA! Really, you are using those debunked sources as your citations? Talk.Origins debunked those in the 90s. I do not understand why creationists cling to debunked arguments. It only shows how dogmatic you are for your beliefs.

[jebus6kryst]

Entire geologic record laid down at the same time?! HAHAHA! Only someone extremely ignorant of the geological record would claim it could be laid down at the same time. I wonder how Sanders explains all the angular unconformities found in most geological columns, let alone all the synclines, anticlines, and other geologic formations. If I am not mistaken, there are at least two different angular unconformities in the basin I am living on alone. Again, this is why people laugh at creationists.

[jebus6kryst]

HAHAHA! 99% Uranium! I guess you do not know how radiation works. The coal does not have to be Uranium in order for it to be eradiated by the Uranium. Moreover, this is why people laugh at creationists.

[Stianchez]

@jebus6kryst You sure are eager to try and prove evolution. If you believe in it that much why do you try to convince yourself that much moreover why do you care really? Ian doesn't do anything to bother you. He's not forcing you to watch this.

[jebus6kryst]

HAHAHA! Erroneous dates, such as the examples you are talking about, do not become contaminated by the air. Only a creationist would make an argument that laughable. The contamination comes from N14 being trapped in the earth next to radioactive elements. Not sure if you are trying to lie to the public or you are just ignorant of how this works.

[jebus6kryst]

All those “cases” need citations. However, this is easy enough to explain the contamination that happens. You have to remember how C14 is created. Most of it is created when N14 is bombarded with radiation high in the earth’s atmosphere. However, some C14 can be created underground from radiation coming from other radioactive elements. I would venture a guess that those examples you gave came about through the latter process of forming C14.

Sweet, citations will be given.

[jebus6kryst]

There are no human footprints in the Paluxy River bed. Most of them were misidentified dinosaur tracks and people created the others.

You get ages from 5,000 and 50,000 and you think that helps your young earth case? How could there be any Carbon 14 (C14) date older than 6,000 to 10,000 if what you believe is correct? Furthermore, it would be nice if you cited a source for those dates as well.

[Swansong32]

great to see you back doing your rants!! We've missed you here on YouTube. Keep them coming!! :)

[Devin82m]

AWESOME Ian! Love it!

[castormccree]

lol at 2:23.

love the video!

[LAG360]

cool vid

[sownzgr8]

Evo's do everything backwards, they concoct a theory and then try like mad, cheat, lie and brainwash themselves into believing EVERYTHING backs their theory, hence all the lame backwards excuses and lies you find coming from even the more honest evos.

The Jesus Christ plug at the end was about the only thing wrong with this video. Christians suffer from the same affliction. To say there are only two alternatives is ridiculous upon ridiculous. Still a 5* video.

[PirateXzibit]

@sownzgr8 Ok? :) so if we know that life didn't make it self, doesn't it need a creator? ;)

[sownzgr8]

@PirateXzibit Umm, try thinking outside the buy-bull. To say there's alternatives is the understatement of all time.

[PirateXzibit]

@sownzgr8 Wait, wait, wait. So you'd agree with that life didn't create itself and you sort-of deny a creator? :P

Please help me 'think outside the buy-bull'. Sorry, but I like being consistent in everything. "Black or white" kind of describes my faith.

[disdroid]

why are you green all of a sudden. Wait. Are you a vegetarian?

[ArchangelCLK]

LOL - 'And the Toronto Maple Leafs Suck'

[PirateXzibit]

I just watch the 10 min report for History Channels documentary on Göbekli Tepe temple, and I can't see how people can be so willingly ignorant. The documentary claims that extra terrestials erected it and carved out the rocks so perfectly.

Here's the fun part: Göbekli Tepe is in Turkey, and not very far from the mountains of Ararat where Noahs ark stranded. You could never guess what is carved on those pillars! ANIMALS and WATER WAVES.

Wikipedia it and put on your Biblical glasses and read it.

[PirateXzibit]

@PirateXzibit And enjoy the show!

[InfiniteTurtles]

@PirateXzibit Biblical glasses? I don't get it

[PirateXzibit]

@InfiniteTurtles Start from a biblical point of view, not an evolutionary point of view.

[InfiniteTurtles]

@PirateXzibit Oh I see, you mean with preconceptions. I get it now, thanks.

[ahmadov]

who said that carbon 14 dissapears after 100000 years

[wazooloo]

@ahmadov It's physics. It breaks down over time, so obviously there's going to be a time where there's no more because it's all broken down.

[ahmadov]

@wazooloo thank you for the answer, but about the markings on the rock, couldn't it be that they found markings from different ages on the same rock so they dated the rock as the oldest sample on it?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@wazooloo Except that there are also known Uranium decay processes that also produce C-14

[gmh1206]

@TheScienceFoundation Did you even watch the video at 8:00?

How does a trace element (Uranium), with a half life of billions of years, produce an anomalous ratio of C14/C12, with a half life of thousands of years in the remainder of the sample? This is like saying my slowly dripping tap is the explanation for why my backyard is a swamp.

Furthermore, uranium must be associated with EVERY coal, gas and oil deposit, yet how does this happen? Did plants absorb it before turning to coal?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@gmh1206 With radiation. Where's the problem? No, it's like saying the radiation from uranium decayed certain particles in coal to C-14

No, C-14 is not found in every coal deposit, only those adjacent to uranium pockets.

[gmh1206]

@TheScienceFoundation Radiation?

U238 -> Pb206 via 8 alpha and 6 beta decays over 4.46 billion years!!!

If a single uranium atom converted 14 surrounding C12 atoms to radioactive C14, each of these products would only last 5730 years!

This was explained in the video- To account for the anomalous C14 in coal, 99% of the original sample must be uranium... totally implausible.

All coal deposits contain anomalous C14

[TheScienceFoundation]

@gmh1206 No, it doesn't. That's a ridiculous assertion and a strawman, uranium far outlives any form of carbon. Nothing was explained in the video because Ian doesn't seem to have any better understanding of radiocarbon dating than you do.

No they don't. Coal deposits adjacent to uranium deposits contain C-14, but it's not anomalous.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@gmh1206 Where are you getting this ridiculous math? The C-14 doesn't draw anything out of the uranium, the uranium is radioactive in the entirety of its decay series to lead.

[zelda0521]

@ahmadov try wikipedia

[AndyG792]

@ahmadov It's determined by it's half life and the amount that can be detected. It has a half life of 5730 years so that after 5700 years, rounded off, it has half of what it had to start with. In another 5700 years, it will have half of what it had at the first 5700 year mark, etc. until it is all gone.

[AndrewBouchierUK]

@AndyG792 Carbon 14 is not used to date anything older then 50,000 years because as you said it will be gone that's why they also use Potassium-40 half-life = 1.3 billion years Uranium-235; half-life = 704 million years Uranium-238; half-life = 4.5 billion years Thorium-232; half-life = 14 billion years Rubidium-87; half-life = 49 billion years

we all have potassium-40 in our body

[Figsx]

Fantastic video! Great examples and research!

[luuksteitner]

well done, as always!

[KorieG]

Love the vids Ian!!!! Later...