Wow ...he really thinks science hasn't tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay?And as natural reactions in africa 2 bio years ago suggest on earth at least for this time they were constant.And as we see light from stars that are billions of lightyears away shows that the very rules of radioactivity have been the same since.So much igniorance in so short time...
Anyone reading this was lucky enough to be born with a awesome brain. But some people refuse to use it when it comes to science. This is a fucking disgrace to humanity. I think the world would be a better place if all these people would just die.
I mean, we have dozens of dating methods that ALL INDEPENDENTLY match. You can assert that the decay rate of all of the different atoms changed, even though that takes faith because we have not ever observed this under any circumstances ever!!!
@er876897 If this guy has proof that all of these dating methods are wrong, then why doesn't he write a scientific journal, or find one and simply disprove it? He would probably win a nobel prize if he did...
Then again, making an assertion that physical constants "could" have been different in the past is hardly a proof against any dating method. If you can prove it is wrong, then find a peer reviewed journal and prove it wrong. Put your money where your mouth is!!!
@purpleleach1 1.Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
All Scientific dating methods are all based on the ASSUMPTION that the earth has stayed the same or Constant. If it didnt all dating systems are wrong, And we know the earth wasnt always the same the flood ect, but even science claims asteroids hit the earth and ice ages so All dating techniques used by evolution are completly wrong, So there is no millions or billions of years so evolution couldnt have hapened and is a scam. Check mate
I hope people are intelligent enough to understand that this moron is trying to attack some fraction of a solid science called evolution. It's not that science is perfect but this video is idiotic. Evolution is fact and religious people need to learn dealing with it within the belief of God. This type of guy is putting a great shame on the USA as being ignorant and fanatically religious.
"Lead escapes as vapor at rather low temperatures" (13:00) this is wrong! This funny screaming preacher Guy certainly had Mercury in his mind, but this element is not analysed for the mentioned objective ;-)
Evolution is proven by genome mapping DNA , thousands of transitionals fossils , evidence of atavism in many living species ,gap less fossil records etc.Denying this is like denial of moon landing.
Evolution does not have evidence and it is not an observed fact...it can not be proved at all it is a belief system...the problem is that you have been taught by your school system that it's a fact...how can you come up with assumptions from fossils..and Micro evolution cannot be extrapolated to macro evolution....there is no proof of transitional living beings or fossils...and the DNA genome only proves a creator...you cannot create something out of nothing...I have read all books on evolution.
Turpy -your parroting the classical creationist defense ,its discredited . Scientific consensus is that its a fact and has indeed been observed and recorded . Need videos explaining this?
Glad to see that other people know their stuff too. And it saddens me that these videos are only found by either people who don't need to be convinced, or people who choose to never be convinced.
This is what you been taught in school and you cannot see the forest for the trees...if you do not want to believe in God ..that is fine...but please have more intellectual rigor when you explain something....if you cannot see that the fossil recored is imagined, that carbon dating has a lot of problems if you have really studied it....and hiding behind authority..or saying evolution has proven or it is a fact or there is a lot of evidence does not make it so....sorry you are wrong.
If you want to read what evolution does to people read the biography of jeffry dammer or Hitler's meinkampf...where they use the theory of evolution...which is a theory of death...survival of the fittest ...the ones who cannot adapt die...that's what hitler thought and you are walking in his footsteps...with the guise on knowledge saying you are scientific and the people who believe in God are somehow control or deluded or crazy...yea right ..try again....;
Hitler misused science and religion .Hitler used anti semitism from Christianity to exterminate the Jews .Their belt buckle inscribed Got Mit Uns -God With Us.
Turpy dont put nasty words in my mouth .Most Christians individually and as denominations and religious leaders accept evolution .Literalism is a minority.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are dumber than I thought why don't you watch loose change on google..or youtube....and learn that religion is not the problem...you need to grow up....
Oh, how convenient. The no true scotsman argument.
These acts were perpetrated in the name of the religion.
The Sept. 11 hijackers were cruising towards what they thought was their destiny. The crusades were carried out by people acting on behalf of the church.
Like I said - the crusaders were not acting as Christians. It does not matter on whose behalf they carried out anything.
Christ, never in any of the scriptures, called anyone to conduct anything like the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was a display of raw power carried out by people who disregarded Gods commands to love thy neighbor. Instead, in the name of Christ they commited murder.
The Sept 11 hijackers were still hypocrites and murderers. May God have mercy on their soul.
Again, your argument simply holds no water. So let me get this straight, acting on behalf of the church, according to church ordered doctrine, but they don't count because you simply redefine the terms?
No, it doesn't work that way.
You haven't said anything new. These people perpetrated atrocities in the names of their religions, as they thought they were divinely required to.
Just because you do not consider them "christians", does not make the point any more invalid. Using your logic, no one is a Christian. In fact, it would be pretty hard to act in any sort of cohesive, sane way while obeying all the teachings of the bible. Love thy neighbour, stone your child We both know its about interpretation
No.
Done by Christians, for the religion, as they thought was required. Good enough for me but apparently not for yet another deluded christian apologist. Imagine that.
Sorry, don't quote bible verses at me. You should really be able to argue your position basic on reasoning, but of course you can't -- because we both know that the church has ordered horrible actions to be taken in the name of their god. Religion is all about power, and no amount of you plugging your ears with your fingers and going "NONONONONO" is going to change this fact, religion is at best a neutral force, and at worst a force for true evil.
Being a Christian, why would I quote anything other than the Bible to back up my point? You asked 'why' and I told you why. It is your choice to believe me or not.
But the fact reamins that a Christian follows Jesus Christ first, not some organization called "the church", which you seem to want to put everyone in who does not hold to your line of reasoning.
It was "the church" that put to death untold #'s of people that were real Christians who worshiped Jesus rather than "the church".
You're delusional and prepared to create any nonsensical argument to satisfy your beliefs, we both know the bible is in reality a book full of misoginy, abuse, and injustices.
If I had to access my 2nd cell, I would topple over.
Believe any way you want, but believe this: in the whole history of mankind there have always arisen the Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the Mao's that would enslave mankind.
The techology now available to the next one to arise points to enslavement for the human race.
But the Bible points to the return of Jesus Christ to end the evil that is over this world.
Turpy -I heard ,I listened, creationism has been refuted for decades.Evangelicals lap this up and make him rich .He's fleecing you and preying on your ignorance and fears .
I understand where you are coming from...there are some evangelicals who steal money from ignorant and needy people.....but I m educated and know what they are saying is true....I do not belong to their church and I have checked out the sources...Evolution is a myth....people who do not believe in evolution are labeled as dumb or ignorant...I only stick to science......and what is more likely to have happened.
Turpy - You cant dismiss facts .You can ignore the factual status of evolution in your mind but it doesn't change external reality for the rest of us .
Evolution is considered an observed fact both micro and macro . Evolution has more evidence to back it than ANY other theory (atomic , cellular ,gravity etc..)Calling it a myth is pure denial .
@flyingscience thems some rather large claims that don't even line up with current evolutionary thought as evolution by definition is 'unobservable' books like "What Darwin got wrong" a atheist himself in the witness protection program since his book came out! would strongly disagree with you and oh! Anthony Flew...
@hayomtov7 Macro evolution is being observed now and over the last 3 centuries . Google evidence for macro evolution and read up on the subject . Creationist sources will not inform you of this . Learning is fun and enjoyable . Knowledge can free you from the shackles of YEC .
@hayomtov7 Conversions of indivduals has no bearing on the factual status of evolution . Ive heard that 25% of Evangelical children brcame secular in 1 decade due to internet use and independant thinking . Its no surprise the religious right backlash makes death threats , religion creates intense hatred toward non members.
@flyingscience I have no clue what your speaking of? This is pure propaganda from the evolutionist camp...in actuality evolutionary thought is in trouble and under attack from within its own camp...there has been major defections from many highly respected scientist like Kenyon, the the scientist from Cornell who oversaw the gene gun project , one of the most famous atheist of the century Anthony Flew...who now believes in intelligent design...no a Christian purely on scientific grounds. the ..
@hayomtov7 "Look up atheism fastest growing...." in a google search . Read a few articles . I know I cant convince you of evolutions factual status but your denial doesnt make it go away . You have "faith/ indoctrination" which is stonger than ayones ability to explain otherwise . Evantualy the light switch will go on IF you apply yourself . Good luck recovering from fundamentalism " look up walk away from fundamentalism " for help .
@flyingscience My advantage over you is I have thoroughly investigated Both! You are handicap with second hand knowledge thus your position stems from what your teachers indoctrination has left you saddle with. You must search for yourself..you know and I know for the duration of our discussion you have simply regurgitated information from indoctrination...Life is short you cannot afford to be wrong! Question everything...that is what i have done...don't give scientist a pass..prove all things!
@hayomtov7 You actualy managed to sound respectful on that post minus the implied hell tourture threat . The information is waiting for you to discovery it in this wonderfull age of information . Science is on my side as are the facts . You can have any faith you want but facts are everyones and they are easy to verify . Macro evolution is real and documented , photographed ,weighed , genome maped ect.. Science trumps headstrong creationist denial everytime .
@flyingscience thisis kind of ironic because it takes far more faith to notr believe in God, and you are blind to everyting tah tis not eveloution. Unfortunately, it is society that has been ndoctrinated about evolution.
@flyingscience cont. typo ..not a Christian. Flysci...Christianity has handled much more formidable opponents than evolution. like the Roman empire who killed Christians for sport on a regular bases. Christianity accomplished what not even standing armies and empires could do..conquered Rome! and since then Rome fell yet Christianity stands. Christianity has the highest rate of conversion historically speaking of any religion period. The Gospel is being preached 365/ 24/7 by satellite globally!
@flyingscience I laugh at you you are so indoctrinated. more atheist have converted from atheism to Christianity..As long as you have your head in the sand..the last two thousand years have seen a staggering amount of conversions to Christianity. An entire Empire of close to 300 million romans in one fell swoop converted..your are deluding yourself!
Evolution in the jungle of science is like the weak frail animal around which All the other sciences HUDDLE around to protect. Truth on the prowl!
@hayomtov7 Christianity took up the mantle of the falling Roman empire , one of the first thing to happen was to wage dogma wars , all pagan prists and priestesses where executed . All non trinitarian Christians where hunted down killed and tortured for being monotheistic .It was a bloody road . Prayer circles took the back seat over violence .
@hayomtov7 Wait, i'm no expert on history but even i know it wasn't christianity that "conquered Rome". Are you serious?! Were you ever told at school about the economic problems Rome had, which in turn allowed their enemies from the north to slowly defeat them? I'm guessing you were probably home schooled, that would probably explain it, either that or your history teacher should be sacked. Seriously, go back to school!
@wearsil09 Wait, i'm no expert on history but even i know it wasn't christianity that "conquered Rome.
I don't mean militarily! whenever you subjugate a people and slaughter them for 3 centuries and they still manage to unseat the what has been the original belief system for almost a thousand years and systematically rises to the highest and most prominent place in the empire...what do you call it! Not all victories are one with the sword! The Pen is mightier than the sword!
@hayomtov7 I take your point, but what i was trying to say is that there were many problems in Rome prior to its demise and that Christianity isn't really a reason that any historian can today state as being the prime reason in its destruction. If America was to collapse tomorrow, you couldnt point to a singular reason, there would be many that contributed towards it, for example, war, social problems, economic problems etc.
@hayomtov7 Atheism has the largest conversion number at the present (more accuratly it could be called deconversion because they are leaving faith). Blame it on education and the internet . Its those pesky little realated videos that are making creationist children become secular at an alarming pace .Islam is second by the way .
@hayomtov7 If you have any doubts just google "atheism grows" to see many articles .You may also have heard the new poll that atheists and agnostics know their bible better than theists ,even Evangelicals . I will also add they commit less crime and have higher IQ's (and less divorce rates) acording to older studies .Feel free to google atheists and higher IQ's if you doubt me .
@hayomtov7 This video has multiple links in its video description . Knowledge cures fundamemntalism . "MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution " There are other videos as well your computer can be your savior from fundametalism . Study hard set yourself free .
@hayomtov7 If you want me to look up titles of videos that explain macro evolution being observed now I will . The information is at your fingertips if you are brave enough to face you may need to take off the bible glasses.
@flyingscience You do jest! I think you would be better served by applying falsifiability techniques to the theory like many of the scientist have done and are doing. I have no fear what soever because truth is always a good thing! However i have spoken personally with scientist like a biologist at Cornell who owns one of if not the most extensive collections of original evolutionary literature, his arguments could not convince me simply from the standpoint of intellectual honesty. 2 many holes!
@hayomtov7 Deconversion from fundamentalism is never instant or like a light switch (it will take you years if you apply yourself and continue to read etc..) Your mind will not want to change . There are entire lists of new species that are new on Earth from Macro evolution .Study hard catch up , become science literate !
@flyingscience See the difference is I completely understand evolutionary thought ..current evolutionary thought ! Not the indoctrination of lies that we were fed in school. I think for myself and I am more than confident that evolution is a lie..a fake phony fraud not based on religious grounds.. but on even scientific inquiry, study, falsifiability an expanding outside of the cool_aid drinkers and the young & impressionable minds who haven't leaned to think outside the box they are in! Please!
@flyingscience Any objective analysis of the fossil record not based on a desperate attempt to explain contradictions all away because they emphatically contradict evolutionary thought is obvious to those with a open mind. the Cambrian explosion, screams out to all who will listen without filters that all life as we know it arose exploded suddenly! Absent intermediates, missing links, or transitional ANYTHING!
@flyingscience The whole point of macro-evolution is thit has never been observed! It can't be--no scientists will claim to observe it bcausthey say it takes milions of years. Observatn meanseeingin the present! microevolution can be observed but a brown mouse turing into a white mouse is no proof for evolution becaue it is stilla mouse -- not a bear or smthing!
@Swimminginacoat Macro evolution has indeed been observed . You are wrong to asume it ONLY takes millions of years . Please google evidence of macro evolution research the subject before you parot creationist missinformation . Evolution IS a fact both micro and macro . I do not have the free time to tutor you for free .Just look it up and read . I can find you some easy videos in the evening .
@hayomtov7 please elaborate on the wittness protection I assume you meant the author of "What Darwin got wrong" was it Muslims or Christians trying to get him?
@flyingscience These are his own words in response to all the flack he has received just for telling the truth about the weakness of NS...it was sarcasm however the pressure and vitriol has been nasty!
@flyingscience the keyword there is "considered". it may be considered but that doesnt mak it true! and bytheway, macro evelution has NEVER been observed because there hasn't been enough time -- that is if you even believe the world is very old.
@flyingscience the keyword there is "considered". it may be considered but that doesnt make it true! and by the way, macro evolution has NEVER been observed because there hasn't been enough time -- that is if you even believe the world is very old.
@Swimminginacoat Evolutionis confirmed by the fossil record , observations in the lab and in the wild both micro and macro . Nature requires NO intelligence this doesnt rule out God but it is a bad hint . Its also a bad hint how many religions have been invented and how religion seems to have only human wisdom and only from a 1-4th century commitee . Divine wisdom would have made banning slavery a comandment along with women equality .That fact makes God seem like he was taking a nap .
@flyingscience Evolution is considered an observed fact??
Pure subjective conjecture and qualifies as a pseudo-science...this is your indoctrination talking! Evol. and its two wooden legs NS & RM are nothing but fairy tales!
@hayomtov7 A small amount of effort on your part to study Macro evolution might help you become knowledgable on the subject .You need to leave your comfort zone and actualy study these subjects and not faithfully parrot creationist missinformation .These videos can help "11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism "
@flyingscience ...then where are your "common ancestors" the missing links between the evolution of species such as reptiles and birds? The proteins found in reptile scales and bird feathers are not even close to be same! You would think that by now someone somewhere would find something that connected the two. This is just one example...there are hundreds of other "missing links" throughout the whole animal kingdom. Cant have fact with missing evidence and counter theories.
@eclipsse101 It's great that your asking these questions . I hope you spend the time needed to learn the answers .I hope your mind is relaxed enuogh that you can actualy learn . Birds came from theropod dinosaurs .Wonderful incredible new fossils have been found not long ago .Here is an entire program on the subject . "Feather Evolution 1of5 " Note that the feathers from scales hypothesis was indeed very wrong . Now we know from evo. devo. and the new fossils !! Amazing 4 winged birds!!!!
@eclipsse101 There are many new fossil transitional fossils found within the last decade .There are new transitional fossils found every 7 weeks on average . There are also living transitional species . There is also incredible living vestigial limbs (whale embyos babies have back legs in their bodies . Horses are sometimes born with their extra vestigial toes and humans are born with tails. Just look them up . Get the whole story from non creationists .
@flyingscience None of these are vestigial. Attached to the tail bone are 9 muscles that assist with your bowell movements. The "leg bones" in the back of whales are attached to several muscles that assist them in giving birth. The whole "horse toe evolution thing" was proven wrong 20 years ago when, what was supposed to be a "modern horse" was dug up a layer beneath what was supposed to be a horse from a several hundred thousand years ago. Macro evolution did not happen
raptureready- fundamentalist childhood indoctrination+ bad attitude of science + ignorance + fear +torture threats to outsiders= Bad Evangelical theology/science illiteracy .
1) That logic is so shallow it isn't even a rebuttal. It can be applied to basically anything, for example, "You have never proved that god is real" why do you believe in him? Same concept.
2) You didn't read my question right. You said radiometric dating is a fraud. In my statment I didn't care if it works or not, prove that it was an intentional deception or fraud by scientist like you said it was.
Reading studies on radiometric dating won't help at all. Warriorprince1010 accused radiometric dating of being a deliberate fraud by scientist. I was mearly calling out for evidence on his opinion.
I'll put it in your language:
Maybe you should ..... read my post .... before you .... respond.....bye
He says Carbon 14 only proves the earth is 16,000 years old in the last video. Other methods include: argon-argon (Ar-Ar) iodine-xenon (I-Xe) lanthanum-barium (La-Ba) lead-lead (Pb-Pb) lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf) neon-neon (Ne-Ne) rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He) uranium-uranium (U-U)
it always amazes me that creationists love to point out what they consider to be large falsities in radiometric dating methods. Yet, they themselves have no real knowledge of how the process works. They always attack the environmental exposure of rocks as the main complaint for why radiometric dating is wrong. Though they never stop to tell you that most dating is done through core sampling, that has never seen the atmosphere. To prove their point they try not to show the bigger picture.
......and buying flash cars and big houses, oh and brainwashing people into helping them raise money, remember god needs big expensive churches with tv studios and very rich pasters.
oh and what's your god done say in the last 2000 years? fuck all! just pretending he dosent exsist,
in a fraction of a second he could stop all the misery in the world but he choses not to? what a cunt!
What... Pointing out factual statements made by scientists? Also know its a small church and most all their proceeds go to helping people in nigeria from starving to death. Thus the name NFBC. Research.
the notable truth is that, usually and probably, those that aggressively advocate evolution have 2 things in common. 1) they harbor disdain and arrogant hard feelings against god and his church. 2)because of that scenario, the only other alternative to creation, which advocates creator/designer/god, is 'evolution'. which was pieced together by 4 different individuals speculation. which built a sloppy contradictory mess. it takes a whole lot more faith to believe this slop, than in a designer.
I pray that God 4gives u all 4 the bad things you're saying about him. Jesus loves you all. He died for each of you so that you may have eternal life. Its your choice To accept him. U can go ahead and call us fools. Jesus said: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11-12.
You have to admit, this guy goes way way out in left field to try and disprove what science easily explains. If he could easily debunk what the MAJORITY of the world excepts as fact without making himself sound crazy I could possibly understand. I'm not saying I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old. Come on, how could anyone believe that is beyond me.
It's as if this guy is trying to tell us that 4+4=6.
Because one has different views, doesn't mean that they are calling god a liar. He paints a false picture and expects people to buy into his sickening views.
Actually the rate of decay is constant. Physicist have tried ot alter decay rates every way possible and they have been unable to. So the burden of proof is on YEC to show that it is variable. But here's the point: you can tell how big the candle was by seeing how much melted was there is. If it appears that wax was added or removed you find another candle.
You tube is not a paid gig. Plus, he gets paid way less than most people to do a noble job. Try to give a little respect. His point is to show a different perspective than the "popular" view. What is wrong with being persuasive? Is that bad? Or is it just bad/irritating that he is a Christian?
P.S. Some of the smartest people in the world are believers in creationism. I have two friends whose IQs are over 155 and who believe. Try not to judge a book by it's cover.
I'm not saying that it looks cheap, I'm saying that it looks like he's trying to sell me something. And while shouting out sound bites may be persuasive, it misrepresents the real scientific evidence. This is just typical of these YEC presentations. The same supposed "unexplainable evidence" (although it has been explained over and over) is trotted out and no mention is made of 99.999% of the available evidence.
Very few of these popularizers are practicing scientists and I from the content it seems like they never get past one page overview articles from AiG.
well said. This is beyond wrong. His yelling is sickening. Forcing his beliefs on others with his loud mouth. HE's obviously mentally ill, to believe this, and even more, to think he can sell his ideas to others. Just like we know that 2+2=4, we know the earth is older than 4000yrs old. Because people have different views, doesn't mean that they are calling god a liar. Lots of scientist believe in god. I believe in god. I know Scientist go by facts. This guy makes me furious
Faure: Lol they took this quote from a textbook on igneous rock... where Gunter was discussing how to tell when rocks have been leeched. Unbelievably dishonest.
Juneman: again, this is so stupid I don't even have to research it. A geological flood would throw off dating methods; so why is radiometric dating so unbelievably consistent?
Um were you responding to my comment on the quote they stole from Faure? I wasn't trying to say this video was a failure, I was pointing out whose claim I was responding to.
Let's do some research on the quotes lil Billy is mining shall we?
Faul: pioneer of radiometric dating, died in 1981
Ranicelli: most recent work in 1971
Klapper/Wyant: Don't even have to research this one do I? "some granites", "weak acid"--where are you going to find a weak acid a hundred feet below ground?
Dudley: Where to even begin? Dudley hypothesized ways to accelerate decay rates. He proposed ways to test that. He was WRONG. Even he has admitted since 1981 that he was WRONG.
"argon...escapes from the rock" Wow, just... wow. I mean, DOES he live in an alternate universe? He seems to think everything can travel through solid rock.
The funniest thing about that though is that argon escaping from rock would actually make a rock appear YOUNGER, not older, by radiometric dating.
"Lead and uranium can easily migrate in some rocks". Yeah, in MOLTEN ROCKS. What universe is this guy from, that he thinks solids move freely through solid rock? The vaporization point of lead is relatively low for a metal--at 1700 degrees Celsius.
"It could be five minutes, it could be two days". Wow, an inaccuracy of a factor of almost 600! So why do all the websites I look at agree the uncertainty is closer to +-1%? Could it be he's LYING?
Wow, this guy is a moron. Decay rates are caused by quantum mechanics; only massive doses of radiation (like, enough to kill everything on the planet), nuclear explosions, or God could change a decay rate.
Burning something produces molten wax; decay produces daughter products, using that, we can effortlessly tell how much candle or radioactive material were in the process at the beginning.
the biggest problem with carbon 14 dating is that it can not distinguish the age of something accurately due to contaminates in the object being tested.
This is so sad, the systematic dumbing down of people.
Science is not a religion, thats the point, Science, all of it, has a sucessful record. Proof of this all can be seen in our technology, medicines, and strong advances. Ingnoring all that and dismissing it is just wrong.
In fact, science that refuses to examine IS as mystical, existential and superstitious a religion as there is. But much said in the NAME of science isn't science at all, but hopes against an irrefutable bible. Many claims in recent past are no longer cited, because the bible was right all along. It still is.
Much said in the NAME of god isn't god's word at all, but power-grabs by individuals.
The troubling thing about trying to debate the scientific accuracy of the bible is that the bible really doesn't make very many scientific claims. It's a historical document filled with anecdotal testimonies. This is not to discredit the bible, it was state-of-the-art record keeping at the time, but I doubt the veracity of any historical book that claims anyone lived to be 969 years old.
their knowledge of science conflicts with the scientific consensus. what is more likely?
1. they, as laypeople, have found serious and definite flaws in scientific techniques that have escaped the notice of all the world's scientists.
2. they have discovered that science's techniques are wrong, scientists know about them, and every scientist in the world is in on the cover-up conspiracy
3. their understanding of the science is incomplete
Anyone who thinks that scientific truth is in any way dependent upon a consensus among scientists, doesn't have the common sense necessary to make a sound scientific argument.
of course it doesn't mean that the scientific consensus is absolutely true. back in the day, the best scientists thought the sun had to be young because it could only be releasing energy via gravitational collapse. but then they discovered nuclear fusion and the energy it releases, and they did the research and changed the consensus.
the consensus reflects all of the data we have today. and all of it says "old". maybe there's more to be found, but this is what we have right now.
Scientific consensus merely reflects an orthodoxy of worldview where things such as origins of the universe are concerned, because the ultimate answer is unknowable. There are far too many variables involved... far too much that cannot be confirmed through true scientific method. It's mostly speculation based upon more speculation.
most science DOES start out as speculation. there are lots of hypotheses, but then they are tested. hypotheses which make predictions that are not observed are discarded.
a while back, the big bang theory and the steady state theory were competing for support. and yes, both sides sought evidence which would strengthen their idea. but when the evidence was examined, the SS theory failed to make accurate predictions and was discarded. that is the nature of science.
It seems to me that most people begin their arguments over origins by adopting a particular theory from the start. They then set about looking for evidence that exclusively supports their worldview. That is why biblical creationists believe that the Bible is 100 percent accurate despite the evidence to the contrary, and why evolutionists believe in Darwin's hypothesis, regardless of its glaringly obvious logical flaws and lack of supporting evidence.
You're talking about yourself, because contrary to what you say, the bible has NEVER been refuted. Saying anything false a 1,000 times doesn't make it true. The facts are the bible has NEVER been refuted.
ATL45, MUCH of the past's "scientific consensus" which conflicted with the bible is no longer used and cowers on the shelves of yesteryear's arguments. The facts are that the bible has never been refuted. Objected to? Yes! But NEVER refuted. It is proven accurate time and time again for thousands of years. Get it?
dear Atl45: the correct KJV is - "Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.". Also, Galileo went against the 'traditions' of prideful men, not the literal reading in the Bible. Where in the Bible do you read that the Sun is the center of anything? Of course we know from the Bible that the Son (Jesus) IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING!!!
Wow ...he really thinks science hasn't tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay?And as natural reactions in africa 2 bio years ago suggest on earth at least for this time they were constant.And as we see light from stars that are billions of lightyears away shows that the very rules of radioactivity have been the same since.So much igniorance in so short time...
gastarbeiter1 3 months ago 2
Anyone reading this was lucky enough to be born with a awesome brain. But some people refuse to use it when it comes to science. This is a fucking disgrace to humanity. I think the world would be a better place if all these people would just die.
entehrend 5 months ago
its so funny how most of you guys think hes for real. you do realize hes a performance artist of the absurd, right? hes got u fooled
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
I looked up some known methods for dating rocks and they say radiometric which is the same as carbon dating basically is it not?
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
Radiometric dating is a general term for many different types of dating methods.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is your lucky day with naughty hot chicks mworld5.info
LisesiHeath 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World s no 1 Russian women dating site here gettop5.info
RileyDarlem 1 year ago
I think this video is meant to be a joke. Is it?
I mean, we have dozens of dating methods that ALL INDEPENDENTLY match. You can assert that the decay rate of all of the different atoms changed, even though that takes faith because we have not ever observed this under any circumstances ever!!!
er876897 1 year ago
@er876897 If this guy has proof that all of these dating methods are wrong, then why doesn't he write a scientific journal, or find one and simply disprove it? He would probably win a nobel prize if he did...
Then again, making an assertion that physical constants "could" have been different in the past is hardly a proof against any dating method. If you can prove it is wrong, then find a peer reviewed journal and prove it wrong. Put your money where your mouth is!!!
er876897 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty brides so sexy benaughtyman.info
nikinilakmali 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neighboring naughty women record benaughtyman.info
thusharinadeeka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Sexy Girls in Your Area busizz4me.info
bolgendolki 1 year ago
Billy boy talks like he does not know the bible has been proven wrong many times, and evolution is fact. Yelling does not help.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The rate of decay is based on the 'Nuclear Weak Force'. One of four forces of nature.
Did Gravity change in the past? How do you know, were you there?
Stupid argument!
/
Tree rings go back 10,000 years, proving the bible flood story wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The tree rings don't prove anything, it's based on faulty assumptions that the rate of ring formation is consistent
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 The fact is, trees usually make one ring a year, and it is easy to spot the extra rings.
The fact is all dating methods prove the earth is old.
The fact is geology shows the earth is old and there was no global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Watch these videos: Mount St Helens - Evidence For Catastrophe Pt1 - 6
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 Tell me what you think 'Uniformitainism' means.
Do you think it means 'slow and gradual' and not 'Catstophies'
Then you are wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 1.Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 Tree rings prove the earth is at least 10,000 years old.
It also proves radiometric dating works, they cross check.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Witnessing?!? WTF is that??
gregrutz 1 year ago
Witness to me?
It will go bad for you!
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All Scientific dating methods are all based on the ASSUMPTION that the earth has stayed the same or Constant. If it didnt all dating systems are wrong, And we know the earth wasnt always the same the flood ect, but even science claims asteroids hit the earth and ice ages so All dating techniques used by evolution are completly wrong, So there is no millions or billions of years so evolution couldnt have hapened and is a scam. Check mate
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Jesus still loves all of you doubters, even though you never seem to do anything but run down the messenger instead of reply to the message.
By the way, it has been said that strong language (swearing) is the product of a weak mind.
eph2810 2 years ago
What a pile of desparate shit.
I hope people are intelligent enough to understand that this moron is trying to attack some fraction of a solid science called evolution. It's not that science is perfect but this video is idiotic. Evolution is fact and religious people need to learn dealing with it within the belief of God. This type of guy is putting a great shame on the USA as being ignorant and fanatically religious.
ThinkingBetter 2 years ago
Geologist know the earth was millions of years old 200 years ago, before dating methods were discovered
gregrutz 2 years ago
"Lead escapes as vapor at rather low temperatures" (13:00) this is wrong! This funny screaming preacher Guy certainly had Mercury in his mind, but this element is not analysed for the mentioned objective ;-)
kleenex3000 2 years ago
This guy is fucking insane. He should go to prison to comfort his sex buddy Kent Hovind.
subnetme 2 years ago
that's a party?! there losers, at least have an orgy!
320iguy 2 years ago
Evolution is proven by genome mapping DNA , thousands of transitionals fossils , evidence of atavism in many living species ,gap less fossil records etc.Denying this is like denial of moon landing.
flyingscience 2 years ago
Evolution does not have evidence and it is not an observed fact...it can not be proved at all it is a belief system...the problem is that you have been taught by your school system that it's a fact...how can you come up with assumptions from fossils..and Micro evolution cannot be extrapolated to macro evolution....there is no proof of transitional living beings or fossils...and the DNA genome only proves a creator...you cannot create something out of nothing...I have read all books on evolution.
Turpy7777 2 years ago
Turpy -your parroting the classical creationist defense ,its discredited . Scientific consensus is that its a fact and has indeed been observed and recorded . Need videos explaining this?
flyingscience 2 years ago
Glad to see that other people know their stuff too. And it saddens me that these videos are only found by either people who don't need to be convinced, or people who choose to never be convinced.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
That is Ok. God is the one who convinces not us.
Turpy7777 2 years ago
This is what you been taught in school and you cannot see the forest for the trees...if you do not want to believe in God ..that is fine...but please have more intellectual rigor when you explain something....if you cannot see that the fossil recored is imagined, that carbon dating has a lot of problems if you have really studied it....and hiding behind authority..or saying evolution has proven or it is a fact or there is a lot of evidence does not make it so....sorry you are wrong.
Turpy7777 2 years ago
If you want to read what evolution does to people read the biography of jeffry dammer or Hitler's meinkampf...where they use the theory of evolution...which is a theory of death...survival of the fittest ...the ones who cannot adapt die...that's what hitler thought and you are walking in his footsteps...with the guise on knowledge saying you are scientific and the people who believe in God are somehow control or deluded or crazy...yea right ..try again....;
Turpy7777 2 years ago
Comment removed
flyingscience 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitler misused science and religion .Hitler used anti semitism from Christianity to exterminate the Jews .Their belt buckle inscribed Got Mit Uns -God With Us.
flyingscience 2 years ago
Turpy dont put nasty words in my mouth .Most Christians individually and as denominations and religious leaders accept evolution .Literalism is a minority.
flyingscience 2 years ago
If you want to read what religion does to people go read about september 11th, or the crusades.
glassbrain 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are dumber than I thought why don't you watch loose change on google..or youtube....and learn that religion is not the problem...you need to grow up....
Turpy7777 2 years ago
It would be a similar analogy to the one you said.
glassbrain 2 years ago
Sept 11 was carried out by people, who by their own standards, were hypocrites and not very holy at all. They were just murderers.
the Crusades were not Christian. They did not follow the dictates of Jesus Christ - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
eph2810 2 years ago
Oh, how convenient. The no true scotsman argument.
These acts were perpetrated in the name of the religion.
The Sept. 11 hijackers were cruising towards what they thought was their destiny. The crusades were carried out by people acting on behalf of the church.
The same can be said for the Spanish inquisition.
Your reply fails on all levels.
glassbrain 2 years ago
Like I said - the crusaders were not acting as Christians. It does not matter on whose behalf they carried out anything.
Christ, never in any of the scriptures, called anyone to conduct anything like the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was a display of raw power carried out by people who disregarded Gods commands to love thy neighbor. Instead, in the name of Christ they commited murder.
The Sept 11 hijackers were still hypocrites and murderers. May God have mercy on their soul.
eph2810 2 years ago
No true scotsman, indeed.
Again, your argument simply holds no water. So let me get this straight, acting on behalf of the church, according to church ordered doctrine, but they don't count because you simply redefine the terms?
No, it doesn't work that way.
You haven't said anything new. These people perpetrated atrocities in the names of their religions, as they thought they were divinely required to.
Do I need to give you more examples?
glassbrain 2 years ago
Just because you do not consider them "christians", does not make the point any more invalid. Using your logic, no one is a Christian. In fact, it would be pretty hard to act in any sort of cohesive, sane way while obeying all the teachings of the bible. Love thy neighbour, stone your child We both know its about interpretation
No.
Done by Christians, for the religion, as they thought was required. Good enough for me but apparently not for yet another deluded christian apologist. Imagine that.
glassbrain 2 years ago
What don't you accept or understand about:
Matthew 5:43-45, 22:37-40
Mark 12:30-31
Luke 10:27
Romans 13:8-9
Galations 5:14
James 2:8
and its application to the real world - see
Ephesians 2:10
eph2810 2 years ago
Sorry, don't quote bible verses at me. You should really be able to argue your position basic on reasoning, but of course you can't -- because we both know that the church has ordered horrible actions to be taken in the name of their god. Religion is all about power, and no amount of you plugging your ears with your fingers and going "NONONONONO" is going to change this fact, religion is at best a neutral force, and at worst a force for true evil.
glassbrain 2 years ago
Being a Christian, why would I quote anything other than the Bible to back up my point? You asked 'why' and I told you why. It is your choice to believe me or not.
But the fact reamins that a Christian follows Jesus Christ first, not some organization called "the church", which you seem to want to put everyone in who does not hold to your line of reasoning.
It was "the church" that put to death untold #'s of people that were real Christians who worshiped Jesus rather than "the church".
eph2810 2 years ago
No, you miss the connection. The church represents the word of god.
In either case, let's turn to the bible for some good old fashioned christian loving....
Genesis 15:9-10
Genesis 19:26
Exodus 12:12
Samuel 15:2-3
Numbers 31
Luke 19:22-27
And the list goes on, and on. Could you count for me the number of killings commanded by god in the bible?
glassbrain 2 years ago
you can 'prove' anything if you take it out of its context.
The Bible represents the Word of God. The church sometimes follows it, and sometimes does not.
It is up to everyone to read the Bible for themselves, and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
How many killings did Jesus command?
The answer is NONE.
If only all people would follow the teachings of Jesus. But they won't; they would rather harm, and hurt their fellow human beings to get their way..
eph2810 2 years ago
You're delusional and prepared to create any nonsensical argument to satisfy your beliefs, we both know the bible is in reality a book full of misoginy, abuse, and injustices.
glassbrain 2 years ago
Every good book is also "full of misoginy, abuse, and injustices". Moby Dick, A Tale of Two Cities, Exodus, etcl, etc.,
However, there is only one Book that presents the real hope for the human race, and that book is the Bible.
And there is only one book that presents the real savior for the human race, and that is Jesus Christ in the Bible.
by the way my dictionary spells misoginy as misogyny.
eph2810 2 years ago
Real hope for the human race?
I'm glad you have access to a dictionary, if you could access your second brain cell that would be of even greater benefit.
glassbrain 2 years ago
If I had to access my 2nd cell, I would topple over.
Believe any way you want, but believe this: in the whole history of mankind there have always arisen the Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the Mao's that would enslave mankind.
The techology now available to the next one to arise points to enslavement for the human race.
But the Bible points to the return of Jesus Christ to end the evil that is over this world.
Jesus really is the only hope we have.
eph2810 2 years ago
I can say that you do have a sense of humour!
glassbrain 2 years ago
Turpy7777 Great points. keep Spreading the Truth.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Comment removed
flyingscience 2 years ago
You can tell by his voice he is not appealing to reason but ignorance and fear .Scary old time religion hates science !
flyingscience 2 years ago 2
Bad Science...you do not want to hear..what he is saying...so make assumptions...your very scientific...bye.
Turpy7777 2 years ago
Turpy -I heard ,I listened, creationism has been refuted for decades.Evangelicals lap this up and make him rich .He's fleecing you and preying on your ignorance and fears .
flyingscience 2 years ago
I understand where you are coming from...there are some evangelicals who steal money from ignorant and needy people.....but I m educated and know what they are saying is true....I do not belong to their church and I have checked out the sources...Evolution is a myth....people who do not believe in evolution are labeled as dumb or ignorant...I only stick to science......and what is more likely to have happened.
Turpy7777 2 years ago
Turpy - You cant dismiss facts .You can ignore the factual status of evolution in your mind but it doesn't change external reality for the rest of us .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Evolution is considered an observed fact both micro and macro . Evolution has more evidence to back it than ANY other theory (atomic , cellular ,gravity etc..)Calling it a myth is pure denial .
flyingscience 2 years ago 5
@flyingscience thems some rather large claims that don't even line up with current evolutionary thought as evolution by definition is 'unobservable' books like "What Darwin got wrong" a atheist himself in the witness protection program since his book came out! would strongly disagree with you and oh! Anthony Flew...
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 Macro evolution is being observed now and over the last 3 centuries . Google evidence for macro evolution and read up on the subject . Creationist sources will not inform you of this . Learning is fun and enjoyable . Knowledge can free you from the shackles of YEC .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 Conversions of indivduals has no bearing on the factual status of evolution . Ive heard that 25% of Evangelical children brcame secular in 1 decade due to internet use and independant thinking . Its no surprise the religious right backlash makes death threats , religion creates intense hatred toward non members.
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience I have no clue what your speaking of? This is pure propaganda from the evolutionist camp...in actuality evolutionary thought is in trouble and under attack from within its own camp...there has been major defections from many highly respected scientist like Kenyon, the the scientist from Cornell who oversaw the gene gun project , one of the most famous atheist of the century Anthony Flew...who now believes in intelligent design...no a Christian purely on scientific grounds. the ..
hayomtov7 1 year ago 2
@hayomtov7 "Look up atheism fastest growing...." in a google search . Read a few articles . I know I cant convince you of evolutions factual status but your denial doesnt make it go away . You have "faith/ indoctrination" which is stonger than ayones ability to explain otherwise . Evantualy the light switch will go on IF you apply yourself . Good luck recovering from fundamentalism " look up walk away from fundamentalism " for help .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience My advantage over you is I have thoroughly investigated Both! You are handicap with second hand knowledge thus your position stems from what your teachers indoctrination has left you saddle with. You must search for yourself..you know and I know for the duration of our discussion you have simply regurgitated information from indoctrination...Life is short you cannot afford to be wrong! Question everything...that is what i have done...don't give scientist a pass..prove all things!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 You actualy managed to sound respectful on that post minus the implied hell tourture threat . The information is waiting for you to discovery it in this wonderfull age of information . Science is on my side as are the facts . You can have any faith you want but facts are everyones and they are easy to verify . Macro evolution is real and documented , photographed ,weighed , genome maped ect.. Science trumps headstrong creationist denial everytime .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience thisis kind of ironic because it takes far more faith to notr believe in God, and you are blind to everyting tah tis not eveloution. Unfortunately, it is society that has been ndoctrinated about evolution.
Swimminginacoat 1 year ago
@flyingscience cont. typo ..not a Christian. Flysci...Christianity has handled much more formidable opponents than evolution. like the Roman empire who killed Christians for sport on a regular bases. Christianity accomplished what not even standing armies and empires could do..conquered Rome! and since then Rome fell yet Christianity stands. Christianity has the highest rate of conversion historically speaking of any religion period. The Gospel is being preached 365/ 24/7 by satellite globally!
hayomtov7 1 year ago 9
@hayomtov7 Atheism has the highest conversion rate of all religions currently .Dont take my word look it up .I think Muslims are second .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience I laugh at you you are so indoctrinated. more atheist have converted from atheism to Christianity..As long as you have your head in the sand..the last two thousand years have seen a staggering amount of conversions to Christianity. An entire Empire of close to 300 million romans in one fell swoop converted..your are deluding yourself!
Evolution in the jungle of science is like the weak frail animal around which All the other sciences HUDDLE around to protect. Truth on the prowl!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 Christianity took up the mantle of the falling Roman empire , one of the first thing to happen was to wage dogma wars , all pagan prists and priestesses where executed . All non trinitarian Christians where hunted down killed and tortured for being monotheistic .It was a bloody road . Prayer circles took the back seat over violence .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 Wait, i'm no expert on history but even i know it wasn't christianity that "conquered Rome". Are you serious?! Were you ever told at school about the economic problems Rome had, which in turn allowed their enemies from the north to slowly defeat them? I'm guessing you were probably home schooled, that would probably explain it, either that or your history teacher should be sacked. Seriously, go back to school!
wearsil09 1 year ago
@wearsil09 Wait, i'm no expert on history but even i know it wasn't christianity that "conquered Rome.
I don't mean militarily! whenever you subjugate a people and slaughter them for 3 centuries and they still manage to unseat the what has been the original belief system for almost a thousand years and systematically rises to the highest and most prominent place in the empire...what do you call it! Not all victories are one with the sword! The Pen is mightier than the sword!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 I take your point, but what i was trying to say is that there were many problems in Rome prior to its demise and that Christianity isn't really a reason that any historian can today state as being the prime reason in its destruction. If America was to collapse tomorrow, you couldnt point to a singular reason, there would be many that contributed towards it, for example, war, social problems, economic problems etc.
wearsil09 1 year ago
@wearsil09 there were many problems in Rome...
My point was "Belief' system as it became the 'Dominant Belief System' Then and Now!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 Atheism has the largest conversion number at the present (more accuratly it could be called deconversion because they are leaving faith). Blame it on education and the internet . Its those pesky little realated videos that are making creationist children become secular at an alarming pace .Islam is second by the way .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience Atheism has the largest conversion number at the present.
As long as you continue to believe this ...Christianity doesn't have a thing to worry about!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 If you have any doubts just google "atheism grows" to see many articles .You may also have heard the new poll that atheists and agnostics know their bible better than theists ,even Evangelicals . I will also add they commit less crime and have higher IQ's (and less divorce rates) acording to older studies .Feel free to google atheists and higher IQ's if you doubt me .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 This video has multiple links in its video description . Knowledge cures fundamemntalism . "MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution " There are other videos as well your computer can be your savior from fundametalism . Study hard set yourself free .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 If you want me to look up titles of videos that explain macro evolution being observed now I will . The information is at your fingertips if you are brave enough to face you may need to take off the bible glasses.
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience You do jest! I think you would be better served by applying falsifiability techniques to the theory like many of the scientist have done and are doing. I have no fear what soever because truth is always a good thing! However i have spoken personally with scientist like a biologist at Cornell who owns one of if not the most extensive collections of original evolutionary literature, his arguments could not convince me simply from the standpoint of intellectual honesty. 2 many holes!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 Deconversion from fundamentalism is never instant or like a light switch (it will take you years if you apply yourself and continue to read etc..) Your mind will not want to change . There are entire lists of new species that are new on Earth from Macro evolution .Study hard catch up , become science literate !
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience This is pure conjecture and scientific subjectivity...Boast that not even intellectually honest scientist would back up LOL!!!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@flyingscience See the difference is I completely understand evolutionary thought ..current evolutionary thought ! Not the indoctrination of lies that we were fed in school. I think for myself and I am more than confident that evolution is a lie..a fake phony fraud not based on religious grounds.. but on even scientific inquiry, study, falsifiability an expanding outside of the cool_aid drinkers and the young & impressionable minds who haven't leaned to think outside the box they are in! Please!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyingscience Any objective analysis of the fossil record not based on a desperate attempt to explain contradictions all away because they emphatically contradict evolutionary thought is obvious to those with a open mind. the Cambrian explosion, screams out to all who will listen without filters that all life as we know it arose exploded suddenly! Absent intermediates, missing links, or transitional ANYTHING!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@flyingscience The whole point of macro-evolution is thit has never been observed! It can't be--no scientists will claim to observe it bcausthey say it takes milions of years. Observatn meanseeingin the present! microevolution can be observed but a brown mouse turing into a white mouse is no proof for evolution becaue it is stilla mouse -- not a bear or smthing!
Swimminginacoat 1 year ago
@Swimminginacoat Macro evolution has indeed been observed . You are wrong to asume it ONLY takes millions of years . Please google evidence of macro evolution research the subject before you parot creationist missinformation . Evolution IS a fact both micro and macro . I do not have the free time to tutor you for free .Just look it up and read . I can find you some easy videos in the evening .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 please elaborate on the wittness protection I assume you meant the author of "What Darwin got wrong" was it Muslims or Christians trying to get him?
I couldnt find anything on a quick search .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience These are his own words in response to all the flack he has received just for telling the truth about the weakness of NS...it was sarcasm however the pressure and vitriol has been nasty!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@flyingscience the keyword there is "considered". it may be considered but that doesnt mak it true! and bytheway, macro evelution has NEVER been observed because there hasn't been enough time -- that is if you even believe the world is very old.
Swimminginacoat 1 year ago
@flyingscience the keyword there is "considered". it may be considered but that doesnt make it true! and by the way, macro evolution has NEVER been observed because there hasn't been enough time -- that is if you even believe the world is very old.
Swimminginacoat 1 year ago
@Swimminginacoat Evolutionis confirmed by the fossil record , observations in the lab and in the wild both micro and macro . Nature requires NO intelligence this doesnt rule out God but it is a bad hint . Its also a bad hint how many religions have been invented and how religion seems to have only human wisdom and only from a 1-4th century commitee . Divine wisdom would have made banning slavery a comandment along with women equality .That fact makes God seem like he was taking a nap .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience Evolution is considered an observed fact??
Pure subjective conjecture and qualifies as a pseudo-science...this is your indoctrination talking! Evol. and its two wooden legs NS & RM are nothing but fairy tales!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 A small amount of effort on your part to study Macro evolution might help you become knowledgable on the subject .You need to leave your comfort zone and actualy study these subjects and not faithfully parrot creationist missinformation .These videos can help "11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism "
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience ...then where are your "common ancestors" the missing links between the evolution of species such as reptiles and birds? The proteins found in reptile scales and bird feathers are not even close to be same! You would think that by now someone somewhere would find something that connected the two. This is just one example...there are hundreds of other "missing links" throughout the whole animal kingdom. Cant have fact with missing evidence and counter theories.
eclipsse101 1 year ago
@eclipsse101 It's great that your asking these questions . I hope you spend the time needed to learn the answers .I hope your mind is relaxed enuogh that you can actualy learn . Birds came from theropod dinosaurs .Wonderful incredible new fossils have been found not long ago .Here is an entire program on the subject . "Feather Evolution 1of5 " Note that the feathers from scales hypothesis was indeed very wrong . Now we know from evo. devo. and the new fossils !! Amazing 4 winged birds!!!!
flyingscience 1 year ago
@eclipsse101 There are many new fossil transitional fossils found within the last decade .There are new transitional fossils found every 7 weeks on average . There are also living transitional species . There is also incredible living vestigial limbs (whale embyos babies have back legs in their bodies . Horses are sometimes born with their extra vestigial toes and humans are born with tails. Just look them up . Get the whole story from non creationists .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience None of these are vestigial. Attached to the tail bone are 9 muscles that assist with your bowell movements. The "leg bones" in the back of whales are attached to several muscles that assist them in giving birth. The whole "horse toe evolution thing" was proven wrong 20 years ago when, what was supposed to be a "modern horse" was dug up a layer beneath what was supposed to be a horse from a several hundred thousand years ago. Macro evolution did not happen
kb24crazylaker 6 days ago
@eclipsse101 fuck read a book.
Interactivesystems 1 year ago
evolution + devil = hell
WeAreRaptureReady 2 years ago
raptureready- fundamentalist childhood indoctrination+ bad attitude of science + ignorance + fear +torture threats to outsiders= Bad Evangelical theology/science illiteracy .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Radiometric dating is pure fraud. The earth cannot be dated by any scientific method, none.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Since your so sure that radiometric dating is pure fraud then prove it. Or are you just making up stuff like all the other christians?
enold4mizzou 2 years ago
You have never proved it works, that is enough for me.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
1) That logic is so shallow it isn't even a rebuttal. It can be applied to basically anything, for example, "You have never proved that god is real" why do you believe in him? Same concept.
2) You didn't read my question right. You said radiometric dating is a fraud. In my statment I didn't care if it works or not, prove that it was an intentional deception or fraud by scientist like you said it was.
enold4mizzou 2 years ago
Why don't you go and read..the studies on radiometric dating ....and learn something..bye
Turpy7777 2 years ago
What are you talking about?
Reading studies on radiometric dating won't help at all. Warriorprince1010 accused radiometric dating of being a deliberate fraud by scientist. I was mearly calling out for evidence on his opinion.
I'll put it in your language:
Maybe you should ..... read my post .... before you .... respond.....bye
enold4mizzou 2 years ago
gregrutz 2 years ago
it always amazes me that creationists love to point out what they consider to be large falsities in radiometric dating methods. Yet, they themselves have no real knowledge of how the process works. They always attack the environmental exposure of rocks as the main complaint for why radiometric dating is wrong. Though they never stop to tell you that most dating is done through core sampling, that has never seen the atmosphere. To prove their point they try not to show the bigger picture.
goat81can 2 years ago
Lies..good liar you are...
Turpy7777 2 years ago
......and buying flash cars and big houses, oh and brainwashing people into helping them raise money, remember god needs big expensive churches with tv studios and very rich pasters.
oh and what's your god done say in the last 2000 years? fuck all! just pretending he dosent exsist,
in a fraction of a second he could stop all the misery in the world but he choses not to? what a cunt!
stoneybridger 2 years ago
i bet he's made loads of money talking this crap tho
stoneybridger 3 years ago
What... Pointing out factual statements made by scientists? Also know its a small church and most all their proceeds go to helping people in nigeria from starving to death. Thus the name NFBC. Research.
Dejavu12321 2 years ago
the notable truth is that, usually and probably, those that aggressively advocate evolution have 2 things in common. 1) they harbor disdain and arrogant hard feelings against god and his church. 2)because of that scenario, the only other alternative to creation, which advocates creator/designer/god, is 'evolution'. which was pieced together by 4 different individuals speculation. which built a sloppy contradictory mess. it takes a whole lot more faith to believe this slop, than in a designer.
decetorial 3 years ago
"they harbor disdain and arrogant hard feelings against god and his church"
A lot of "Evolutionists" believe in god
sweatytoothmadman 3 years ago
there are 3 kinds of evolutionist's:
1) those that accept it passively without knowing much about it. (i.e. conditioning from schools blind protocols)
2) those that accept it aggressively without knowing much about it. (i.e. conditioning from heathen parents/guardians, or lack thereof.)
3) those that accept it aggressively and, know enough about it, committing to its obvious frauds. (i.e. college philosophical class.)
decetorial 3 years ago
Every single one of those was wrong, we accept it because it has the preponderance of evidence. For 150 it has gained nothing but momentum.
sweatytoothmadman 3 years ago
Is this the same evidence the pastor on this clip was talking about?
Dejavu12321 2 years ago
I pray that God 4gives u all 4 the bad things you're saying about him. Jesus loves you all. He died for each of you so that you may have eternal life. Its your choice To accept him. U can go ahead and call us fools. Jesus said: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11-12.
JodaulCreese 3 years ago
You have to admit, this guy goes way way out in left field to try and disprove what science easily explains. If he could easily debunk what the MAJORITY of the world excepts as fact without making himself sound crazy I could possibly understand. I'm not saying I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old. Come on, how could anyone believe that is beyond me.
It's as if this guy is trying to tell us that 4+4=6.
dvs1572 3 years ago
People can try as hard as they want, convincing 95% of scientists won't work.
fetrug 3 years ago
where did you get the number 95%?
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
especially when 50% are not sure.
Dejavu12321 2 years ago
Because one has different views, doesn't mean that they are calling god a liar. He paints a false picture and expects people to buy into his sickening views.
dvs1572 3 years ago
Maybe you should have realized what god he was referring to before commenting. It would make sense if you knew.
Dejavu12321 2 years ago
Dejavu12321,
What difference would it make? The god he is referring to is HIS god. And this guy paints a clear picture of him.
The con artist is trying to tell me that if I do not believe the outlandish bullshit he puts forth, then I am calling god a liar.
So.... Am I calling god a liar if I refuse to believe in talking snakes as well?
dvs1572 2 years ago
girl here looking for a guy!!!!!!!
bryand1791 3 years ago
Actually the rate of decay is constant. Physicist have tried ot alter decay rates every way possible and they have been unable to. So the burden of proof is on YEC to show that it is variable. But here's the point: you can tell how big the candle was by seeing how much melted was there is. If it appears that wax was added or removed you find another candle.
snakeguy76 3 years ago 6
I think the first tipoff that this guys is full of sh** is that he sounds like he's doing an infomercial.
And boy those people sure look bored without Jesus.
machomaas 3 years ago
You tube is not a paid gig. Plus, he gets paid way less than most people to do a noble job. Try to give a little respect. His point is to show a different perspective than the "popular" view. What is wrong with being persuasive? Is that bad? Or is it just bad/irritating that he is a Christian?
P.S. Some of the smartest people in the world are believers in creationism. I have two friends whose IQs are over 155 and who believe. Try not to judge a book by it's cover.
godbride 3 years ago
I'm not saying that it looks cheap, I'm saying that it looks like he's trying to sell me something. And while shouting out sound bites may be persuasive, it misrepresents the real scientific evidence. This is just typical of these YEC presentations. The same supposed "unexplainable evidence" (although it has been explained over and over) is trotted out and no mention is made of 99.999% of the available evidence.
machomaas 3 years ago
Very few of these popularizers are practicing scientists and I from the content it seems like they never get past one page overview articles from AiG.
machomaas 3 years ago
This is so terrible I don't even know where to start saying how wrong this is.
sacrosanct24 3 years ago
well said. This is beyond wrong. His yelling is sickening. Forcing his beliefs on others with his loud mouth. HE's obviously mentally ill, to believe this, and even more, to think he can sell his ideas to others. Just like we know that 2+2=4, we know the earth is older than 4000yrs old. Because people have different views, doesn't mean that they are calling god a liar. Lots of scientist believe in god. I believe in god. I know Scientist go by facts. This guy makes me furious
dvs1572 3 years ago
Faure: Lol they took this quote from a textbook on igneous rock... where Gunter was discussing how to tell when rocks have been leeched. Unbelievably dishonest.
Juneman: again, this is so stupid I don't even have to research it. A geological flood would throw off dating methods; so why is radiometric dating so unbelievably consistent?
Hooya2 3 years ago
failure? first you have to spell it :)
leanonme1 3 years ago
Um were you responding to my comment on the quote they stole from Faure? I wasn't trying to say this video was a failure, I was pointing out whose claim I was responding to.
Hooya2 3 years ago
lol i guess i was the one who failed then lol
leanonme1 3 years ago
lol
Hooya2 3 years ago
Let's do some research on the quotes lil Billy is mining shall we?
Faul: pioneer of radiometric dating, died in 1981
Ranicelli: most recent work in 1971
Klapper/Wyant: Don't even have to research this one do I? "some granites", "weak acid"--where are you going to find a weak acid a hundred feet below ground?
Dudley: Where to even begin? Dudley hypothesized ways to accelerate decay rates. He proposed ways to test that. He was WRONG. Even he has admitted since 1981 that he was WRONG.
Hooya2 3 years ago
"argon...escapes from the rock" Wow, just... wow. I mean, DOES he live in an alternate universe? He seems to think everything can travel through solid rock.
The funniest thing about that though is that argon escaping from rock would actually make a rock appear YOUNGER, not older, by radiometric dating.
Hooya2 3 years ago 2
"Lead and uranium can easily migrate in some rocks". Yeah, in MOLTEN ROCKS. What universe is this guy from, that he thinks solids move freely through solid rock? The vaporization point of lead is relatively low for a metal--at 1700 degrees Celsius.
"It could be five minutes, it could be two days". Wow, an inaccuracy of a factor of almost 600! So why do all the websites I look at agree the uncertainty is closer to +-1%? Could it be he's LYING?
Hooya2 3 years ago 2
Wow, this guy is a moron. Decay rates are caused by quantum mechanics; only massive doses of radiation (like, enough to kill everything on the planet), nuclear explosions, or God could change a decay rate.
Burning something produces molten wax; decay produces daughter products, using that, we can effortlessly tell how much candle or radioactive material were in the process at the beginning.
Hooya2 3 years ago 2
the biggest problem with carbon 14 dating is that it can not distinguish the age of something accurately due to contaminates in the object being tested.
optical76 3 years ago
This is so sad, the systematic dumbing down of people.
Science is not a religion, thats the point, Science, all of it, has a sucessful record. Proof of this all can be seen in our technology, medicines, and strong advances. Ingnoring all that and dismissing it is just wrong.
Smokin3215 4 years ago
In fact, science that refuses to examine IS as mystical, existential and superstitious a religion as there is. But much said in the NAME of science isn't science at all, but hopes against an irrefutable bible. Many claims in recent past are no longer cited, because the bible was right all along. It still is.
dantrenner 4 years ago
Much said in the NAME of god isn't god's word at all, but power-grabs by individuals.
The troubling thing about trying to debate the scientific accuracy of the bible is that the bible really doesn't make very many scientific claims. It's a historical document filled with anecdotal testimonies. This is not to discredit the bible, it was state-of-the-art record keeping at the time, but I doubt the veracity of any historical book that claims anyone lived to be 969 years old.
Zephym 4 years ago
their knowledge of science conflicts with the scientific consensus. what is more likely?
1. they, as laypeople, have found serious and definite flaws in scientific techniques that have escaped the notice of all the world's scientists.
2. they have discovered that science's techniques are wrong, scientists know about them, and every scientist in the world is in on the cover-up conspiracy
3. their understanding of the science is incomplete
ATL45 4 years ago
Anyone who thinks that scientific truth is in any way dependent upon a consensus among scientists, doesn't have the common sense necessary to make a sound scientific argument.
DarcPrynce 4 years ago
of course it doesn't mean that the scientific consensus is absolutely true. back in the day, the best scientists thought the sun had to be young because it could only be releasing energy via gravitational collapse. but then they discovered nuclear fusion and the energy it releases, and they did the research and changed the consensus.
the consensus reflects all of the data we have today. and all of it says "old". maybe there's more to be found, but this is what we have right now.
ATL45 4 years ago
Scientific consensus merely reflects an orthodoxy of worldview where things such as origins of the universe are concerned, because the ultimate answer is unknowable. There are far too many variables involved... far too much that cannot be confirmed through true scientific method. It's mostly speculation based upon more speculation.
DarcPrynce 4 years ago
most science DOES start out as speculation. there are lots of hypotheses, but then they are tested. hypotheses which make predictions that are not observed are discarded.
a while back, the big bang theory and the steady state theory were competing for support. and yes, both sides sought evidence which would strengthen their idea. but when the evidence was examined, the SS theory failed to make accurate predictions and was discarded. that is the nature of science.
ATL45 4 years ago
It seems to me that most people begin their arguments over origins by adopting a particular theory from the start. They then set about looking for evidence that exclusively supports their worldview. That is why biblical creationists believe that the Bible is 100 percent accurate despite the evidence to the contrary, and why evolutionists believe in Darwin's hypothesis, regardless of its glaringly obvious logical flaws and lack of supporting evidence.
DarcPrynce 4 years ago
You're talking about yourself, because contrary to what you say, the bible has NEVER been refuted. Saying anything false a 1,000 times doesn't make it true. The facts are the bible has NEVER been refuted.
dantrenner 4 years ago
ATL45, MUCH of the past's "scientific consensus" which conflicted with the bible is no longer used and cowers on the shelves of yesteryear's arguments. The facts are that the bible has never been refuted. Objected to? Yes! But NEVER refuted. It is proven accurate time and time again for thousands of years. Get it?
dantrenner 4 years ago
no. it has just been re-interpreted under the assumption that, if a literal reading leads to nonsense, then it MUST have been metaphorical.
the Church objected to Galileo because a sun-centered model was "contrary to a literal reading of scripture."
today, it's evolution and an old earth that are contrary to a literal reading of scripture. so we have the day-age theory.
Genesis 1:16 - "the moon is a light, like the sun but smaller." Oh but that must have been a metaphor right?
ATL45 4 years ago
dear Atl45: the correct KJV is - "Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.". Also, Galileo went against the 'traditions' of prideful men, not the literal reading in the Bible. Where in the Bible do you read that the Sun is the center of anything? Of course we know from the Bible that the Son (Jesus) IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING!!!
eph2810 3 years ago