The real axioms of science. 1/ Never believe anyone on anything. Find your own truth. 2/ Never form beliefs. Beliefs destroy your credibility and ruin science. 3/ Only go with absolute knowledge that cannot be refuted as your evidence. 4/ Don't join any human associations who control your mind for money, fear of loss, or any human weakness, like needing prestige, college degrees etc. 5/ Remember the scientific LAW of cause and result. If that is avoided then it is religion.
with this video you officially become my favorite moron onn youtube. dating sedimentary rocks with radiometric datings? that's genius.... mhmmm now I've changed my mind I'm giving you that cure for free.
@MrTheblackmessenger Do you believe there is a 6 million year old upright walking human? There are so many screwed up fossils that are destroyed as evidence because of this ridiculous dating system. You obviously know nothing about radioactive minerals.
@GoodScienceForYou 6 million years ago there is no trace of human, it's the apparition of Australopithecus that we see in the fossil record. so another dumb question from you nothing new.... next please.
@MrTheblackmessenger It was found in Africa. It is called the Orrorin tugenensis. It is an upright walking human. Why don't you know this? HMM? I wonder? Could it be your "education".
You are very uneducated. I know far more about genetics and science than you ever will.
orrorin tugenensis is not a human it's an ancestor of Australopithecus , and is suspected to be one of the missing link between other apes and human. its fossils present both feature of hominid and other apes. but the most interesting thing about him is that he was a bipedal ape that's and why he was placed in the hominidea familly.
@MrTheblackmessenger The orrorin Tegenesis femur has the exact same bone construction as modern humans except it is much stronger. The angles of the "ball" that fits in the "socket" is perfectly aligned to modern.
The problem is that in the beginning when this was found the Evotards did all they could to destroy this evidence. The scientists who found it were ridiculed. This is because it is an UPRIGHT HUMAN bone structure, much stronger than modern.
@MrTheblackmessenger There was no skull found, yet these morons will put a photo of an "ape man" behind the photo of these bones. They are disgusting liars, like you are.
@Unrealistix If you really want to debate on science with me, then goto the "Neutral Evolution Forum" and request a log on. You can post up to 20,000 characters, put videos, and links to any thing to back up your ideas, and I will teach you the real science there. If you don't come, they we know you are a coward and a fool who has no convictions of his faith.
VERY interesting GS. I had actually never thought of that angle before. If they are using the dirt to date the fossils how can it be known exactly how old the fossils are? If I'm shot in my front yard and buried quickly is the dirt around me dated as a few millions years old? Hmmmm.....very cool.
@Equestions That's because the actual surrounding sediment is NOT used to date the fossils... If you stop to think for a second you might probably come to the conclusion that the average physicist might have thought of that already.
and they did...and as described in the video sedimentary rock CAN'T be used to date fossils for precisely the reason given.
But rather than just accept that perhaps unlike this guy you might actually go off and find out HOW fossils are dated.
@Unrealistix Actually it was done for the hominids. Because of the radioactive materials. And the use of sedimentary layers based on radiometric dating is also not science. Ice cores are more accurate but only to a few hundred years. Why don't you realize that assumptive sciences are not science at all.
"And the use of sedimentary layers based on radiometric dating "
Again nobody uses radiometric dating on sedimentary rocks. Nor does anyone extract ice cores from moving glaciers (unless they are studying the movement of the glacier, or looking at the temperature and atmospheric content over a very short period of time)
Your information is clearly being researched by reading absolutely nonsense. Its not a wonder you are confused.
@Unrealistix Again. There is no tissue in rocks. Replacement fossils are rocks. The age of the minerals that surround a fossil has no way to be used to date the original living creature. It is an assumption based on faith and belief in a whole list of ideas that cannot ever be tested by any scientific methodology.
@Unrealistix Again. There is no tissue in rocks. Replacement fossils are rocks. The age of the minerals that surround a fossil has no way to be used to date the original living creature. It is an assumption based on faith and belief in a whole list of ideas that cannot ever be tested by any scientific methodology.
@Unrealistix Please explain to us fully how replacement fossils are dated according to your understanding? Because I have studied this for 46 years. Radiometric dating is the foundation of this assumptive science and there is nothing in the fossils except the minerals that replaced them. Go here:
Most fossils are dated by matching the igneous rocks both above and below the strata the fossils is found in. That igneous rock might be a thousand miles away but there will be both igneous and metamorphic rocks above and below the strata around the world.
This will give a time-frame with a relatively large deviation (more than 5%)
Modern paleontologist then employ superposition, inclusions, and the relationship to cross cuts where the strata appears above ground.
@Unrealistix Again. There is no tissue in rocks. Replacement fossils are rocks. The age of the minerals that surround a fossil has no way to be used to date the original living creature. It is an assumption based on faith and belief in a whole list of ideas that cannot ever be tested by any scientific methodology.
The funny thing is this information was available to you during your 'research' of 'the papers' before you embarked on making this video.
In no case would anyone attempt to date sedimentary rock, that's just plain stupid! Not least because they would have to date several thousand particles giving different dates.
But the fact you think people who have studied geology for years think it is possible tells us very little about geology...but a lot about how your research went.
@Unrealistix I have read every idea used to date fossils. All are basically SERIOUSLY flawed. The fact that we found a 6.1 million year old upright walking human dated this way should make you wake up. And the fact that DNA studies ONLY show that genetic degradation is all we see in every DNA study, and that extinction is the path of evolution.
All the hominids are degraded humans that went extinct. They are not "prior" they are "post" humans.
In all those years have you even ONCE come across just one physicist, geologist or any other qualified scientist (not a part time cab driver studying biblical science).. who actually tried to date sedimentary rock using radiometric dating?
Since you insist his is how its done (and its not) you must have the name of just one person anywhere who actually tried it... yes?
@Unrealistix 1 of 2 I went to school for this. In all the classes on this, all they have is faith and belief in a progressive believing system.
It goes like this. If you understand this concept and believe in it... then here is why we pile this belief on top of the first belief, and then we pile a third and fourth and we just keep making faith based ideas and believing in them
I have an IQ higher than most people on this earth. I do not allow logical fallacies to be science.
@Unrealistix The reality is they have no idea how the earth was formed, but they use a pea brained set of assumptions to make a "bible" of beliefs. They never allow any other ideas in the classroom that might be true either. There are people who have evidence of the earth expanding, and they are laughed at.
I laugh at the present faith and beliefs used and forced in to children's head in the name of science. They don't know shit about how this all happened, yet they have lots of stories.
Not to mention the obvious ... which is the look of consternation on a lab technicians face receiving a sample from someone made of sedimentary mineral rock and being asked to date it! he'd assume someone was playing a practical joke on him...or that it was an early April fools joke... but he wouldn't date it... not because he would 'decide' not to.. but because he simply couldn't... there is no procedure for dating rocks made of particles that are all from different rock.
@Unrealistix The SAME assumptions used on all radiometric dating. Assumptions are not evidence. There is no way to verify that any method is correct. Do you understand? That means that humans have no clue how old the earth really is. I think it may be from 20,000 years to 30 billion years old by these same ideas. There is no reference point in time and space to use as a reference. They have no idea the conditions millions of years ago, based on the tiny perception of this time and space.
@Unrealistix We know that time is accelerating. This is a fact. We can see this in the fact that the radiometric clock is always different than the rotation of the earth and the speed is different each year. Which is wrong? The decay rate of the rotation of the earth? Goto my "Basic Science" video.
@GoodScienceForYou As you yourself would know after your 46 years of researching this... hmmmm
Sedimentary rock can't be dated at all using radiometric dating.
Radiometric dating requires that the material being tested all has the same half life. Essentially the half life of the isotopes are dated in relation to the target element.
If you tried to date a sample that was made of sedimentary particles no date would be derived at all. It'd be like trying to weigh a planet on a kitchen scales.
@Unrealistix Again they use the radiometric dating as the foundation of the strata dating. There is no way to verify that radiometric dating is correct. I proposed methods to rectify this situation. We know from modern physics that matter becomes more dense as it is accelerated in space. That means that the decay rated is NOT constant, because the decay rate is controlled by the atomic force that is constantly increasing. The atomic force is what is increasing when matter becomes more dense
@Unrealistix How many assumptions do you belief in? Why don't you start by unraveling them one at a time? When you go back to the first assumptions you will see there is no evidence to support that idea other than a tiny human idea that can NEVER be tested. Do you understand?
What you can do with sedimentary rock is carry out a mass spectroscopy of it.
That will tell you in detail what it is composed of. And that about it.
Although I'm sure you'll be able to tell me someone that did, yes? After all you claim this is how scientists date fossils. Well which scientists, where? A name perhaps?
Why don't you try it? send of a sample to be dated anonymously (with a PO BOX) and ask for a quote to date it using radiometric dating & see what happens.
@Unrealistix In order to believe in radiometric dating, you have to believe that everything in this universe is constant. I have never found anything in this universe that is constant.
And assumptions based on a tiny perspective of pea brains is not science. There are far more "parameters" in the equation that are not ever looked at because these pea brains have no idea they exist until someone finds them. Then they have to recognize that these new findings change the old ideas completely.
@GoodScienceForYou Funny that you keep alluding to relativity... and it includes three constants. You also insist the universe is expanding, and that rate of expansion is increasing... and that includes constants too...
in fact 5+5 contains constants!
I'm sure all physicists are pea brained morons... (says you happily typing away on a computer when you have no fucking clue how it works)
@Unrealistix Listen, you are a moron because you believe in magical mutation fairies. That shit defines you to me. As soon as you rid yourself of the Evodelusionism religion then you can begin to be a scientist.
We do not know how to determine time over billions of years because the fucking morons you call scientists belief in magical constants and magical mutations and shit that does not exist.
@Unrealistix Time is constantly changing. It has no constant and none of these morons have even tried to find it. Measuring time against a constantly changing background is nearly impossible and is impossible for pea brains. You are going to go into the list of banned people soon. I only have so much patience for the mentally degraded.
@Unrealistix The very foundation of time is in constant flux. Time is not constant, and we have no idea how much time has sped up from the beginning. The universe is expanding and it is accelerating. That means that time is also accelerating and it is the rate of acceleration is also speeding up. It is like there is not a constant pressure on the "gas" peddle of life. The speed of the increase in acceleration is also accelerating, that increases in several dimensions at once.
@Unrealistix When you live in a tiny little perspective of this time and this space, there is no way for you to measure any other position in time and space beyond what your tiny brain can understand from its tiny perspective.
True genius knows how stupid it is. All the great minds have said the same thing. The more they know the more stupid they realize they are.
@cincinatus90 It would be good if you could share them with others. Most of what is called biological science is a form of mythology that has been detailed by belief and projected on the world. There is no possible way to date a fossil with any calibration method known to humans. There is no way to verify any of it.
In the meantime I swore to myself repeatedly I would not engage in nonsense conversations with uneducated people regarding the nonsense of religious dogma....
Especially people who are actually told how something happens, are provided with the evidence, where it is demonstrated to them that what they think is absolutely not the case... but who choose to ignore that information at all costs in order to keep being willfully ignorant and remain stupid...
@Unrealistix You are willfully ignorant, because your teachers are willfully ignorant. They got this from their teachers, and their teachers got it from their teachers. It is mythology passed on down the line and each indoctrinated was indoctrinated in the same way as a child. It is a form of child abuse to teach this myth as science. now goto "Neutral Evolution Forum" and read.
@TheHigherVoltage It is not a law, anymore than the belief in how the earth was formed. It is an axiom or "religious slogan" thought to be true by believers in it. It is based on what humans perceive but really have no way to verify. Religious slogans that cannot be absolutely verified are not science. DNA is absolute and only shows genetic loss in all complex creatures.
@GoodScienceForYou "DNA is absolute and only shows genetic loss in all complex creatures."
There's new genetic variations every time a species procreates. Some are incrementally beneficial, others incrementally harmful. Our # of chromosomes hasn't changed since the second pair fused to create a uniquely 'homo sapien' species. So how exactly are we experiencing "genetic loss"?
@TheHigherVoltage There are over 4600 mapped genetic defects, causing diseases, in humans and 4 positive mutations. There are no mutations in reproduction unless your dad put his balls in the microwave mom was at the atomic power plant, or had a horrible infection when you were produced, causing mutations. An existing defect can be transferred as well, but that is existing mutation from ancestors.
Genetic traits passed are NOT mutations. This is mutation
@TheHigherVoltage If these "differences" come from ancestors, and mixing healthy genetics, they are NOT MUTATIONS! Are you really that easy to be fooled by this bullshit?
@TheHigherVoltage "Google "Scholarly articles for beneficial mutations in humans"" Google scholarly articles on earth is flat. DNA is new evidence that is absolute. It is similar to having a telescope for the first time in science.
@TheHigherVoltage There is nothing "new" in reproduction unless it is caused by a mutation from a mutagen that destroys already existing DNA structures.
The religion of Evodelusionism is based on the same principle as crashing your car, then go crash it again to fix it. You think about this absolute pure logic and reasoning. There's no magical processes.
@GoodScienceForYou " There is nothing "new" in reproduction unless it is caused by a mutation from a mutagen that destroys already existing DNA structures."
Look up nylon eating bacteria - new, beneficial genetic material.
But you are right about one thing - there's no magical processes involved. We've recreated how nature did this in the lab. Science is now using the mechanism to force other bacteria to mutate genes that produce toxic digesting enzymes too.
@TheHigherVoltage Why are you fools so intent on the nylon eating bacteria? Are you really that stupid. Bacteria is not multicellular and it never has evolved. It remains bacteria and only has one function eating and making enzymes. I have covered this phenomenon hundreds of times. If you really want to get free from your human enslavement to this HEMG goto "Neutral Evolution Forum" and study. I put all the details over there for you.
@GoodScienceForYou "Bacteria is not multicellular and it never has evolved."
#1 I never said it was multi-cellular.
#2 You're ignorant of reality to imply drug resistant bacteria did not evolve those defenses.
#3 I get my science from peer-reviewed facts. If you can point me to any that back your position (I don't see how they could) but I'd definitely read and research them.
#4 "We have fossils of upright humans walking from 6.1 million years ago." Those hominins are not homo sapiens.
@TheHigherVoltage Pay close attention to what I say. It is in all of my posts concerning this issue. ALL, and I do mean all multicellular creatures are degenerating. This is shown in all the DNA studies we have. Some, like humans, are degenerating much faster. Humans have over 4600 absolutely verifiable genetic defects causing disease. That is not possible if evolution is true.
@TheHigherVoltage Bacteria does not evolve; no matter how many times someone says it does. In order to show evolution it must form brand new cells with new functions. Humans are losing cells with good functions.
If bacteria were to lose cells, it just dies because...guess what? It is only one friggin cell.
@TheHigherVoltage There are over 110,000 peer reviewed articles on genetic degradation. They are found in the medical sites. The human genome project has found most of the bad genes we have. All humans on this earth have genetic disease, including you. Your life is shortened because of this.
@TheHigherVoltage All of the hominids can only be degenerated humans. The all went extinct and have no trails of any further life. This is because of the nature of how life really works. The hominids are all found in highly radioactive areas near volcanoes. Genetic degradation is the only physical evidence we see, in absolute physical DNA evidence. So, there is no evolution.
Bacterial is programmed to survive. It can make duplicate genes, while it works on combinations of genetic coding in order to digest any new carbon based foods, as with the frame shift mutation in nylonase. It can also live on the existing foods as the original DNA is not disturbed with this process. Then it places new start and stop codons. This is by design and cannot be random chance.
Less is more hypothesis - gene loss may explain unique human traits The work, by a group led by associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Jianzhi Zhang, is reported in the journal PLoS Biology
Gene Losses during Human Origins Abstract Introduction Results/Discussion Materials and Methods Supporting Information Acknowledgments Author Contributions References Xiaoxia Wang1#, Wendy E. Grus1#, Jianzhi Zhang1* 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
@GoodScienceForYou Extract from this article :These human-specific pseudogenes were formed in the last 6 to 7 million years after the separation of humans and chimpanzees [31]. However, because positive selection for null alleles cannot be detected by comparing humans and chimpanzees, we rely on human population genetic data, which may retain signatures of selective sweeps for at most 200,000 years [32].
@arealisticone This is base on faith and belief. It has no evidence to back it. The real evidence is in humans. There are over 6800 genetic diseases known so far. WE know these are screwed up DNA because we have examples of the prior fit condition.
Not one "scientist" has been able to show even one "positive" mutation that has increased fitness, health, complexity, intelligence in humans.
Consequences of Lineage-Specific Gene Loss on Functional Evolution of Surviving Paralogs: ALDH1A and Retinoic Acid Signaling in Vertebrate Genomes Abstract Author Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods Supporting Information Acknowledgments Author Contributions References Cristian Cañestro, Julian M. Catchen, Adriana Rodríguez-Marí, Hayato Yokoi, John H. Postlethwait* Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States of America
@TheHigherVoltage "So how exactly are we experiencing "genetic loss"?"
put that into google and start reading (28,000 hits on this). Also just "gene loss". Got to pub med and look up "gene loss". Look at the number of papers on that. It is more than 90,000 so far. google "genetic diseases". Go look. It is obvious as can be. Wake up from this fantasy. There is no advancement nor improvement.
@TheHigherVoltage "Y_chromosome" Goto wikipedia and type that in the read title Shrinking "The human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence." Does that sound like "evolution?.
@GoodScienceForYou Yes it does. Keep reading that article instead of cherry picking.
"recent comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes show that the human Y chromosome has not lost any genes since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees between 6–7 million years ago"
"There is no advancement nor improvement." I would say being born with the ability to walk and run on 2 legs is an advancement. Why don't you?
@TheHigherVoltage Chimps and humans split much later than that. This is shown by the fact that we have so few chimp artifacts and they are extremely young species. Their is only one "fossil" and the artifacts are less than 4 thousand years old.
We have fossils of upright humans walking from 6.1 million years ago.
With the rate of mutations we have today, we will be on all fours in less than 3000 years.
@GoodScienceForYou "With the rate of mutations we have today, we will be on all fours in less than 3000 years."
Oh really now. And where is the environmental or social factors you see that will promote evolving our behavior in this way? Do women find it sexy? Is there a toxic cloud 2 feet above the planet? On what grounds do you make this absurd statement?
" No human has gained any genes, not improvements, no evolution. " Really? cause our immune systems alone prove otherwise.
@TheHigherVoltage The human immune system is not correctly functioning.
It has many diseases associated with it. All the auto immune diseases and cancer are caused by immune genetic degradation. Reality again, humans have over 4600 genetic defects, from DNA study. There are four assumed positive. We are all defective from "evolution". There is no such thing as evolution there is only "de-evolution" or genetic degradation as time goes on.
@TheHigherVoltage I don't have time to post all the messages all the time. I work and have to moderate the posting to keep this forum clean of extremely vulgar religious people.
@TheHigherVoltage The Y chromosome ONLY shows genetic loss. That is the important thing to realize. It has not gained anything. No human has gained any genes, not improvements, no evolution. There is only genetic degradation shown in all multicellular creatures. You really need to study the evidence.
@TheHigherVoltage We continually are increasing in diseases, and new diseases that have never been recorded in history. 1 in 7 women have breast cancer. 1 in 12 have diabetes. There are thousands of reports for you to read on this. Because there are thousands of genetic defects.
Genetic defects are not possible with your evolution religion. So evolution is false.
I really do suggest that if you want the truth, that you study the detailed information on this "Theory of Evolution" over on the "Neutral Evolution Forum". It is a good place to get free from this religion.
I am guessing since ratings are disabled, on coments and on videos that coments will probably be controlled so they have to be aproved by the creator of this video.
From that I can pretty much conclude that you are an insane creationist.
@gulbirk I'm guessing that you are an Evotard, a zombie that follows human emotional mental garbage believers in the Evodelusionism religion: the religion of lay down bitches who have no logical mind. You know that DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence against any form of evolution? It is common knowledge.
@MumblingMickey Putting you faith in humanity has never worked. They continue to destroy the earth, and their own species. Yet, people who are weak willed and easy to manipulated will believe in anything, because the definition of ignorance is lack of the awareness of what is obvious.
Strata in this video is NOT dated using radiomentric data to age fossils...as you pointed out yourself it is made of sedimentary layers and is older than the fossils buried... thats WHY its not used to date fossils.
Perhaps you might like to see research HOW fossils are dated before informing everyone that radiometric dating of the stata would not be accurate.
I'm pretty sure after more than half a century the worlds physicists are aware of that!
@Unrealistix One more attempt: They use the radiometric dating as the foundation of the other methods. This way it looks like they all point to the same time referenced. Now do you get it? Please, don't be so easy or without any objective thoughts. The world's physicists all receive the same training and are all taught to believe.
Not many can think for themselves or they would not get an education. It is part of the "problem".
Peer review is extreme pressure to conform and believe.
@Unrealistix Once again: The foundation of all methods of dating strata comes from radiometric dating. Duh!
The foundation of all the other methods comes from radiometric dating, DUH! They are not separate methods.
They teach this crap to you with fliim flam as if they are using different methods to get the same result. Why don't you know this? You need to go to the source of this information and read. Don't get your education from people who are more screwed up than you are.
@GoodScienceForYou "the foundation of all methods of dating strata comes from radiometric dating."
No it doesn't... I thought you had studied this longer than I have been alive? If radiometric dating were the foundation of paleontology then there would be no dates for any fossils or any rock before the year 1905.
Since obviously that isn't the case I'm left wondering what methods a scientist might have used in 1904?
erm... Didn't I give you a list of other methods above?
@Unrealistix Pay attention. There is NO way to date replacement fossils. All the methods are NOT verifiable by any form or use of the real scientific method of testing. You have no way to verify anything much beyond historical data or tree rings. PERIOD
Prior to 1904 There were no methods, and they have no way to verify anything back then either.
". All the methods are NOT verifiable by any form or use of the real scientific method of testing"
Sorry I thought you said you studied this longer than I've been alive? yes?
Can I just offer the idea that you might be a tad out of your depth here (and ironically so) to be lecturing me on the scientific method.
So what you are suggesting here is that cesium radiometric dating is impossible? You do realise you are arguing against mathematical theorem's here? yes?
@Unrealistix Pay attention to the video, then realize that dating fossils is not possible. If they get even one "right" would be an amazing accident.
There is no experiment that can be performed against any other scientific phenomenon. In real science we have multiple methods of testing and they all verify the same thing. In this it is all the same method, using different materials. Understand?
@GoodScienceForYou "Pay attention to the video, then realize that dating fossils is not possible."
Well certainly if you tried to date fossils using the sedimentary layer that would be stupid. Which is why this method is NEVER used.
More Interesting is that you KNOW its not used. We both know it, and I know that you know it, so does everyone reading this too! They'll just read the page and realise you are lying through your teeth.
Now why did you go out of your way to demonstrate you deceit?
@Unrealistix I really don't think you have the capacity to get past your indoctrination. This is not any form of put down, or insult. It is just a common problem for people. ALL replacement fossils are dated using the following methods: 1/Assumption based on faith and belief. 2/ Inferences 3/ Implications 4/ An hypothesis, based on a theory with no validating information to show it is real science. Work on those first and try to falsify those statements.
@GoodScienceForYou Yes at this stage I'm openly accusing you of strategically setting out to lie and deceive.
Moreover we both know this is the only course open to you.
What I don't understand is how you haven't realised what a self defeating exercise it is.
All your doing is getting people that don't understand to ask questions about fossilization. Will you be on Wikipedia with them to censor the bits you don't like?
Anyway, I have a solution for you pal, you won't like it!
@GoodScienceForYou Yeah yeah...look you haven't provided a single example of the entire premise of your video... asked you lots of times, really politely too...
Now I'm openly accusing you of lying to further your nonsense and knowing full well what you are doing...what do you say to that?
@Unrealistix 1 o 2 What are you talking about? Every fossil dated this way is incorrect and unverifiable. Calling me a liar is your problem, not mine. Laying down for this religious nonsense and don't bother to check it out for yourself. THERE IS NO TISSUE LEFT IN THESE FOSSILS TO DATE, SO THEY DATE THE "DIRT",GROUND, ROCKS, MINERALS AROUND THE FOSSIL. IS THAT CLEAR? IT IS A RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE FOSSIL IS THE SAME AGE AS THE DIRT.
@Unrealistix 2 o 2 All of the hominids are degenerated humans that went extinct rapidly. This is because DNA is absolutely clear evidence that only shows genetic degradation: gene loss, atavism, pseudo genes, defective genes in all complex creatures with multiple cells. All the evidence must fit with the ONLY absolute physical evidence we have.
When they have tissue, they still date the "dirt". It is not science. Evidence ONLY shows genetic loss from mutations.
@Unrealistix There is only one fossil of the Chimp that is misdated, and there are some samples of chimps artifacts only 4000 years old. Chimps are degraded humans from the same exact genetic lineage as us. There is only genetic loss shown in DNA. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence against any evolution from simple to more complex.
In real science we go with the absolute evidence first and fit the rest to that. Once you realize that, you can then be a scientist. Radiometric dating is false
@Unrealistix 1 of X Now, in DNA evidence we know without any doubts that all creatures have genetic losses as the main path of "evolution". This means that there is only de-evolution or degeneration and losses of genetic information to be able to adapt, and to be fit. Humans are the perfect example because of the Human Genome Project and the constant bombardment of the PubMed site with gene loss papers. So, there in no advancement in "evolution" only genetic degradation.
@Unrealistix 2 of X So, if real science of DNA only shows genetic degradation then how is it that these hominids are showing some form of evolution, when the ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE OF DNA, only shows genetic losses from mutations. This means the hominids can only be genetic mutants that went extinct from genetic degeneration. Therefore the dating methods are utterly flawed.
@Unrealistix 2 of X What started me on this path of discovering why radiometric dating or any dating is flawed was the 6.1 million year old upright human that was at first scorned as fake science, but they used all the same dating methods, and is now, accepted at 6.1 MYO. Either this fossil is correct making all the rest crap, as this is the oldest much more fit human that we de-evolved from. The bone is much stronger and straighter than our present condition of genetic degeneration.
@Unrealistix 3 of X Once you have irrefutable physical evidence that has real science in it, the rest must fit with it. This is real science. DNA only shows genetic loss in all multi-cellular creatures. The hominids from all places are simply degenerated humans. They all went extinct because the ultimate outcome of genetic degradation is extinction. Where humans are heading. Fossil dating is ridiculous, not science and only based on faith and belief in this system. There is no evolution.
@GoodScienceForYou And no radiometric dating is one of many ways rocks can be dated... depending on how old they are, what type they are and where they are we can use an assorment of magnetic imaging, resonance scanning, chemical analysis such as flourine, accumulation rates, ESR dating etc.
There are in fact two types of dating relative dating and absolute dating. Radiometrics is absolute. You are suggesting is Relative when your audience and you can actually go off and find out its not.
@Unrealistix Not many people have the ability to step to the other side of the wall of knowledge. You are approaching this from the idea that humans know something. You should only approach science from the perspective of the evidence, and leave the HEMG religous faith based bullshit to your professors.
If you can separate yourself from the forced belief used in indoctrination, you can understand science fully.
If you want to be limited by HEMG you can have that too.
@GoodScienceForYou I am certainly approaching it from the idea humans know things.
Now would you please, please correct yourself. You stated science dates sedimentary rock using radiometric dating to date fossils... I am stating categorically that this is incorrect.
In fact here's your chance to shine, You should be delighted, all you need to do is provide an example of a single fossil dated using radiometric analysis of the sedimentary rock it was found in. Simple yes?
@Unrealistix Your problem is assuming that because people call it science that it is science. This the the same exact science that claims nothing can exceed the speed of light, and that the earth is the center of the universe.
@GoodScienceForYou Nope I'm arguing that 'I' call it science... because it IS science... in fact its covered under physics and mathematics. So I think you'll have an interesting time trying to claim math theorems are all wrong.
Like for example the formula for radioactive decay? - (dN / dt) = λ . dt
But lets start with that all important example of science using sedimentary rock first shall we? It should be really simple... yet I haven't been able to find one. Could you help me out there?
@Unrealistix I have worked that formula, and it works based on the parameters used. The problem is they do not have all the parameters included. As I showed in another post on the rate of decay is changing, just like everything else.
All the parameters are not included? WTF are you on about? Mathematical formula don't prove themselves if bits are missing... that's why math is absolute.
Thats not just like but EXACTLY like claiming 5+5 dies equals ten if you use those 'parameters'...but you can add other 'parameters' to 5+5 to equal 131?
What are you talking about? You don't even know the difference between an element and a molecule.. who the hell would trust you explaining math?
@Unrealistix Math is only as good as the parameters of the equation. If they are missing important parameters, (which they are) they have no clue how old anything is because they missed the part about how matter as it is accelerated becomes more dense. More dense means that radioactive minerals are more dense now and increasing in density at a much faster rate, because of the acceleration of the universe.
This means radioactive matter decays extremely slower now. See Basic Science video
I was much more interested in the last sentence in that comment than you trying to get you to understand the ins and outs of stochastic decay.
So I'll repeat that again..
Lets start with YOUR premise in YOUR video... You said that fossils are aged by radiometric dating of sedimentary rock surrounding the fossil ... can you please provide supporting evidence for this premise on which your entire video hangs.
@Unrealistix IF you don't know how replacement fossils are dated, I suggest you take a class on it. It is really basic material for me. It is based on several assumptions. Assumptions are not science, but part of religious nonsense. What part of this dating method is verifiable and can be calibrated against anything, and what is used to calibrate this method? You think about this. It is your homework.
@Unrealistix He won't answer that question because he went off and looked it up...and realised some time back that fossils are not dated as he suggested... but even knowledge of failure does not sway a creationist.
Their mindset is different. To him 'its only one little error' despite the fact his whole video is based on that idea.
In fact he wouldn't even admit that to himself, he cringes every time you point it out! Which from what I'm reading is every response you give the guy.
@MumblingMickey You really need to read my postings and study all the videos I provide and get free from the delusions of humanity. The new religion is "science" and it is based on faith and belief, not on evidence. No sane person would believe that there is a way to accurately date fossils.
@Unrealistix We know for fact in physics that matter gains in density and attractive power (polarity attraction) as it is sped up. This means that radiometric dating is based on a constantly changing speed of decay. It decays much slower now. In order for the original elements to be made, they had to be more "malleable" so the sub atomic particles could fuse rapidly (less dense then).
@Unrealistix The concept of dating the earth matter around a fossil as being the same age of the fossil, only works maybe 1 out of 100,000. It is ONLY base on assumptions, not on real evidence. It starts out with a set of beliefs that have been passed on by believers. It all sounds so scientific, but dating a rock is only relative to what? They don't even know what time is.
@Unrealistix I suggest that you actually start thinking about what is in this video and try to falsify it. The assumption that the age of the "dirt" the creature fell in is the same age as the creature is absolute nonsense.
You don't get it. All the mumbo jumbo about how it is science, when it is just crazy beliefs projected on the world.
@GoodScienceForYou Falsify the idea that fossils are dated using the strata around them..
Yeah sure Just go to Google scholar and type in 'Fossil dating methods'...
You won't find a single example of anyone that dated any fossil by trying to date sedimentary rock.. since as you pointed out yourself that only dates the zircons in the sediments...
Ergo sedementary rocks are not used to date fossils... since nobody has ever done that.
@Unrealistix It is utterly illogical to make assumptions in science based on the idea behind the assumption.
Do you even understand that statement?
Read it over and over. People see this world from a tiny little time and space capsule they are imprisoned in and from that they make all their reasoning.
Go to my first videos and start to understand what I am talking about.
/watch?v=sPPafzd4wGI
I believe in you to have the ability to get free from this.
we can discuss all of those after we both ensure that you are correct to suggest sedimentary rock is actually dated using radiometrics and this is what fossil dates are based on.
All your other point I'll be delighted to address... more than happy... But lets get this one thing (the entire premise your video is based on) out of the way first ok?
Sorry...we can come on to calibration, other dating methods, discuss anything you like... after you provide me and your audience with evidence that what you are saying is correct to begin with. In fact this is the central theme of your video.
To help you understand this I'll give the example of the Eckfield Maar fossil site in Eifel, Germany.
Please explain who dated those fossils using radiometric analysis of the sedimentary rocks they are buried in please.
@Unrealistix Okay Brain box so HOW DO THEY DATE FOSSILS... common sense would say if its not the fossil or the rock around it then there's nothing else there... how can you date a fossil from no information at all..
This is stupid... why don't YOU LOOK UP HOW FOSSILS ARE DATED...
@LoveJCForLife They date fossils by faith and belief in things they don't understand in the first place. It is ABSOLUTELY impossible to accurately date replacement fossils. You need to go study this more. Don't just believe people because they believe this is science. It is totally based on assumptions.
Well I'm sure of one thing, one of you is lying. So I'll take your advice and find out which one.
You sad dinosaurs are dated using the rock around them. He said they aren't and PM'd me with the way he says they are dated. So far none of those ways use rocks around the dinosaur but i haven't looked them all up, and some I don't understand.
Since you made the video It'd be amazing if you lied to everyone since we could all find out. But we can all find out if he is too.
Well I'm sure of one thing, one of you is lying. So I'll take your advice and find out which one.
You sad dinosaurs are dated using the rock around them. He said they aren't and PM'd me with the way he says they are dated. So far none of those ways use rocks around the dinosaur but i haven't looked them all up, and some I don't understand.
Since you made the video It'd be amazing if you lied to everyone since we could all find out. But we can all find out if he is too.
@LoveJCForLife This idea that the ground being dated is the only method used in dating replacement fossils. There is nothing in fossils to date, because there is no tissue. It is rock. Assumptions are never science. Faith and belief can make anything work to fit a religious ideology.
@LoveJCForLife The religious ideology is Evodelusionism; This magical idea that fish magically crawled out of the water, breathed air, and turned in to reptiles, birds, mammals; then eventually they turned into humans by some magical nonsense that has never been shown IN ANY EVIDENCE.
How can someone be so gullible to believe in things that have never shown any evidence. The opposite is the truth. We were made nearly perfect and we have gradually, as a species, become more genetically degraded.
@LoveJCForLife The religious ideology is Evodelusionism; This magical idea that fish magically crawled out of the water, breathed air, and turned in to reptiles, birds, mammals; then eventually they turned into humans by some magical nonsense that has never been shown IN ANY EVIDENCE.
How can someone be so gullible to believe in things that have never shown any evidence. The opposite is the truth. We were made nearly perfect and we have gradually, as a species, become more genetically degraded.
@GoodScienceForYou Look I don't care about your opinion of evolution or whether I share it or he doesn't.
The only thing I was interested in with this was that he accused you of lying. I had already read before that scientists dated dino bones, but I didn't know if that was possible.
Since as he said the information is available then clearly one of you is not only wrong but also deliberately lying. I'm still trying to find information, not that I'm really that bothered.
@LoveJCForLife 1 of 2 There are so many fossils that were dated "out of sequence" and have been "doctored", "massaged into" fitting the faith and belief in Evodelusionism. The dating methods are so "fluid" that these "pseudo scientists" can date them anyway they want. For instance they found tissue samples in a mammoth in Montana, and they refuse to date it by carbon C-14 dating, but use the method described here to date it because it fits with the belief that creatures are as old as the dirt.
@GoodScienceForYou this person LoveJCForLife is being highly disingenuous, to avoid calling "her" a liar. She sent me a PM which I will let you read. She is a sockpuppet of one of these evolution promoters so don't take her too seriously.
@MaximusArurealius I beg your pardon, I'll have you take that back... I'm not a puppet for anyone. And what I will do is call anyone out when they seek to blow huge holes in my beliefs using nonsense... and I stand by everything I sent you...
Theres no point in arguing things are true when they just aren't, even less of a point in doing so when everyone (like me) can go off and find out if they are. All that does is aids people like evolutionists.
@LoveJCForLife You are obviously an Evotard. You can't hide, because your intent shines through. Here is where you need to start. Start with the absolute physical evidence that requires no interpretation and cannot be doubted, because it is obvious. DNA is absolute, and only shows genetic losses in all multicellular creatures. There is only genetic losses shown PERIOD. There is no evolution. The rest is easy to unscrew, because it falls apart as being just religious dogma and slogans,
No it doesn'. OECD nations provide all genomes sequenced for download..(see ncbi) You can download and compare such genomes and observe that there is no degradation of DNA.
"Dating fossils is part of a religious ideology."
No its not, a dictionary will put you right there.
You are positing things your audience can demonstrate are wrong to themselves. Why would you go out of your way to demonstrate you are wrong?
@Unrealistix You must be a really easy person to convince of mystical nonsense. DNA only shows genetic degradation. PERIOD. The net in humans is 4600 mapped genetic defects to 4 known positive mutations.
In case you missed the first grade math, that is a net so far of 4600 genetic NEGATIVES to 4 positive. What does that equal in terms of genetic degradation?
Since there is ONLY a net genetic loss shown in ALL DNA studies, hominids are degraded humans that went extinct = the normal path.
@Unrealistix There is a huge difference between being indoctrinated, as you are, and real study of science. In my videos I teach people to learn how to learn. You don't know how to learn. You only know how to lay down for indoctrination. Please go to my first videos.
When people are paid to perpetuate myths we get your condition.
So when I have some time and I'm not listening to screaming kids or having a life I will go and find out.
But its easily settled since you obviously looked this up yourself when you made this video I'm sure you have at least one example of a dinosaur dated like you said.
So without matching unrealix huge boring essay on the subject an example would put him straight!
And to avoid this you really should have put an example in the video description.
@LoveJCForLife One more time. There is NO bone in fossils. In some dinosaurs there is tissue but they will not date the tissue directly, because it would void the premise of evolution. It is evolution that drives this foolish dating system. That is what the point is.
And DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence that only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures. There is no evolution. The fossil dating is ridiculous.
I have already asked him to provide such an example more than ten times..
He can't supply it cos it doesn't exist. In fact he actually thinks atoms are made of molecules and not the other way round. So that'll give you some idea of the 'science' that went into his video discussing elements.
I think you might have worked out by now this guy is a lot of things... but he is certainly not GoodScienceForYou or anyone else.
@Unrealistix Pay attention. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence that only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures. There is no evolution. It does not exist. Humans have now genetically degraded to the point of 100% you have a genetic disease. It is impossible for you to avoid this. If evolution were true and we were getting better there would be NO genetic degradation. There is no way for us to come from some primitive life form that evolved. You are a fool.
@GoodScienceForYou Can we assume you are not going to supply me, or your friend there even one example of a fossil dated using radiometric analysis of the sedimentary rock then?
Its it the entire basis for this video.... Assuming you're next comment is not such an example then we'll have to assume based on the repeated requests and your refusal to even acknowledge the question that your at a loss to offer one.
[notice also how I am ignoring all points you make until we nail this one down]
@Unrealistix All of them are based on radiometric dating by assumption.
The foundation of this nonsense is radiometric dating. All strata is compared to this. Why don't you know this? Who lied to you? Why do you believe them? Parents? teachers? preachers? all the same crap.
@Unrealistix I suggest that you actually start thinking about what is in this video and try to falsify it. The assumption that the age of the "dirt" the creature fell in is the same age as the creature is absolute nonsense.
You don't get it. All the mumbo jumbo about how it is science, when it is just crazy beliefs projected on the world.
@GoodScienceForYou Still fossilising... why would you think a fossil could form within 1000 years? or 5,000?... all the bone has to be replaced with minerals...were you not watching your own video?
As I said. try looking at HOW fossils are actually dated before suggesting silly things like this.
Since you insist its the strata thats dated you should have no problem supplying one fossil that was dated using that method, yes? I mean you'd hardly have just made it up would you?
@Unrealistix Wood can be completely fossilized in less than one hour in a lab. Fossilization is a chemical process that can be changed in speed by the chemicals in the ground. There is no reason why we don't have 1000 to 5000 year old human fossils, other than the dating system is totally based on dating the "dirt". Someday we will have the technology to date fossils directly. Right now we have this crude pile of human assumptions based of faith and belief.
@Unrealistix Why would you think that a human could not be completely fossilized in 5000 years? 1000 years? Why do you believe that it can only take millions? Could it be because the ground is millions of years old and the fossil is 10,000 - 5000 or less?
I cant believe he thinks radiometric dating is used to date sedimentary fossils. Has he heard of Stratigraphy? and Paleomagnetic Stratigraphy? Radiometric dating is used on igneous rock (volcanic!) and the K-Ar procedure is only applied to samples that exceed 10000 years in age due to the very long half-life of radio-p
The real axioms of science. 1/ Never believe anyone on anything. Find your own truth. 2/ Never form beliefs. Beliefs destroy your credibility and ruin science. 3/ Only go with absolute knowledge that cannot be refuted as your evidence. 4/ Don't join any human associations who control your mind for money, fear of loss, or any human weakness, like needing prestige, college degrees etc. 5/ Remember the scientific LAW of cause and result. If that is avoided then it is religion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
with this video you officially become my favorite moron onn youtube. dating sedimentary rocks with radiometric datings? that's genius.... mhmmm now I've changed my mind I'm giving you that cure for free.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Do you believe there is a 6 million year old upright walking human? There are so many screwed up fossils that are destroyed as evidence because of this ridiculous dating system. You obviously know nothing about radioactive minerals.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou 6 million years ago there is no trace of human, it's the apparition of Australopithecus that we see in the fossil record. so another dumb question from you nothing new.... next please.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger It was found in Africa. It is called the Orrorin tugenensis. It is an upright walking human. Why don't you know this? HMM? I wonder? Could it be your "education".
You are very uneducated. I know far more about genetics and science than you ever will.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
orrorin tugenensis is not a human it's an ancestor of Australopithecus , and is suspected to be one of the missing link between other apes and human. its fossils present both feature of hominid and other apes. but the most interesting thing about him is that he was a bipedal ape that's and why he was placed in the hominidea familly.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger The orrorin Tegenesis femur has the exact same bone construction as modern humans except it is much stronger. The angles of the "ball" that fits in the "socket" is perfectly aligned to modern.
The problem is that in the beginning when this was found the Evotards did all they could to destroy this evidence. The scientists who found it were ridiculed. This is because it is an UPRIGHT HUMAN bone structure, much stronger than modern.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger There was no skull found, yet these morons will put a photo of an "ape man" behind the photo of these bones. They are disgusting liars, like you are.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix If you really want to debate on science with me, then goto the "Neutral Evolution Forum" and request a log on. You can post up to 20,000 characters, put videos, and links to any thing to back up your ideas, and I will teach you the real science there. If you don't come, they we know you are a coward and a fool who has no convictions of his faith.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
A brilliant video, exposing the hollowness of so many of the claims that are made by fanatical evolutionists.
atticana 1 month ago
VERY interesting GS. I had actually never thought of that angle before. If they are using the dirt to date the fossils how can it be known exactly how old the fossils are? If I'm shot in my front yard and buried quickly is the dirt around me dated as a few millions years old? Hmmmm.....very cool.
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions That's because the actual surrounding sediment is NOT used to date the fossils... If you stop to think for a second you might probably come to the conclusion that the average physicist might have thought of that already.
and they did...and as described in the video sedimentary rock CAN'T be used to date fossils for precisely the reason given.
But rather than just accept that perhaps unlike this guy you might actually go off and find out HOW fossils are dated.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Actually it was done for the hominids. Because of the radioactive materials. And the use of sedimentary layers based on radiometric dating is also not science. Ice cores are more accurate but only to a few hundred years. Why don't you realize that assumptive sciences are not science at all.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"And the use of sedimentary layers based on radiometric dating "
Again nobody uses radiometric dating on sedimentary rocks. Nor does anyone extract ice cores from moving glaciers (unless they are studying the movement of the glacier, or looking at the temperature and atmospheric content over a very short period of time)
Your information is clearly being researched by reading absolutely nonsense. Its not a wonder you are confused.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Again. There is no tissue in rocks. Replacement fossils are rocks. The age of the minerals that surround a fossil has no way to be used to date the original living creature. It is an assumption based on faith and belief in a whole list of ideas that cannot ever be tested by any scientific methodology.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"And the use of sedimentary layers based on radiometric dating is also not science. "
Exactly... its not... which is the very reason it s not carried out.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Again. There is no tissue in rocks. Replacement fossils are rocks. The age of the minerals that surround a fossil has no way to be used to date the original living creature. It is an assumption based on faith and belief in a whole list of ideas that cannot ever be tested by any scientific methodology.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Please explain to us fully how replacement fossils are dated according to your understanding? Because I have studied this for 46 years. Radiometric dating is the foundation of this assumptive science and there is nothing in the fossils except the minerals that replaced them. Go here:
/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Most fossils are dated by matching the igneous rocks both above and below the strata the fossils is found in. That igneous rock might be a thousand miles away but there will be both igneous and metamorphic rocks above and below the strata around the world.
This will give a time-frame with a relatively large deviation (more than 5%)
Modern paleontologist then employ superposition, inclusions, and the relationship to cross cuts where the strata appears above ground.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Again. There is no tissue in rocks. Replacement fossils are rocks. The age of the minerals that surround a fossil has no way to be used to date the original living creature. It is an assumption based on faith and belief in a whole list of ideas that cannot ever be tested by any scientific methodology.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
The funny thing is this information was available to you during your 'research' of 'the papers' before you embarked on making this video.
In no case would anyone attempt to date sedimentary rock, that's just plain stupid! Not least because they would have to date several thousand particles giving different dates.
But the fact you think people who have studied geology for years think it is possible tells us very little about geology...but a lot about how your research went.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix I have read every idea used to date fossils. All are basically SERIOUSLY flawed. The fact that we found a 6.1 million year old upright walking human dated this way should make you wake up. And the fact that DNA studies ONLY show that genetic degradation is all we see in every DNA study, and that extinction is the path of evolution.
All the hominids are degraded humans that went extinct. They are not "prior" they are "post" humans.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"I have studied this for 46 years. "
In all those years have you even ONCE come across just one physicist, geologist or any other qualified scientist (not a part time cab driver studying biblical science).. who actually tried to date sedimentary rock using radiometric dating?
Since you insist his is how its done (and its not) you must have the name of just one person anywhere who actually tried it... yes?
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix 1 of 2 I went to school for this. In all the classes on this, all they have is faith and belief in a progressive believing system.
It goes like this. If you understand this concept and believe in it... then here is why we pile this belief on top of the first belief, and then we pile a third and fourth and we just keep making faith based ideas and believing in them
I have an IQ higher than most people on this earth. I do not allow logical fallacies to be science.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix The reality is they have no idea how the earth was formed, but they use a pea brained set of assumptions to make a "bible" of beliefs. They never allow any other ideas in the classroom that might be true either. There are people who have evidence of the earth expanding, and they are laughed at.
I laugh at the present faith and beliefs used and forced in to children's head in the name of science. They don't know shit about how this all happened, yet they have lots of stories.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Not to mention the obvious ... which is the look of consternation on a lab technicians face receiving a sample from someone made of sedimentary mineral rock and being asked to date it! he'd assume someone was playing a practical joke on him...or that it was an early April fools joke... but he wouldn't date it... not because he would 'decide' not to.. but because he simply couldn't... there is no procedure for dating rocks made of particles that are all from different rock.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix The SAME assumptions used on all radiometric dating. Assumptions are not evidence. There is no way to verify that any method is correct. Do you understand? That means that humans have no clue how old the earth really is. I think it may be from 20,000 years to 30 billion years old by these same ideas. There is no reference point in time and space to use as a reference. They have no idea the conditions millions of years ago, based on the tiny perception of this time and space.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix We know that time is accelerating. This is a fact. We can see this in the fact that the radiometric clock is always different than the rotation of the earth and the speed is different each year. Which is wrong? The decay rate of the rotation of the earth? Goto my "Basic Science" video.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou As you yourself would know after your 46 years of researching this... hmmmm
Sedimentary rock can't be dated at all using radiometric dating.
Radiometric dating requires that the material being tested all has the same half life. Essentially the half life of the isotopes are dated in relation to the target element.
If you tried to date a sample that was made of sedimentary particles no date would be derived at all. It'd be like trying to weigh a planet on a kitchen scales.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Again they use the radiometric dating as the foundation of the strata dating. There is no way to verify that radiometric dating is correct. I proposed methods to rectify this situation. We know from modern physics that matter becomes more dense as it is accelerated in space. That means that the decay rated is NOT constant, because the decay rate is controlled by the atomic force that is constantly increasing. The atomic force is what is increasing when matter becomes more dense
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix We also have 100% pure lead PB on this planet. How is that possible?
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix How many assumptions do you belief in? Why don't you start by unraveling them one at a time? When you go back to the first assumptions you will see there is no evidence to support that idea other than a tiny human idea that can NEVER be tested. Do you understand?
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou
What you can do with sedimentary rock is carry out a mass spectroscopy of it.
That will tell you in detail what it is composed of. And that about it.
Although I'm sure you'll be able to tell me someone that did, yes? After all you claim this is how scientists date fossils. Well which scientists, where? A name perhaps?
Why don't you try it? send of a sample to be dated anonymously (with a PO BOX) and ask for a quote to date it using radiometric dating & see what happens.
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix In order to believe in radiometric dating, you have to believe that everything in this universe is constant. I have never found anything in this universe that is constant.
And assumptions based on a tiny perspective of pea brains is not science. There are far more "parameters" in the equation that are not ever looked at because these pea brains have no idea they exist until someone finds them. Then they have to recognize that these new findings change the old ideas completely.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou Funny that you keep alluding to relativity... and it includes three constants. You also insist the universe is expanding, and that rate of expansion is increasing... and that includes constants too...
in fact 5+5 contains constants!
I'm sure all physicists are pea brained morons... (says you happily typing away on a computer when you have no fucking clue how it works)
Yeah all physicists are stupid...
Unrealistix 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Listen, you are a moron because you believe in magical mutation fairies. That shit defines you to me. As soon as you rid yourself of the Evodelusionism religion then you can begin to be a scientist.
We do not know how to determine time over billions of years because the fucking morons you call scientists belief in magical constants and magical mutations and shit that does not exist.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix Time is constantly changing. It has no constant and none of these morons have even tried to find it. Measuring time against a constantly changing background is nearly impossible and is impossible for pea brains. You are going to go into the list of banned people soon. I only have so much patience for the mentally degraded.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix The very foundation of time is in constant flux. Time is not constant, and we have no idea how much time has sped up from the beginning. The universe is expanding and it is accelerating. That means that time is also accelerating and it is the rate of acceleration is also speeding up. It is like there is not a constant pressure on the "gas" peddle of life. The speed of the increase in acceleration is also accelerating, that increases in several dimensions at once.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@Unrealistix When you live in a tiny little perspective of this time and this space, there is no way for you to measure any other position in time and space beyond what your tiny brain can understand from its tiny perspective.
True genius knows how stupid it is. All the great minds have said the same thing. The more they know the more stupid they realize they are.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
I just recently have seen your vids. They are very informative, i feel like ive been searching for them without knowing or something, lol.
cincinatus90 3 months ago
@cincinatus90 It would be good if you could share them with others. Most of what is called biological science is a form of mythology that has been detailed by belief and projected on the world. There is no possible way to date a fossil with any calibration method known to humans. There is no way to verify any of it.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
In the meantime I swore to myself repeatedly I would not engage in nonsense conversations with uneducated people regarding the nonsense of religious dogma....
Especially people who are actually told how something happens, are provided with the evidence, where it is demonstrated to them that what they think is absolutely not the case... but who choose to ignore that information at all costs in order to keep being willfully ignorant and remain stupid...
So on that note goodbye!
Unrealistix 3 months ago
@Unrealistix You are willfully ignorant, because your teachers are willfully ignorant. They got this from their teachers, and their teachers got it from their teachers. It is mythology passed on down the line and each indoctrinated was indoctrinated in the same way as a child. It is a form of child abuse to teach this myth as science. now goto "Neutral Evolution Forum" and read.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Law of Superposition
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage It is not a law, anymore than the belief in how the earth was formed. It is an axiom or "religious slogan" thought to be true by believers in it. It is based on what humans perceive but really have no way to verify. Religious slogans that cannot be absolutely verified are not science. DNA is absolute and only shows genetic loss in all complex creatures.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "DNA is absolute and only shows genetic loss in all complex creatures."
There's new genetic variations every time a species procreates. Some are incrementally beneficial, others incrementally harmful. Our # of chromosomes hasn't changed since the second pair fused to create a uniquely 'homo sapien' species. So how exactly are we experiencing "genetic loss"?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage There are over 4600 mapped genetic defects, causing diseases, in humans and 4 positive mutations. There are no mutations in reproduction unless your dad put his balls in the microwave mom was at the atomic power plant, or had a horrible infection when you were produced, causing mutations. An existing defect can be transferred as well, but that is existing mutation from ancestors.
Genetic traits passed are NOT mutations. This is mutation
/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou I watched your other video. It boggles my mind how people can bastardize science so badly.
"There are no mutations in reproduction"
Google "Scholarly articles for beneficial mutations in humans"
And here's a thought : why not be honest for a change?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage If these "differences" come from ancestors, and mixing healthy genetics, they are NOT MUTATIONS! Are you really that easy to be fooled by this bullshit?
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage "Google "Scholarly articles for beneficial mutations in humans"" Google scholarly articles on earth is flat. DNA is new evidence that is absolute. It is similar to having a telescope for the first time in science.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage There is nothing "new" in reproduction unless it is caused by a mutation from a mutagen that destroys already existing DNA structures.
The religion of Evodelusionism is based on the same principle as crashing your car, then go crash it again to fix it. You think about this absolute pure logic and reasoning. There's no magical processes.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou " There is nothing "new" in reproduction unless it is caused by a mutation from a mutagen that destroys already existing DNA structures."
Look up nylon eating bacteria - new, beneficial genetic material.
But you are right about one thing - there's no magical processes involved. We've recreated how nature did this in the lab. Science is now using the mechanism to force other bacteria to mutate genes that produce toxic digesting enzymes too.
Yay science and evolution.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Why are you fools so intent on the nylon eating bacteria? Are you really that stupid. Bacteria is not multicellular and it never has evolved. It remains bacteria and only has one function eating and making enzymes. I have covered this phenomenon hundreds of times. If you really want to get free from your human enslavement to this HEMG goto "Neutral Evolution Forum" and study. I put all the details over there for you.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Bacteria is not multicellular and it never has evolved."
#1 I never said it was multi-cellular.
#2 You're ignorant of reality to imply drug resistant bacteria did not evolve those defenses.
#3 I get my science from peer-reviewed facts. If you can point me to any that back your position (I don't see how they could) but I'd definitely read and research them.
#4 "We have fossils of upright humans walking from 6.1 million years ago." Those hominins are not homo sapiens.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Pay close attention to what I say. It is in all of my posts concerning this issue. ALL, and I do mean all multicellular creatures are degenerating. This is shown in all the DNA studies we have. Some, like humans, are degenerating much faster. Humans have over 4600 absolutely verifiable genetic defects causing disease. That is not possible if evolution is true.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Bacteria does not evolve; no matter how many times someone says it does. In order to show evolution it must form brand new cells with new functions. Humans are losing cells with good functions.
If bacteria were to lose cells, it just dies because...guess what? It is only one friggin cell.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage There are over 110,000 peer reviewed articles on genetic degradation. They are found in the medical sites. The human genome project has found most of the bad genes we have. All humans on this earth have genetic disease, including you. Your life is shortened because of this.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage All of the hominids can only be degenerated humans. The all went extinct and have no trails of any further life. This is because of the nature of how life really works. The hominids are all found in highly radioactive areas near volcanoes. Genetic degradation is the only physical evidence we see, in absolute physical DNA evidence. So, there is no evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Bacterial is programmed to survive. It can make duplicate genes, while it works on combinations of genetic coding in order to digest any new carbon based foods, as with the frame shift mutation in nylonase. It can also live on the existing foods as the original DNA is not disturbed with this process. Then it places new start and stop codons. This is by design and cannot be random chance.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Loss of alleles of loci on the short arm of chromosome 3 in renal cell carcinoma
B. ZBAR*, H. BRAUCH*, C. TALMADGE* & M. LINEHAN†
* Laboratory of Immunobiology, National Cancer Institute-Frederick Cancer Research Facilty, Frederick, Maryland 21701, USA
† Surgery Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Gene loss, protein sequence divergence, gene dispensability, expression level, and interactivity are correlated in eukaryotic evolution.
Krylov DM, Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Koonin EV.
Source
National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894, USA.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Less is more hypothesis - gene loss may explain unique human traits The work, by a group led by associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Jianzhi Zhang, is reported in the journal PLoS Biology
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Extract from this article :These human-specific pseudogenes were formed in the last 6 to 7 million years after the separation of humans and chimpanzees [31]. However, because positive selection for null alleles cannot be detected by comparing humans and chimpanzees, we rely on human population genetic data, which may retain signatures of selective sweeps for at most 200,000 years [32].
arealisticone 1 month ago
@arealisticone This is base on faith and belief. It has no evidence to back it. The real evidence is in humans. There are over 6800 genetic diseases known so far. WE know these are screwed up DNA because we have examples of the prior fit condition.
Not one "scientist" has been able to show even one "positive" mutation that has increased fitness, health, complexity, intelligence in humans.
They guess from faith. Why don't you know this?
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
@arealisticone pseudogenes are defective genes that have lost function.
GoodScienceForYou 1 month ago
Reduced selection leads to accelerated gene loss in Shigella
Ruth Hershberg1*, Hua Tang2 and Dmitri A Petrov1
* Corresponding author: Ruth Hershberg ruthersh@stanford.edu
Author Affiliations
1 Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
2 Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage "So how exactly are we experiencing "genetic loss"?"
put that into google and start reading (28,000 hits on this). Also just "gene loss". Got to pub med and look up "gene loss". Look at the number of papers on that. It is more than 90,000 so far. google "genetic diseases". Go look. It is obvious as can be. Wake up from this fantasy. There is no advancement nor improvement.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage "Y_chromosome" Goto wikipedia and type that in the read title Shrinking "The human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence." Does that sound like "evolution?.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Yes it does. Keep reading that article instead of cherry picking.
"recent comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes show that the human Y chromosome has not lost any genes since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees between 6–7 million years ago"
"There is no advancement nor improvement." I would say being born with the ability to walk and run on 2 legs is an advancement. Why don't you?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Chimps and humans split much later than that. This is shown by the fact that we have so few chimp artifacts and they are extremely young species. Their is only one "fossil" and the artifacts are less than 4 thousand years old.
We have fossils of upright humans walking from 6.1 million years ago.
With the rate of mutations we have today, we will be on all fours in less than 3000 years.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "With the rate of mutations we have today, we will be on all fours in less than 3000 years."
Oh really now. And where is the environmental or social factors you see that will promote evolving our behavior in this way? Do women find it sexy? Is there a toxic cloud 2 feet above the planet? On what grounds do you make this absurd statement?
" No human has gained any genes, not improvements, no evolution. " Really? cause our immune systems alone prove otherwise.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage The human immune system is not correctly functioning.
It has many diseases associated with it. All the auto immune diseases and cancer are caused by immune genetic degradation. Reality again, humans have over 4600 genetic defects, from DNA study. There are four assumed positive. We are all defective from "evolution". There is no such thing as evolution there is only "de-evolution" or genetic degradation as time goes on.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou why did you erase my comments?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I don't have time to post all the messages all the time. I work and have to moderate the posting to keep this forum clean of extremely vulgar religious people.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou oh wait, nm. I forgot you censor your conversations.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage The Y chromosome ONLY shows genetic loss. That is the important thing to realize. It has not gained anything. No human has gained any genes, not improvements, no evolution. There is only genetic degradation shown in all multicellular creatures. You really need to study the evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage We continually are increasing in diseases, and new diseases that have never been recorded in history. 1 in 7 women have breast cancer. 1 in 12 have diabetes. There are thousands of reports for you to read on this. Because there are thousands of genetic defects.
Genetic defects are not possible with your evolution religion. So evolution is false.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
I really do suggest that if you want the truth, that you study the detailed information on this "Theory of Evolution" over on the "Neutral Evolution Forum". It is a good place to get free from this religion.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
I always wondered how they can date something that is 100% contaminated.
They should all lose their jobs. Evolution is a disgrace to science.
Evolution requires that you have no ability for logic and reasoning.
Evolution requires that you believe whatever they tell you without having any evidence to support such a baseless false belief.
Evolution is a belief in the power of objects to do things of their own, no different than pagan rock worship.
Real scientists don't give credit to rocks.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@Unrealistix You have to be a really, really, really low IQ person to not understand how fossils are dated.
And to understand that assumptions, inferences, implications, and other magical thinking is not science.
When we have much more advanced methods of dating, you will be made into a fool for believing in primitive religious mythology.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
I am guessing since ratings are disabled, on coments and on videos that coments will probably be controlled so they have to be aproved by the creator of this video.
From that I can pretty much conclude that you are an insane creationist.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk I'm guessing that you are an Evotard, a zombie that follows human emotional mental garbage believers in the Evodelusionism religion: the religion of lay down bitches who have no logical mind. You know that DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence against any form of evolution? It is common knowledge.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@MumblingMickey Putting you faith in humanity has never worked. They continue to destroy the earth, and their own species. Yet, people who are weak willed and easy to manipulated will believe in anything, because the definition of ignorance is lack of the awareness of what is obvious.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
Strata in this video is NOT dated using radiomentric data to age fossils...as you pointed out yourself it is made of sedimentary layers and is older than the fossils buried... thats WHY its not used to date fossils.
Perhaps you might like to see research HOW fossils are dated before informing everyone that radiometric dating of the stata would not be accurate.
I'm pretty sure after more than half a century the worlds physicists are aware of that!
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix One more attempt: They use the radiometric dating as the foundation of the other methods. This way it looks like they all point to the same time referenced. Now do you get it? Please, don't be so easy or without any objective thoughts. The world's physicists all receive the same training and are all taught to believe.
Not many can think for themselves or they would not get an education. It is part of the "problem".
Peer review is extreme pressure to conform and believe.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Again I would like to to read what I typed... So I'll say it again..
In this video you state that sedimentary layers of rock are used to date fossils... and that leads to an innaccurate date.
That is not correct. Nobody dates fossils using radiometric dating of sedimentary layers. So the entire premise the video is based on is false.
Do you know how fossils actually are dated? Did you look that up before making the video?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Once again: The foundation of all methods of dating strata comes from radiometric dating. Duh!
The foundation of all the other methods comes from radiometric dating, DUH! They are not separate methods.
They teach this crap to you with fliim flam as if they are using different methods to get the same result. Why don't you know this? You need to go to the source of this information and read. Don't get your education from people who are more screwed up than you are.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "the foundation of all methods of dating strata comes from radiometric dating."
No it doesn't... I thought you had studied this longer than I have been alive? If radiometric dating were the foundation of paleontology then there would be no dates for any fossils or any rock before the year 1905.
Since obviously that isn't the case I'm left wondering what methods a scientist might have used in 1904?
erm... Didn't I give you a list of other methods above?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Pay attention. There is NO way to date replacement fossils. All the methods are NOT verifiable by any form or use of the real scientific method of testing. You have no way to verify anything much beyond historical data or tree rings. PERIOD
Prior to 1904 There were no methods, and they have no way to verify anything back then either.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
". All the methods are NOT verifiable by any form or use of the real scientific method of testing"
Sorry I thought you said you studied this longer than I've been alive? yes?
Can I just offer the idea that you might be a tad out of your depth here (and ironically so) to be lecturing me on the scientific method.
So what you are suggesting here is that cesium radiometric dating is impossible? You do realise you are arguing against mathematical theorem's here? yes?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Pay attention to the video, then realize that dating fossils is not possible. If they get even one "right" would be an amazing accident.
There is no experiment that can be performed against any other scientific phenomenon. In real science we have multiple methods of testing and they all verify the same thing. In this it is all the same method, using different materials. Understand?
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Pay attention to the video, then realize that dating fossils is not possible."
Well certainly if you tried to date fossils using the sedimentary layer that would be stupid. Which is why this method is NEVER used.
More Interesting is that you KNOW its not used. We both know it, and I know that you know it, so does everyone reading this too! They'll just read the page and realise you are lying through your teeth.
Now why did you go out of your way to demonstrate you deceit?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix I really don't think you have the capacity to get past your indoctrination. This is not any form of put down, or insult. It is just a common problem for people. ALL replacement fossils are dated using the following methods: 1/Assumption based on faith and belief. 2/ Inferences 3/ Implications 4/ An hypothesis, based on a theory with no validating information to show it is real science. Work on those first and try to falsify those statements.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Yes at this stage I'm openly accusing you of strategically setting out to lie and deceive.
Moreover we both know this is the only course open to you.
What I don't understand is how you haven't realised what a self defeating exercise it is.
All your doing is getting people that don't understand to ask questions about fossilization. Will you be on Wikipedia with them to censor the bits you don't like?
Anyway, I have a solution for you pal, you won't like it!
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix I have a solution for you. Step back away from the indoctrination, and start thinking for yourself.
What is the absolute proof that dating replacement fossils by any method is 100% accurate? When you can answer that, then we can talk.
CLUE: Study only the evidence, not the faith and belief indoctrinated into your mind.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Yeah yeah...look you haven't provided a single example of the entire premise of your video... asked you lots of times, really politely too...
Now I'm openly accusing you of lying to further your nonsense and knowing full well what you are doing...what do you say to that?
One example would sort the whole thing out.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix 1 o 2 What are you talking about? Every fossil dated this way is incorrect and unverifiable. Calling me a liar is your problem, not mine. Laying down for this religious nonsense and don't bother to check it out for yourself. THERE IS NO TISSUE LEFT IN THESE FOSSILS TO DATE, SO THEY DATE THE "DIRT",GROUND, ROCKS, MINERALS AROUND THE FOSSIL. IS THAT CLEAR? IT IS A RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE FOSSIL IS THE SAME AGE AS THE DIRT.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix 2 o 2 All of the hominids are degenerated humans that went extinct rapidly. This is because DNA is absolutely clear evidence that only shows genetic degradation: gene loss, atavism, pseudo genes, defective genes in all complex creatures with multiple cells. All the evidence must fit with the ONLY absolute physical evidence we have.
When they have tissue, they still date the "dirt". It is not science. Evidence ONLY shows genetic loss from mutations.
/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix There is only one fossil of the Chimp that is misdated, and there are some samples of chimps artifacts only 4000 years old. Chimps are degraded humans from the same exact genetic lineage as us. There is only genetic loss shown in DNA. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence against any evolution from simple to more complex.
In real science we go with the absolute evidence first and fit the rest to that. Once you realize that, you can then be a scientist. Radiometric dating is false
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix 1 of X Now, in DNA evidence we know without any doubts that all creatures have genetic losses as the main path of "evolution". This means that there is only de-evolution or degeneration and losses of genetic information to be able to adapt, and to be fit. Humans are the perfect example because of the Human Genome Project and the constant bombardment of the PubMed site with gene loss papers. So, there in no advancement in "evolution" only genetic degradation.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix 2 of X So, if real science of DNA only shows genetic degradation then how is it that these hominids are showing some form of evolution, when the ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE OF DNA, only shows genetic losses from mutations. This means the hominids can only be genetic mutants that went extinct from genetic degeneration. Therefore the dating methods are utterly flawed.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix 2 of X What started me on this path of discovering why radiometric dating or any dating is flawed was the 6.1 million year old upright human that was at first scorned as fake science, but they used all the same dating methods, and is now, accepted at 6.1 MYO. Either this fossil is correct making all the rest crap, as this is the oldest much more fit human that we de-evolved from. The bone is much stronger and straighter than our present condition of genetic degeneration.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix 3 of X Once you have irrefutable physical evidence that has real science in it, the rest must fit with it. This is real science. DNA only shows genetic loss in all multi-cellular creatures. The hominids from all places are simply degenerated humans. They all went extinct because the ultimate outcome of genetic degradation is extinction. Where humans are heading. Fossil dating is ridiculous, not science and only based on faith and belief in this system. There is no evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou And no radiometric dating is one of many ways rocks can be dated... depending on how old they are, what type they are and where they are we can use an assorment of magnetic imaging, resonance scanning, chemical analysis such as flourine, accumulation rates, ESR dating etc.
There are in fact two types of dating relative dating and absolute dating. Radiometrics is absolute. You are suggesting is Relative when your audience and you can actually go off and find out its not.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Not many people have the ability to step to the other side of the wall of knowledge. You are approaching this from the idea that humans know something. You should only approach science from the perspective of the evidence, and leave the HEMG religous faith based bullshit to your professors.
If you can separate yourself from the forced belief used in indoctrination, you can understand science fully.
If you want to be limited by HEMG you can have that too.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou I am certainly approaching it from the idea humans know things.
Now would you please, please correct yourself. You stated science dates sedimentary rock using radiometric dating to date fossils... I am stating categorically that this is incorrect.
In fact here's your chance to shine, You should be delighted, all you need to do is provide an example of a single fossil dated using radiometric analysis of the sedimentary rock it was found in. Simple yes?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Your problem is assuming that because people call it science that it is science. This the the same exact science that claims nothing can exceed the speed of light, and that the earth is the center of the universe.
ALL of the hominids in africa. DUH?
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Nope I'm arguing that 'I' call it science... because it IS science... in fact its covered under physics and mathematics. So I think you'll have an interesting time trying to claim math theorems are all wrong.
Like for example the formula for radioactive decay? - (dN / dt) = λ . dt
But lets start with that all important example of science using sedimentary rock first shall we? It should be really simple... yet I haven't been able to find one. Could you help me out there?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix I have worked that formula, and it works based on the parameters used. The problem is they do not have all the parameters included. As I showed in another post on the rate of decay is changing, just like everything else.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
All the parameters are not included? WTF are you on about? Mathematical formula don't prove themselves if bits are missing... that's why math is absolute.
Thats not just like but EXACTLY like claiming 5+5 dies equals ten if you use those 'parameters'...but you can add other 'parameters' to 5+5 to equal 131?
What are you talking about? You don't even know the difference between an element and a molecule.. who the hell would trust you explaining math?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Math is only as good as the parameters of the equation. If they are missing important parameters, (which they are) they have no clue how old anything is because they missed the part about how matter as it is accelerated becomes more dense. More dense means that radioactive minerals are more dense now and increasing in density at a much faster rate, because of the acceleration of the universe.
This means radioactive matter decays extremely slower now. See Basic Science video
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
I was much more interested in the last sentence in that comment than you trying to get you to understand the ins and outs of stochastic decay.
So I'll repeat that again..
Lets start with YOUR premise in YOUR video... You said that fossils are aged by radiometric dating of sedimentary rock surrounding the fossil ... can you please provide supporting evidence for this premise on which your entire video hangs.
Thank you.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix IF you don't know how replacement fossils are dated, I suggest you take a class on it. It is really basic material for me. It is based on several assumptions. Assumptions are not science, but part of religious nonsense. What part of this dating method is verifiable and can be calibrated against anything, and what is used to calibrate this method? You think about this. It is your homework.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@Unrealistix He won't answer that question because he went off and looked it up...and realised some time back that fossils are not dated as he suggested... but even knowledge of failure does not sway a creationist.
Their mindset is different. To him 'its only one little error' despite the fact his whole video is based on that idea.
In fact he wouldn't even admit that to himself, he cringes every time you point it out! Which from what I'm reading is every response you give the guy.
MumblingMickey 5 months ago
@MumblingMickey You really need to read my postings and study all the videos I provide and get free from the delusions of humanity. The new religion is "science" and it is based on faith and belief, not on evidence. No sane person would believe that there is a way to accurately date fossils.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix We know for fact in physics that matter gains in density and attractive power (polarity attraction) as it is sped up. This means that radiometric dating is based on a constantly changing speed of decay. It decays much slower now. In order for the original elements to be made, they had to be more "malleable" so the sub atomic particles could fuse rapidly (less dense then).
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix The concept of dating the earth matter around a fossil as being the same age of the fossil, only works maybe 1 out of 100,000. It is ONLY base on assumptions, not on real evidence. It starts out with a set of beliefs that have been passed on by believers. It all sounds so scientific, but dating a rock is only relative to what? They don't even know what time is.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix I suggest that you actually start thinking about what is in this video and try to falsify it. The assumption that the age of the "dirt" the creature fell in is the same age as the creature is absolute nonsense.
You don't get it. All the mumbo jumbo about how it is science, when it is just crazy beliefs projected on the world.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Falsify the idea that fossils are dated using the strata around them..
Yeah sure Just go to Google scholar and type in 'Fossil dating methods'...
You won't find a single example of anyone that dated any fossil by trying to date sedimentary rock.. since as you pointed out yourself that only dates the zircons in the sediments...
Ergo sedementary rocks are not used to date fossils... since nobody has ever done that.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix It is utterly illogical to make assumptions in science based on the idea behind the assumption.
Do you even understand that statement?
Read it over and over. People see this world from a tiny little time and space capsule they are imprisoned in and from that they make all their reasoning.
Go to my first videos and start to understand what I am talking about.
/watch?v=sPPafzd4wGI
I believe in you to have the ability to get free from this.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Forget about your other points for the meantime...
we can discuss all of those after we both ensure that you are correct to suggest sedimentary rock is actually dated using radiometrics and this is what fossil dates are based on.
All your other point I'll be delighted to address... more than happy... But lets get this one thing (the entire premise your video is based on) out of the way first ok?
As you can see I'm not going to let it drop.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Forget any "science" and start from the beginning. How is it possible to date anything past 10,000 years? Start there.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix What at the calibration points used to calibrate these dating methods?
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Sorry...we can come on to calibration, other dating methods, discuss anything you like... after you provide me and your audience with evidence that what you are saying is correct to begin with. In fact this is the central theme of your video.
To help you understand this I'll give the example of the Eckfield Maar fossil site in Eifel, Germany.
Please explain who dated those fossils using radiometric analysis of the sedimentary rocks they are buried in please.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Okay Brain box so HOW DO THEY DATE FOSSILS... common sense would say if its not the fossil or the rock around it then there's nothing else there... how can you date a fossil from no information at all..
This is stupid... why don't YOU LOOK UP HOW FOSSILS ARE DATED...
Stupid atheists.
LoveJCForLife 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife They date fossils by faith and belief in things they don't understand in the first place. It is ABSOLUTELY impossible to accurately date replacement fossils. You need to go study this more. Don't just believe people because they believe this is science. It is totally based on assumptions.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Well I'm sure of one thing, one of you is lying. So I'll take your advice and find out which one.
You sad dinosaurs are dated using the rock around them. He said they aren't and PM'd me with the way he says they are dated. So far none of those ways use rocks around the dinosaur but i haven't looked them all up, and some I don't understand.
Since you made the video It'd be amazing if you lied to everyone since we could all find out. But we can all find out if he is too.
LoveJCForLife 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Well I'm sure of one thing, one of you is lying. So I'll take your advice and find out which one.
You sad dinosaurs are dated using the rock around them. He said they aren't and PM'd me with the way he says they are dated. So far none of those ways use rocks around the dinosaur but i haven't looked them all up, and some I don't understand.
Since you made the video It'd be amazing if you lied to everyone since we could all find out. But we can all find out if he is too.
LoveJCForLife 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife This idea that the ground being dated is the only method used in dating replacement fossils. There is nothing in fossils to date, because there is no tissue. It is rock. Assumptions are never science. Faith and belief can make anything work to fit a religious ideology.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife The religious ideology is Evodelusionism; This magical idea that fish magically crawled out of the water, breathed air, and turned in to reptiles, birds, mammals; then eventually they turned into humans by some magical nonsense that has never been shown IN ANY EVIDENCE.
How can someone be so gullible to believe in things that have never shown any evidence. The opposite is the truth. We were made nearly perfect and we have gradually, as a species, become more genetically degraded.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife The religious ideology is Evodelusionism; This magical idea that fish magically crawled out of the water, breathed air, and turned in to reptiles, birds, mammals; then eventually they turned into humans by some magical nonsense that has never been shown IN ANY EVIDENCE.
How can someone be so gullible to believe in things that have never shown any evidence. The opposite is the truth. We were made nearly perfect and we have gradually, as a species, become more genetically degraded.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Look I don't care about your opinion of evolution or whether I share it or he doesn't.
The only thing I was interested in with this was that he accused you of lying. I had already read before that scientists dated dino bones, but I didn't know if that was possible.
Since as he said the information is available then clearly one of you is not only wrong but also deliberately lying. I'm still trying to find information, not that I'm really that bothered.
CONT BELOW
LoveJCForLife 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife 1 of 2 There are so many fossils that were dated "out of sequence" and have been "doctored", "massaged into" fitting the faith and belief in Evodelusionism. The dating methods are so "fluid" that these "pseudo scientists" can date them anyway they want. For instance they found tissue samples in a mammoth in Montana, and they refuse to date it by carbon C-14 dating, but use the method described here to date it because it fits with the belief that creatures are as old as the dirt.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou this person LoveJCForLife is being highly disingenuous, to avoid calling "her" a liar. She sent me a PM which I will let you read. She is a sockpuppet of one of these evolution promoters so don't take her too seriously.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I beg your pardon, I'll have you take that back... I'm not a puppet for anyone. And what I will do is call anyone out when they seek to blow huge holes in my beliefs using nonsense... and I stand by everything I sent you...
Theres no point in arguing things are true when they just aren't, even less of a point in doing so when everyone (like me) can go off and find out if they are. All that does is aids people like evolutionists.
LoveJCForLife 4 months ago
@LoveJCForLife You are obviously an Evotard. You can't hide, because your intent shines through. Here is where you need to start. Start with the absolute physical evidence that requires no interpretation and cannot be doubted, because it is obvious. DNA is absolute, and only shows genetic losses in all multicellular creatures. There is only genetic losses shown PERIOD. There is no evolution. The rest is easy to unscrew, because it falls apart as being just religious dogma and slogans,
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@LoveJCForLife 2 odf 2 This is why these morons use this method to date fossils found in any area. It is to insure they all fit the fake chronology.
DNA only shows genetic degradation. There is no evolution. Dating fossils is part of a religious ideology.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"DNA only shows genetic degradation."
No it doesn'. OECD nations provide all genomes sequenced for download..(see ncbi) You can download and compare such genomes and observe that there is no degradation of DNA.
"Dating fossils is part of a religious ideology."
No its not, a dictionary will put you right there.
You are positing things your audience can demonstrate are wrong to themselves. Why would you go out of your way to demonstrate you are wrong?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix You must be a really easy person to convince of mystical nonsense. DNA only shows genetic degradation. PERIOD. The net in humans is 4600 mapped genetic defects to 4 known positive mutations.
In case you missed the first grade math, that is a net so far of 4600 genetic NEGATIVES to 4 positive. What does that equal in terms of genetic degradation?
Since there is ONLY a net genetic loss shown in ALL DNA studies, hominids are degraded humans that went extinct = the normal path.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Look your not too well educated, we both realise that.... why do you bother?
Unrealistix 4 months ago
@Unrealistix There is a huge difference between being indoctrinated, as you are, and real study of science. In my videos I teach people to learn how to learn. You don't know how to learn. You only know how to lay down for indoctrination. Please go to my first videos.
When people are paid to perpetuate myths we get your condition.
/watch?v=sPPafzd4wGI
/watch?v=bQrkBtnD_UQ
/watch?v=ZeAzlfNrqKM
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou CONT. FROM ABOVE.
So when I have some time and I'm not listening to screaming kids or having a life I will go and find out.
But its easily settled since you obviously looked this up yourself when you made this video I'm sure you have at least one example of a dinosaur dated like you said.
So without matching unrealix huge boring essay on the subject an example would put him straight!
And to avoid this you really should have put an example in the video description.
LoveJCForLife 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife One more time. There is NO bone in fossils. In some dinosaurs there is tissue but they will not date the tissue directly, because it would void the premise of evolution. It is evolution that drives this foolish dating system. That is what the point is.
And DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence that only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures. There is no evolution. The fossil dating is ridiculous.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@LoveJCForLife
I have already asked him to provide such an example more than ten times..
He can't supply it cos it doesn't exist. In fact he actually thinks atoms are made of molecules and not the other way round. So that'll give you some idea of the 'science' that went into his video discussing elements.
I think you might have worked out by now this guy is a lot of things... but he is certainly not GoodScienceForYou or anyone else.
My apologies for the lengthy PM.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Pay attention. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence that only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures. There is no evolution. It does not exist. Humans have now genetically degraded to the point of 100% you have a genetic disease. It is impossible for you to avoid this. If evolution were true and we were getting better there would be NO genetic degradation. There is no way for us to come from some primitive life form that evolved. You are a fool.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Can we assume you are not going to supply me, or your friend there even one example of a fossil dated using radiometric analysis of the sedimentary rock then?
Its it the entire basis for this video.... Assuming you're next comment is not such an example then we'll have to assume based on the repeated requests and your refusal to even acknowledge the question that your at a loss to offer one.
[notice also how I am ignoring all points you make until we nail this one down]
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix All of them are based on radiometric dating by assumption.
The foundation of this nonsense is radiometric dating. All strata is compared to this. Why don't you know this? Who lied to you? Why do you believe them? Parents? teachers? preachers? all the same crap.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@Unrealistix I suggest that you actually start thinking about what is in this video and try to falsify it. The assumption that the age of the "dirt" the creature fell in is the same age as the creature is absolute nonsense.
You don't get it. All the mumbo jumbo about how it is science, when it is just crazy beliefs projected on the world.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Question: Where are the 1000 to 5000 year old human fossils?
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Question: Where are the 1000 to 5000 year old human fossils?
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Still fossilising... why would you think a fossil could form within 1000 years? or 5,000?... all the bone has to be replaced with minerals...were you not watching your own video?
As I said. try looking at HOW fossils are actually dated before suggesting silly things like this.
Since you insist its the strata thats dated you should have no problem supplying one fossil that was dated using that method, yes? I mean you'd hardly have just made it up would you?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Wood can be completely fossilized in less than one hour in a lab. Fossilization is a chemical process that can be changed in speed by the chemicals in the ground. There is no reason why we don't have 1000 to 5000 year old human fossils, other than the dating system is totally based on dating the "dirt". Someday we will have the technology to date fossils directly. Right now we have this crude pile of human assumptions based of faith and belief.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Why would you think that a human could not be completely fossilized in 5000 years? 1000 years? Why do you believe that it can only take millions? Could it be because the ground is millions of years old and the fossil is 10,000 - 5000 or less?
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
Great video, ty.
sarevor 8 months ago 5
I cant believe he thinks radiometric dating is used to date sedimentary fossils. Has he heard of Stratigraphy? and Paleomagnetic Stratigraphy? Radiometric dating is used on igneous rock (volcanic!) and the K-Ar procedure is only applied to samples that exceed 10000 years in age due to the very long half-life of radio-p