it is, its exactly 9,456,000,345 years 11 months, 6 hours and 19 minutes at the time of writing........give or take 15 minutes. thats as accurate i can get without jumping into my time machine. its in the shop til tuesday though, something about the flux capacitor leaking dark matter.
Its impossible pretty much for anything to be that Old it just doesn't make sense for people that believe that the Earth is Billions or Millions of years old, its the worst lie by Satan, Nothing but God can live that long, By estimation of all living material it dies at some point, Scientists just assume that our Planets/ Solar System have near infinite longevity & this just simply cannot be so..
@To411u Why is it impossible? you make alot of claims but you dont provide proof.
How do you know that only god can live for millions or billions of years?
The solar system does not have infinite longevity it will cease to be one day. Just because we are talking about billions of years it doesn't make it infinite.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 God created Time, Space & Matter Simultaneously.. Therefore He came before the Time, He's not subject to it, or mere human interpretation.. If the Earth Was Billions of years old like scientists said then how come the Magnetig fields are declining? U know its a fairy tale, its like long long ago & far far away.. Better to say u don't know than to make up the age of the earth don't u think?
@ThatAtheistGuy20 The Oceans on the Earth would have more sediment, there would be more alot more helium in the atmosphere if the Earth was Billions of years old cause of Decay, The Sun would be more than 500 Times the size it is now, The Earth would be spinning faster, The Magnetic Fields would not be declining, Just think about these things b4 u believe that the earth is billions of years old ok?
@9493760 Actually i can, its called blocking which im about to do to you. If you want to play with your alien space ships and try to convice yourself your special and you know things the rest of us dont then thats fine, im happy for you.
But i just dont give a shit, im never going to get sence out of someone as "special" as you.
4.5 billion years old huh? I know thats what everyone is saying now but 10,15, even 20 years ago it was a far seperate number. Even then when radiometric dating was used, several numbers for the age of the earth was accepted...until it didnt fit into how long it would take for mankind to evolve. Believe what you want, just saying.
@KesslersCross Really and what numbers where they coming up with? just because some people made mistakes it doesnt mean we will always be wrong, we once knew that the earth was flat, that the moon and the sun did battle in the sky.
The earth is dated based on oldest rock found, not how long it took man to evolve. Scientists base their theories on data found not on how long it took man to evolve. And apparently geology and evolution are consistent with each other. Creationists are the ones who make up the data to fit their beliefs.
@OptimalElement Its all how you look at it. From a creationist stand point its exactly the other way around. There is no doubt on both sides that bias "findings" are presented as "truth". Its the same in archeology, politics, everything.
No my friend. I have to strongly disagree with you. Evidence is evidence. Scientists from all around the world of different languages and cultures when addressing these topics look at data independently all come to the same conclusion. Furthermore scientists provide that evidence. Creationists on the other hand never provided evidence. As regards ''truth'' remember science provides evidence but never claims absolute truth. Creationism has no evidence but claims absolute truth.
@KesslersCross Thats not the only thing, If the Earth was Billions of years old then how come there isn't more Helium in the Atmosphere? Why is it that the Earth hasn't reached Equilibrium yet? This proves a young Earth, Scientists know alot of there theories are wrong already thats why they keep coming up with new ones.. The Whole Equilibrium thing proves the world is less than 30, 000 years old. Furthermore if the Earth was that old the Sun would have been too big to support any life on Earth.
@To411u Oh sure, there is a whole mess of things like that which are not looked at. The simple point is, scientist from all fields are dead set on not believing in God so they have to have something to use to back their theory. They can say what they want but its so obvious that the motive has nothing to do with real science but the one sided fictious evidence for evolution and govt funding. Its why people like Dawkin has to comment on religion which should have NOTHING to do with the subject.
@KesslersCross Unfortunately religion makes claims on everything, so it will always be present in science. Since each discovery of science gives god less places to hide.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 hmm, I cant see where it makes claims on everything but ive never thought about it either. Since your an atheist I can fully understand the view and opinion of your comment, but a christian could just as easily say the same giving less places for evolutionist to pull from to save their theory. Each discovery or each scientist with an agenda?
@KesslersCross But evolution doesnt need to hide in gaps. evolution wants to fill in gaps so that we can understand it more. We are not afraid of being proven wrong.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 Well, for the most part and people like you I agree. But we both know that more times than none any time evolution is brought up its a tooth and nail fight about God for or against, which to me has nothing to do with the subject anyways. I like science because it is the search for absolute truth, but I also feel that since the subject is clouded with religion it is fought strongly by those who HAVE to find a way for it to be true regardless of the real truth.
@KesslersCross "scientist from all fields are dead set on not believing in God..."
So apparently people who's job it is to learn don't believe in god? I wonder why that connection would be there.
But actually, there ARE scientists who believe in god... they also accept the facts of evolution. They warp their beliefs to fit the facts, instead of the other way around.
@TheoryOfThought Sure, but looking back through history we see how rediculas some of the "truths" were that science came up with. Every generation can look to a century before and find "truths" that were undoubtable, mass believed, arrogantly defended to the death, and laugh until you pee yourself at what they believed.I think evolution will be no different once the grant money runs out that makes it a truth and people have no reason or care for anything but the real truth, just as it was before
@KesslersCross There is some merit in what you say, but the science of today is different that the science of history. Scientific methods have been refined, and theories are tested again and again. Science does it's utmost to prove itself wrong. With discoveries in the future, what we believe is right may be false, true, but those false beliefs we believe in today are based on the evidence we currently have. As long as somebody is willing to explore further evidence when it appears...
".......but the science of today is different that the science of history." - ever heard or read the expression: "those who dont learn from the past, are bound to repeat it"?
reading your statement, can you see the error in your ways?
@johnnytheprick I would think the statement I made that you quoted shows my understanding of the very expression you question whether I've ever heard. The science of today builds on what they knew from the past, and improves, therefore becoming different. Perhaps you are merely upset at my use of the word 'history'?
Sure, we might still be wrong, but we're getting closer. And we give room for error, we call it an approximate age now.
Regardless of Radio Active decay, the bones of dinosaurs are proof that the Earth is much older than 6,000 to 8,000 years old. As for the term theory - in science a theory is an established scientific fact. In science, a theory is actually called a hypothesis. Darwin established a hypothesis and eventually called it evolution. Since then, scientist have been trying to falsify his hypothesis, only to discover their findings only proved what Darwin proposed is true. Now it's theory.
For more on science & nature try books by top scientists; astronomer Victor J. Stenger, ' Fallacy of fine tuning ', Richard Dawkins, ' Unweaving the rainbow ' & ' The greatest show on earth ' & PZ Meyers & the website Talkorigins
No explanation that carbon dating uses a mean to estimate its result? I wonder why not.
Shocking is the fact that you chose your bias and ignore things that could hinder your pre determined beliefs. The irony that you demonstrate the same traits as Christian fundamentalists when looking at the actual evidence.
I don't suppose you can show me where it says that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
Of course it uses a mean, but surely this just improves things. Radiometric dating does not claim to be 100% accurate. its more like 60-80% accurate, but when we have results showing more like 4.5 billion then i think we can safely rule out 6000.
you seem quite intelligent so im assuming you dont believe this crap so why are you arguing with me?
@ThatAtheistGuy20 I still do not get where you are coming up with this 6000 years. And you are correct that I do not believe that it is 6000 years old. Archaeology alone disproves the earth being this young. But to my knowledge the bible does not say it is only 6000 years old. I should also add that I am not a Christian, mainly because of the use of such a provocative word.
As it stands we really do not know that much, but as usual we proclaim to know just about everything.
@TCupUK Well, I've only read a little bit of genisis myself, but for some reason they thought it mattered to us that we know when adam's great great grandchildren were born, and when THEY had kids, and so on. You could follow that to give an exact date on when Noah's arc took place. If the rest of the bible follows this example, or if it even gives rough estimates, you could then judge the bible to be claiming that the earth is approximately a certain age.
@TheoryOfThought Hi, The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. And I can see the plausibility of suggesting a time frame for the existence of man on Earth after his creation. But that at best can only be accurate for man and not Earth. Some may say add 6 days but that is where the problem begins, because the Bible also says that a day for God is like an eternity for man. So assuming it to be 24 hours seems at best ignorant of anything past chapter one of the book.
@TCupUK A 'day' is clearly defined in the bible as the time between dawn and dusk, from what I recall. It doesn't use those exact words, but it mentions that it gets light, and then dark again (day and night)
A day for man is clearly defined, as is a day for God, and they are not the same. You are clearly to sceptical to even read the book you claim to debunk. Try reading it, not listening to what is preached out of it. I have no issues with you choosing to be an atheist, that is your freewill. But please to not assume that you know when in fact you only have a belief. Polar opposites are a fact of life, we have to have them.
@TheoryOfThought That is understandable as all those begats and begots do my head in also. But in all fairness you should read it before you comment on it.
Many Christians do not know that there is a verse where Jesus says that anyone casting out demons in his name or healing the sick in his name will be damned. But there preachers will not disclose this, and most do not read the book. Believe me, it is not what is made out to be and goes way deeper than Christianity.
@TCupUK Anyways its the religious people claiming the world is young, not the scientists. So even if religion claims the world is not young, there's still the whole adam and eve thing, and fossil records. It doesn't say anything about creating dinosaurs, then killing them before creating man. It does say that man is supposed to rule over all other creatures though, which have just been created, so I'm not sure when these dinosaurs were supposed to have died.
@TheoryOfThought Stop being a troll and you will learn something.
Scientists to not proclaim to know how old the Earth is. Because we do not know At best we estimate it and the age of the universe. We also know for a fact that are current calculations do not make sense when stress tested. This is why we are working on a unified theory of the standard model. But this still relies on an event occurring that has no cause, and something being created from nothing. Some call it God.
@TCupUK I saw a video called 'A universe from nothing' by Lauence Krauss (may have spelled the name wrong)
It talks about how 'nothing' has weight, and that it is possible for something to in fact, come from nothing. Which would explain the big-bang.
Even if this is somehow disproved, theorys and technology is improving all the time, A scientific, logical answer can be found to any question or problem I've ever heard. (except prehaps some philosophy ones)
@TheoryOfThought I know Laurence, some-things I agree others I question. The only true answer science can offer about God is the lack of knowing anything in either direction. But yet it is still present even today. At Cern the main part of the device used to search for the Higgs Boson aka God particle, is called the Aleph. This religious symbol is hard to ignore, as is all the others in the Quantum world. Things really are not as they seem. Perception is an illusion, Fact!!
@TCupUK Well I agree with your last couple statements. My favorite saying is "True knowledge lies in knowing you know nothing at all" which implies that nothing is knowable. Science makes sense to me the way religion makes sense to others, so I assume for the sake of reality that it is true. I admit I am biased to scientific discoveries, and take them on 'faith' until somebody discovers solid evidence contradicting a theory or discovery.
@TheoryOfThought Well said, that is one of the more intelligent replies that I have had the pleasure of reading on you tube. Radio carbon dating is being questioned by science as we have contradictory evidence that potential disproves the notion of the decay rate being a constant. We actually already know this for a fact but it takes a while for the main stream to catch up. We can not help taking two steps back ever time we step forward. The real fun is in the finding out :)
@TCupUK ALSO back to the day thing, maybe you believe the book is god's words, but it was, ultimately, put on paper by man. mankind's definition of a day is quite clear, the author would have used some other word or phrase if it meant something other than a day. The fact that sunday, the seventh day, is a single day of rest also attests to a day being only a day, not a few hundred million years.
@TheoryOfThought I do not believe in any book or books. I believe all books contains variants of truth that appeal to certain types. If people wish to believe in God then I am cool with that, as I am also cool with people not believing in God. Mainly because I am a believer in freewill. You can label me as you please, I am just trying to inform you that there are other views other than yours or a Christians.
There is little point explaining the meaning of "Sun"day to you.
@TCupUK I was throwing the 'sunday' thing out because it popped into my head. I wouldn't call me a troll, I'm listening to your arguments and sending back my own opinions or thoughts on the subject. You orignally questioned the young-earth theory, I explained it's reasoning, as far as I understand it. You mentioned the 6-day dilema, and I explained my views on it. Also a realtime conversation on youtube can be a bit messed up, as I'm replying to an older comment while you have newer ones up.
@TheoryOfThought Yes, I take the troll comment back, I also apologise. Sunday is related to Egypt and the Sun God Ra. Fundamental Christianity has its roots in Egypt and not Israel. The actual Sabbath is a Saturday as Sunday was the first day.
The actual issue with something from nothing comes from Einstein, as every effect must have a cause as a universal law. Now how can nothing cause something?
It is a paradox, as is many things in science & religion.
@TheoryOfThought The coincidence's outweighs the contradictions in my opinion. They both state the same order of creation with man being the most recent. Plants before animals, water before life and something coming from nothing. You would also be shocked to see how much ancient knowledge is still in use today, especially sacred geometry and quantum mechanics. When it comes to dating, at best it is an estimate given our limited understanding of the data we create.
@xLOWGUNx THINK BEFORE YOU COMMENT you went from evolution to the big bang theory evolution being real had NOTHING to do with the big bang theory the big bang theory is just that a theory and cannot be proven BUT evolution IS NOT A theory and has been observed and proven to be real
Evolution IS a theroy. Unless something is 100% percent true it is a theroy. I'm not saying i belive in creationism but you must accept the fact whatever we know may not be true. The reasons these things are said to be the "truth" is because they are the most reasonable and scientific things out there. (At least I hope so, they may be lieing to us) Nonetheless If you see nothing as true you have nothing to work on you will efficently kill yourself if you tuely belived this.
@piepiepie1000 please go to the trouble of finding exactly what constitutes a scientific theory. Hint: you find the definition in a standard dictionary.
I am Christian, and it doesn't bother me if you do not believe what is written in the Bible. We all form conclusions based on our own experiences. I will not attempt to force, bully, or scare anyone to accept what I believe.
We should be free that way, and never bullied, or persecuted.. simply for having our own opinions and beliefs.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
IF humans have been developed for 100,000 plus years and population grows at 1.2% we should have trillions of people here on earth am i wrong. Also i heard of two test of carbon dating on Mt St. Helen and results were it blew up 80,000 years ago? and a test on a live peguin and it was 8000 years old. are there tests wrong?
@Sofyn You have been watching too many Hovind videos. He lies and is in prison. Carbon 14 is not used except on once living things that get they Carbon from the air, it does no work on seals and snails. The know that. They publish papers about it and creationists turn it around and say it does not work. There are 20 different radiometric dating methods and they all cross check each other.
You don't know the population grows at 1.2%. They picked that number because it matches the bible.
I face the ignorance of creationist christians on a daily basis due to going to a baptist high school with the response to an argument on the origins of the universe, the earth and people with ''because it says so in the bible'' argh it is very frustrating that people intentionally ignore science proved facts for no other reason than being brainwashed into believing in a cult
the bible says our life times are but a blink of an eye to god . gods time and our time are on diffrent scales not that time its self is diffrent just the way its looked at .look at a jewish calander its year 5771 to them which is where the christians get the earth is only 6000 years old from. what they should have said is that they count from the start of the hebrew religion to today .which makes it almost 6000 years
the revolution.... u ever played spore or hows that game calls?
u shuld understand that it take almost billion years to take fish out of water.....
well that eve rything gets faster.....
more things to explore , more abilitys needed to learn....
and as u know its not that easy.....
(sorry for bad english i bet i mistake alot and yes it took around 2bilions of years to get what we are now and i dont talk about how earth created <.< it took even more..... ill post new comment noCHR)
You say you want to discus the statement that the earth is 6.000 years old. If I for example state c14 dating does not work, you will say there are other methods too. That's doesn't really work now does it. So...you tell me which radiometric dating method is absolutely correct, so I can respond on that.
The Argon dating method was proven false simply due to the fact that it said that 168 year old volcanic rocks were 300 million to 3 billion years old. Hah.. Nice try evolution.
@leo2nd74 Yes you may have an open mind, but it may be too open. Like i said with things like the age of the earth there really isn't much room for debate.
You could argue that it is slightly more or less than 4.5 billion years, but thousands or millions is just unrealistic. We must accept what the evidence shows not what we FEEL might be better.
@leo2nd74 it doesn't matter what you think it matters what you can prove. And unfortunately we have to align our beliefs with what we can see to be true, not what we want to be true.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 Time is relative if you travel apart and then return to the earth your age would vary with say your twin thus the earth being only 6000 years has no bearing as to how much the space apart from the earth has aged from that point of the beginning of the entire universe, etc..right? meaning scientifically hubble expansion can be explained by time and not the big bang. etc..right? Oh... thats right you folk mock real scientists like hubble instead force fit the data, etc..right?
@mrbjph the hubble telescope doesnt tell us anything...it tells us that we are in a universe surrounded by lots of stars..thats it....these so called scientists are trying to look for evidence to fit their religion"evolution".
Amazing!!!!! I put such a crazy post as "nothing created everything" and you say,"yeah, creationists are the ones who believe that." Look, I was being incredibly sarcastic. Nothing made everything or God created everything. Both seem far fetched either way. However, it's worth looking into the bible with an open mind and seeing if we are the wretched beings it claims we are.
@BurningLove17 I dont think so. even if we decide that god exists then how do we decide which god it is? even Christians cant decide there are thousands of different sects of Christianity.
its to big a leap to believe god did it. and even if there was a god im not sure i would want to worship it.
Thank you for this video. I haven't done any of these tests for myself, so I'll have to take your/experts' word for it. It's amazing how far we have come since our ancestors in the ocean. I marvel at how accurately we can know what has happened over the last 500 billion years. Crazy creationists think they have a case when they ask how everything got here. Big bang, Duh! First there was stuff and energy then it banged! Everything from nothing! It's obvious you creationists!
@BurningLove17 Yeah creationists ask "but how can everything come from nothing", but they are the only ones who claim that. they say god did it, so where did god come from, well hes always been there. lol
Is it harder to believe that very simple tiny particles just popped into existence or that an immense, complex and intelligent being popped into existence fully formed and perfect?
if someone truely believes the earth is 6000 years old then trying to convince them with logic is like trying to take down a tank by throwing darts at it.
What a load of boring crap. I don't know who's right or wrong? But I certainly don't want to listen to shit like this. Speak properly man - from the heart - as if it really is what you agree with. Very boring droning.
@battlecircus10 Point taken :P but come on really? you don't know whos wrong and whos right? you seem like a decent person surely you dont believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old?
No, I don't believe that for one minute. But, there are some valid points made by creationists - at least to me anyway. The problem is with most "atheists" as I see it, is they only seem to ridicule "Christianity" (whatever that is). Christianity (as exists today) was thought up by a bunch of controlling Romans as far as I see. (I just did it too) BUT..there are other religions. I don't see atheists deriding Islam for example...hmmmm, wonder why?
@battlecircus10 I think most atheists pick on Christianity because its the religion they are most familiar with. Obviously we don't believe any other religion has a stronger case just most atheists i know live in western countries who's dominating religion is Christianity.
Also many people who claim to be christian are not really practicing, whereas most Muslims are practicing Muslims and its much more difficult to have a debate with them.
@Felhaven the flood didn't happen long enough for the bones to fossilize you fucktard. It takes a long time for that. And also did you know that the vast majority of our oceans are still undiscovered? No? Could've figured you were speaking out your ass.
if the bible is right, then during the flood untold numbers of people and other animals died. they should have been deposited on the ocean floor and eventualy fosslized right? well why have we never found a single human bone in a layer benieth a dinosaur? not once! instead of attacking the methodology of science all IDers need to do is present a physical peice of counter evidence. and so far not ONE has been able to do that.
Try your logic on this. Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. I know a prophet that 170 years ago said the earth was 455,000,000 years old. Proving the age of the earth does not disprove Christianity. (Think)
@NeedsSingingLessons Because neither Buddhist nor Hindus try to inject their religion into politics or try to get creation "science" taught in our secular public schools. I think Newton said it best, "Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem..."
@thatatheistguy20 The Earth can be 6000 years old. The Earth is now traveling at least 486,000 miles per hour. If it was traveling much faster near the big bang which seems logical would not time pass very slowly on Earth near lightspeed. The question then becomes would the outside observer watching Earth speed by would he note Radioactive decay rates as 4.5 billion or 10billion or 100billion while on Earth only a few days pass by. Mystery solved.
@Rapture092011Repent The universe is about 13.5 billion years old. The expansion of the universe took place in an extremely small amount of time. Wiki: "The Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud 4.568 billion years ago".
The rate of expansion of the universe in the moments after the big bang has no relativistic implications on the dating of radio-isotopes today. Anyway, that sort of time difference is impossible (Try actually studying relativity). Pwned.
@magicmentalmaniac how do you know there is no relativistic implications on the dating of radio isotopes due to the big bang? I was under the impression if you traveled at the speed of light time stopped for you....So why couldn't 13.5 billion years pass for the universe while only a few days passed for you?
@Rapture092011 #1-No object with mass can travel at the speed of light.
#2-The universe expanded within 10e-33 and 10e-32 seconds (inflationary epoch [if you don't get the 'e' symbol, it means really really really fucking short amount of time])
#3-All natural elements on this planet, with the exception of hydrogen were made via fusion in stars, long after the formation of the universe itself.
@Rapture092011Repent as you mentioned yourself the answer is relativity. we are measuring elements from the earth and the measurements we use are relative to the earth.
Your making this much more difficult than it needs to be. if you are measuring the speed of a car do you measure it relative the the universe? No you dont otherwise a stationary car would be travelling at over 65,000 mph. You measure its speed across the earth not across the universe.
@Texoki Wrong, the study by creationists that you are probably referring to gave an upper age of 62 million years, which is still way too young for geologists. But they forgot to figure in the mechanisms that remove salt from seawater. When you account for both intake and outtake it is found that the system is balanced. And the work you are thinking of was by Austin and Humphreys.
@HaydenHatTrick On top of that to say it's like children aguing is an overly simplified way of looking at it IMO. There is conflict, Science seeks to undestand the nature of the universe, adding in fantasy component into the equation (which God is) just makes the science more complicated and completely unscientific. It's like a child who cannot solve his math homework.He just makes up an number or variable that suits his needs, then feels he has the correct answer. He doesnt,and neither do u.
@HaydenHatTrick The job of the scientific community is not to disprove religion. Religion and the idea of God is unscientific, and thus has little to do with science as a whole. While Science is used by many of my fellow atheists to point out the holes in the idea of "God", ultimately you cannot use science, facts, and statistics to argue with people who defend an irrational believe. To say I am educated but not smart is an entirely different joke, one which I wont' waste my time defending..
@HaydenHatTrick "Being a scientist" Give me a break. If you were really a "scientist" (BTW I love how you use the nondescript "Scientist" moniker) you would by definition subscribe to the scientific method. You ideas that "God made a story for it" is quite possible the most unscientific thing I have heard anyone say. Just admit you're a bible thumper and call it a day. That's your opinions and beliefs...that cool. Just dont pose. Poser are lame and you are in danger of being lame....
@GasMaskFilms I was expressing how science doesn't disprove religion nor should it be claimed that is dose... I don't really care if its real or not. Its like two kids fighting, for there is no conflict between the two. Scientists (not those who do science, but make it) can understand a result found can only be used in an argument with a person, not with the religion. you sir are educated maybe, but not smart.
I don't really understand why people are arguing about this, if you throw a ball in space, and don't specify where it started, you could say that 4 million years ago it was somewhere arbitrary. If god created everything, he also created questions and answers to those questions. AKA god made it, and gave it a back story, hence, neither argument contradicts one another.
Its still valid science, and its still acceptable for religion... gee...
Radiometric Dating is more flawed than anything, it shouldn't even be a credible use to date the world, and there is evidence concerning a young earth model, creationist dont just look away from the evidence, we interpret it differently. As evolutionists interpret it differently... the radiometric dating process has many flaws including Heat Contamination, Starting At A "Supposed" beginning of the element in the compound? and more!
This video tries to proove the EARTH is greater than 6000 years old in order to disprove The Bible.
The Earth was here first, so logically, if the Earth is older than MAN and MAN has lived on The Earth for 6000 years then the Earth is older than 6000 years.
No amount of carbon dating is going to disprove God's Word.
where in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years old? but, the bible was written say 1000 years ago, so where in the bible does it actually state the age of the world?
@karaokequeen71 science is the interpreting of facts. umm yes I have heard of dinosaurs. When I was in school, science taught us they were cold blooded reptiles. LOL
Not sure what your point is. MY POINT is the bible does NOT say how old the world is. There are several passages that imply the world IS VERY VERY OLD
@Treefrogs2 My point is there is nothing in your book that is even remotely believable. It completely contradicts all that science has already proven, and has yet to prove. It's common sense. I understand that some people prefer to live with this belief of an afterllife and if that helps you get through ife then that is fine. I prefer facts and truth to help me sleep better.
@karaokequeen71 science is the interpreting of facts. umm yes I have heard of dinosaurs. When I was in school, science taught us they were cold blooded reptiles. LOL
Not sure what your point is. MY POINT is the bible does NOT say how old the world is. There are several passages that imply the world IS VERY VERY OLD
@karaokequeen71 I don't understand how science has conflicted with religion in any way. IF god made it, he made a story for it to (assuming he can do what they claim). Being a scientist, it just frustrates me when we say science discredits religion, for they are completely independent of one another. Please keep hate speech rational.
@HaydenHatTrick When a person does not believe in religion why is it labelled hateful? Because I choose to not believe in fairytales does not mean I am a devil worshipper LOL
Religion thinks it knows every answer, it clearly does not. And religion is set in stone.
Science can change depending on evidence.
Also... science books are written by smart men based on evidence. Religious books (although it is also written by men) claim to be from god, and that is where things differ.
Zec3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee.. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. ... Amen ...
Because while the minerals, gases, various elements and water may in fact be millions or billions of years old, that doesn't mean they have always existed in the form of the Earth!
Some theorize that planets create other planets through cataclysmic events. Some even theorize that a smaller planet can be expelled from a larger planet.
Hmmm, starting to sound like the cycle of life here but on a MUCH broader scale....
Carbon dating has shown living animals to be a million years old, the dolphin test for example. A living dolphin in carbon 14 radiometric dating showed to be immortal!
C-14 is a decent testing method but as with all things has a margin of error.
That being said, I would wager man has been here since the time of the dinosaur. As you say Wikipedia isn't always reliable, what text is?
None!
A margin of error and imperialistic control biases them.
God gave man 6000 years on this earth...nobody knows in what year we are really right now...We are close to the end of this earth.. The Antichrist is coming soon,,So we are close to the end. We need to be prepared,because hard times are coming,,Yahushua is coming soon, Even though there are so many people that arent really,they just laugh and laugh.,,REPENT and come to CHRIST,RIGHT NOW,REPENT!!!!
@superlynn27 first off you're a retard. the earth according to radioactive decay and nuclear physicists is approximately 4.6 billion years old. the irrefutable evidence is found in the half life of uranium 238. go speak to a chemist or nuclear physicist before making ignorant comments. also the repent thing shouldn't be reserved just for the end of the world. you should be continuously repenting also just to let you know the 2012 thing is complete bullshit.
@superlynn27 hey retard. i have been repenting. it's called i'm catholic and i go to something called confession. i have read parts of the bible. the bible is a sacred book to be taught life lessons. it never was written to be taken literally and it's not a science book. radioactive decay is real. in fact this Wednesday in my physics lab i've measured the decay of alpha and beta particles via a Geiger-muller counter. the earth is 4.6 billion years old. it's a fact. so get over it retard.
the half life of uranium 238 is proven by scientific experiments and is not flawed. go talk to a chemist and they'll explain it to you. this uranium 238 is in fact about 4.5 billion years old which is the oldest element on earth ever found which is why scientists believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
u said somethin about C14 rite?ok..do the same test u retard do and do it on human..guess how old that makes us..8000 yrs old..do the same test on lava that just came out..u get 12000 yrs old..C14 is unreliable..evolution is fake..Geological colum is fake.y? how do we tell the age of a fossil.by lookin the the layer..how do we tell the age of the layer..well we look at what fossils is found. fossils dont prove evolution. we dont know what happend to the fossil..all we know it's dead ..done
@ThatAtheistGuy20 well yeah we have several different types of dating but guess what. The same errors occur in that also. How do you explain why our atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium of C-14 and it only takes 30,000 years to do so. Our world cannot be any more than a maximum of 30,000 years old. Do your homework man.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 I watched your video and I've studied these dating methods and I know that Uranium is one of the most reliable methods for dating a piece of non-living matter, for example a piece of rock. However, that same method provides scientists ALWAYS two answers: 1. years according to the lead(Symbol Pb) atoms produced in the decay process and 2. years according to the helium(symbol He) atoms produced. The latter one is more accurate and gives the Earth an age below 10'000 years ;)
@harisonlin damn, you fail so hard, it's astronomical, you really need to get off the kent hovind bus, different techniques, are used for different rocks or specimens that are analyzed, i'm going to guess that you are new here, and have missed all of the venomfangX pwnage and debunks of the creationist videos.
I think, the Earth is older but 6000 years. Most likely its ca. 7500 years old.
GeserRC 1 week ago
@GeserRC Oh great, any particular reason or just because it feels right?
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 week ago
@GeserRC
it is, its exactly 9,456,000,345 years 11 months, 6 hours and 19 minutes at the time of writing........give or take 15 minutes. thats as accurate i can get without jumping into my time machine. its in the shop til tuesday though, something about the flux capacitor leaking dark matter.
johnnytheprick 5 days ago
circular reasoning
mrhyde2484 2 weeks ago
Its impossible pretty much for anything to be that Old it just doesn't make sense for people that believe that the Earth is Billions or Millions of years old, its the worst lie by Satan, Nothing but God can live that long, By estimation of all living material it dies at some point, Scientists just assume that our Planets/ Solar System have near infinite longevity & this just simply cannot be so..
To411u 1 month ago
@To411u Why is it impossible? you make alot of claims but you dont provide proof.
How do you know that only god can live for millions or billions of years?
The solar system does not have infinite longevity it will cease to be one day. Just because we are talking about billions of years it doesn't make it infinite.
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 month ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 God created Time, Space & Matter Simultaneously.. Therefore He came before the Time, He's not subject to it, or mere human interpretation.. If the Earth Was Billions of years old like scientists said then how come the Magnetig fields are declining? U know its a fairy tale, its like long long ago & far far away.. Better to say u don't know than to make up the age of the earth don't u think?
To411u 1 month ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 Furthermore Its interesting to look @ The inflation of the Age of the Earth.
In 1770 George Buffon said the earth was 70, 000 years old. In 1905 The age of
the earth was officially 2 Billion years old. In 1969 The Earth was 3.5
Billion Years Old & this number was arrived by Potasium Argon Dating.
Today people are taught that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Did you know that the Earth is getting older by 21 Million years per
year? Thats 40 years per minute!
To411u 1 month ago
@To411u But all of those where based on evidence and research, not just picking up a book and saying this one says it 6000.
The estimates improve as the methods of testing improve. they are all in same ball park, much closer to 4.5 billion than 6000 wouldnt you agree.
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 month ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 The Oceans on the Earth would have more sediment, there would be more alot more helium in the atmosphere if the Earth was Billions of years old cause of Decay, The Sun would be more than 500 Times the size it is now, The Earth would be spinning faster, The Magnetic Fields would not be declining, Just think about these things b4 u believe that the earth is billions of years old ok?
To411u 1 month ago
@To411u How do you know there would be more sediment? or anything else you said?
I bet you have just read that on a creationist website and believed it haven't you?
Think for yourself for once dude, its great i promise.
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 month ago
IT DOES MAKE YOU WONDER HOW EARTH SURVIVED ALL THOSE BILLIONS OF YEARS? NOT ONLY SURVIVED, BUT BECAME THIS PERFECT?
LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW, IT'S PERFECT, EVERYTHING WORKS.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI . NOV./8/11
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 But was the earth made perfect for us or have we adapted perfectly to the earth.
ThatAtheistGuy20 3 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 WHY ASK A QUESTION YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 Exactly we adapted to the earth, see it makes perfect sense.
THATATHEISTGUY
ThatAtheistGuy20 3 months ago
@9493760 w WE DON'T HAVE TO ADAPT TO PERFECTION.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 What a waste of time.
I HAVE AN ORANGE
THATATHEISTGUY
see its easy now please go away and pretend to be special somewhere else.
ThatAtheistGuy20 3 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 WITH ALL APOLOGIES , I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE RITE TO TELL ME WHERE OR WHAT TO DO. SEE HOW PERFECT IT IS?
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. NOV/10/2011
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 Actually i can, its called blocking which im about to do to you. If you want to play with your alien space ships and try to convice yourself your special and you know things the rest of us dont then thats fine, im happy for you.
But i just dont give a shit, im never going to get sence out of someone as "special" as you.
Good day.
ThatAtheistGuy20 3 months ago
4.5 billion years old huh? I know thats what everyone is saying now but 10,15, even 20 years ago it was a far seperate number. Even then when radiometric dating was used, several numbers for the age of the earth was accepted...until it didnt fit into how long it would take for mankind to evolve. Believe what you want, just saying.
KesslersCross 3 months ago 2
@KesslersCross Really and what numbers where they coming up with? just because some people made mistakes it doesnt mean we will always be wrong, we once knew that the earth was flat, that the moon and the sun did battle in the sky.
We learn, and as we do we perfect our knowledge.
ThatAtheistGuy20 3 months ago
@KesslersCross
The earth is dated based on oldest rock found, not how long it took man to evolve. Scientists base their theories on data found not on how long it took man to evolve. And apparently geology and evolution are consistent with each other. Creationists are the ones who make up the data to fit their beliefs.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Its all how you look at it. From a creationist stand point its exactly the other way around. There is no doubt on both sides that bias "findings" are presented as "truth". Its the same in archeology, politics, everything.
KesslersCross 1 month ago
@KesslersCross
No my friend. I have to strongly disagree with you. Evidence is evidence. Scientists from all around the world of different languages and cultures when addressing these topics look at data independently all come to the same conclusion. Furthermore scientists provide that evidence. Creationists on the other hand never provided evidence. As regards ''truth'' remember science provides evidence but never claims absolute truth. Creationism has no evidence but claims absolute truth.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@KesslersCross Thats not the only thing, If the Earth was Billions of years old then how come there isn't more Helium in the Atmosphere? Why is it that the Earth hasn't reached Equilibrium yet? This proves a young Earth, Scientists know alot of there theories are wrong already thats why they keep coming up with new ones.. The Whole Equilibrium thing proves the world is less than 30, 000 years old. Furthermore if the Earth was that old the Sun would have been too big to support any life on Earth.
To411u 1 month ago
@To411u Oh sure, there is a whole mess of things like that which are not looked at. The simple point is, scientist from all fields are dead set on not believing in God so they have to have something to use to back their theory. They can say what they want but its so obvious that the motive has nothing to do with real science but the one sided fictious evidence for evolution and govt funding. Its why people like Dawkin has to comment on religion which should have NOTHING to do with the subject.
KesslersCross 1 month ago
@KesslersCross Unfortunately religion makes claims on everything, so it will always be present in science. Since each discovery of science gives god less places to hide.
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 month ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 hmm, I cant see where it makes claims on everything but ive never thought about it either. Since your an atheist I can fully understand the view and opinion of your comment, but a christian could just as easily say the same giving less places for evolutionist to pull from to save their theory. Each discovery or each scientist with an agenda?
KesslersCross 1 month ago
@KesslersCross But evolution doesnt need to hide in gaps. evolution wants to fill in gaps so that we can understand it more. We are not afraid of being proven wrong.
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 month ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 Well, for the most part and people like you I agree. But we both know that more times than none any time evolution is brought up its a tooth and nail fight about God for or against, which to me has nothing to do with the subject anyways. I like science because it is the search for absolute truth, but I also feel that since the subject is clouded with religion it is fought strongly by those who HAVE to find a way for it to be true regardless of the real truth.
KesslersCross 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KesslersCross "scientist from all fields are dead set on not believing in God..."
So apparently people who's job it is to learn don't believe in god? I wonder why that connection would be there.
But actually, there ARE scientists who believe in god... they also accept the facts of evolution. They warp their beliefs to fit the facts, instead of the other way around.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@KesslersCross 10, 15, even 20 years ago, people had different technologies and different mindsets.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from ThatAtheistGuy20
@TheoryOfThought Sure, but looking back through history we see how rediculas some of the "truths" were that science came up with. Every generation can look to a century before and find "truths" that were undoubtable, mass believed, arrogantly defended to the death, and laugh until you pee yourself at what they believed.I think evolution will be no different once the grant money runs out that makes it a truth and people have no reason or care for anything but the real truth, just as it was before
KesslersCross 3 weeks ago
@KesslersCross There is some merit in what you say, but the science of today is different that the science of history. Scientific methods have been refined, and theories are tested again and again. Science does it's utmost to prove itself wrong. With discoveries in the future, what we believe is right may be false, true, but those false beliefs we believe in today are based on the evidence we currently have. As long as somebody is willing to explore further evidence when it appears...
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought
".......but the science of today is different that the science of history." - ever heard or read the expression: "those who dont learn from the past, are bound to repeat it"?
reading your statement, can you see the error in your ways?
johnnytheprick 5 days ago
@johnnytheprick What a suitable name.
ThatAtheistGuy20 5 days ago
@johnnytheprick I would think the statement I made that you quoted shows my understanding of the very expression you question whether I've ever heard. The science of today builds on what they knew from the past, and improves, therefore becoming different. Perhaps you are merely upset at my use of the word 'history'?
Sure, we might still be wrong, but we're getting closer. And we give room for error, we call it an approximate age now.
TheoryOfThought 5 days ago
Regardless of Radio Active decay, the bones of dinosaurs are proof that the Earth is much older than 6,000 to 8,000 years old. As for the term theory - in science a theory is an established scientific fact. In science, a theory is actually called a hypothesis. Darwin established a hypothesis and eventually called it evolution. Since then, scientist have been trying to falsify his hypothesis, only to discover their findings only proved what Darwin proposed is true. Now it's theory.
fatouche99 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For more on science & nature try books by top scientists; astronomer Victor J. Stenger, ' Fallacy of fine tuning ', Richard Dawkins, ' Unweaving the rainbow ' & ' The greatest show on earth ' & PZ Meyers & the website Talkorigins
zytigon 5 months ago
Look to Scientism
Scobo11 5 months ago
No explanation that carbon dating uses a mean to estimate its result? I wonder why not.
Shocking is the fact that you chose your bias and ignore things that could hinder your pre determined beliefs. The irony that you demonstrate the same traits as Christian fundamentalists when looking at the actual evidence.
I don't suppose you can show me where it says that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK the bible does not say this.
Of course it uses a mean, but surely this just improves things. Radiometric dating does not claim to be 100% accurate. its more like 60-80% accurate, but when we have results showing more like 4.5 billion then i think we can safely rule out 6000.
you seem quite intelligent so im assuming you dont believe this crap so why are you arguing with me?
ThatAtheistGuy20 5 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 I still do not get where you are coming up with this 6000 years. And you are correct that I do not believe that it is 6000 years old. Archaeology alone disproves the earth being this young. But to my knowledge the bible does not say it is only 6000 years old. I should also add that I am not a Christian, mainly because of the use of such a provocative word.
As it stands we really do not know that much, but as usual we proclaim to know just about everything.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK it simply is something stated by the more hardcore christians.
ThatAtheistGuy20 5 months ago
@TCupUK Well, I've only read a little bit of genisis myself, but for some reason they thought it mattered to us that we know when adam's great great grandchildren were born, and when THEY had kids, and so on. You could follow that to give an exact date on when Noah's arc took place. If the rest of the bible follows this example, or if it even gives rough estimates, you could then judge the bible to be claiming that the earth is approximately a certain age.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought Hi, The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. And I can see the plausibility of suggesting a time frame for the existence of man on Earth after his creation. But that at best can only be accurate for man and not Earth. Some may say add 6 days but that is where the problem begins, because the Bible also says that a day for God is like an eternity for man. So assuming it to be 24 hours seems at best ignorant of anything past chapter one of the book.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK A 'day' is clearly defined in the bible as the time between dawn and dusk, from what I recall. It doesn't use those exact words, but it mentions that it gets light, and then dark again (day and night)
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought Meh, I can see where this is going.
A day for man is clearly defined, as is a day for God, and they are not the same. You are clearly to sceptical to even read the book you claim to debunk. Try reading it, not listening to what is preached out of it. I have no issues with you choosing to be an atheist, that is your freewill. But please to not assume that you know when in fact you only have a belief. Polar opposites are a fact of life, we have to have them.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK I did read a bit of genesis, and that's what we're talking about right now... but I admit I didn't get very far into it.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought That is understandable as all those begats and begots do my head in also. But in all fairness you should read it before you comment on it.
Many Christians do not know that there is a verse where Jesus says that anyone casting out demons in his name or healing the sick in his name will be damned. But there preachers will not disclose this, and most do not read the book. Believe me, it is not what is made out to be and goes way deeper than Christianity.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK Anyways its the religious people claiming the world is young, not the scientists. So even if religion claims the world is not young, there's still the whole adam and eve thing, and fossil records. It doesn't say anything about creating dinosaurs, then killing them before creating man. It does say that man is supposed to rule over all other creatures though, which have just been created, so I'm not sure when these dinosaurs were supposed to have died.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought Stop being a troll and you will learn something.
Scientists to not proclaim to know how old the Earth is. Because we do not know At best we estimate it and the age of the universe. We also know for a fact that are current calculations do not make sense when stress tested. This is why we are working on a unified theory of the standard model. But this still relies on an event occurring that has no cause, and something being created from nothing. Some call it God.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK I saw a video called 'A universe from nothing' by Lauence Krauss (may have spelled the name wrong)
It talks about how 'nothing' has weight, and that it is possible for something to in fact, come from nothing. Which would explain the big-bang.
Even if this is somehow disproved, theorys and technology is improving all the time, A scientific, logical answer can be found to any question or problem I've ever heard. (except prehaps some philosophy ones)
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought I know Laurence, some-things I agree others I question. The only true answer science can offer about God is the lack of knowing anything in either direction. But yet it is still present even today. At Cern the main part of the device used to search for the Higgs Boson aka God particle, is called the Aleph. This religious symbol is hard to ignore, as is all the others in the Quantum world. Things really are not as they seem. Perception is an illusion, Fact!!
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK Well I agree with your last couple statements. My favorite saying is "True knowledge lies in knowing you know nothing at all" which implies that nothing is knowable. Science makes sense to me the way religion makes sense to others, so I assume for the sake of reality that it is true. I admit I am biased to scientific discoveries, and take them on 'faith' until somebody discovers solid evidence contradicting a theory or discovery.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought Well said, that is one of the more intelligent replies that I have had the pleasure of reading on you tube. Radio carbon dating is being questioned by science as we have contradictory evidence that potential disproves the notion of the decay rate being a constant. We actually already know this for a fact but it takes a while for the main stream to catch up. We can not help taking two steps back ever time we step forward. The real fun is in the finding out :)
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK ALSO back to the day thing, maybe you believe the book is god's words, but it was, ultimately, put on paper by man. mankind's definition of a day is quite clear, the author would have used some other word or phrase if it meant something other than a day. The fact that sunday, the seventh day, is a single day of rest also attests to a day being only a day, not a few hundred million years.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought I do not believe in any book or books. I believe all books contains variants of truth that appeal to certain types. If people wish to believe in God then I am cool with that, as I am also cool with people not believing in God. Mainly because I am a believer in freewill. You can label me as you please, I am just trying to inform you that there are other views other than yours or a Christians.
There is little point explaining the meaning of "Sun"day to you.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TCupUK I was throwing the 'sunday' thing out because it popped into my head. I wouldn't call me a troll, I'm listening to your arguments and sending back my own opinions or thoughts on the subject. You orignally questioned the young-earth theory, I explained it's reasoning, as far as I understand it. You mentioned the 6-day dilema, and I explained my views on it. Also a realtime conversation on youtube can be a bit messed up, as I'm replying to an older comment while you have newer ones up.
TheoryOfThought 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought Yes, I take the troll comment back, I also apologise. Sunday is related to Egypt and the Sun God Ra. Fundamental Christianity has its roots in Egypt and not Israel. The actual Sabbath is a Saturday as Sunday was the first day.
The actual issue with something from nothing comes from Einstein, as every effect must have a cause as a universal law. Now how can nothing cause something?
It is a paradox, as is many things in science & religion.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@TheoryOfThought The coincidence's outweighs the contradictions in my opinion. They both state the same order of creation with man being the most recent. Plants before animals, water before life and something coming from nothing. You would also be shocked to see how much ancient knowledge is still in use today, especially sacred geometry and quantum mechanics. When it comes to dating, at best it is an estimate given our limited understanding of the data we create.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
@xLOWGUNx THINK BEFORE YOU COMMENT you went from evolution to the big bang theory evolution being real had NOTHING to do with the big bang theory the big bang theory is just that a theory and cannot be proven BUT evolution IS NOT A theory and has been observed and proven to be real
muntasir20 6 months ago
@muntasir20
Evolution IS a theroy. Unless something is 100% percent true it is a theroy. I'm not saying i belive in creationism but you must accept the fact whatever we know may not be true. The reasons these things are said to be the "truth" is because they are the most reasonable and scientific things out there. (At least I hope so, they may be lieing to us) Nonetheless If you see nothing as true you have nothing to work on you will efficently kill yourself if you tuely belived this.
piepiepie1000 5 months ago
@piepiepie1000 Your a fool, fact and theory apply to separate things.
Evolution is a FACT, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory.
Would you say gravity is a theory? because einsteins THEORY of relativity explains gravity.
Gravity is a fact, the explination of how it works is the theory.
Get It? Got It? Good
ThatAtheistGuy20 5 months ago
@piepiepie1000 please go to the trouble of finding exactly what constitutes a scientific theory. Hint: you find the definition in a standard dictionary.
uknowispeaksense 5 months ago
cloth physics :D
WhiteDragon103 6 months ago
I just paused the video at 0:01... it looks like a vagina. Nuff said
MartYnLaw232 6 months ago
lol i'm laughing it with my ass :D
ahmeet7 7 months ago
I am Christian, and it doesn't bother me if you do not believe what is written in the Bible. We all form conclusions based on our own experiences. I will not attempt to force, bully, or scare anyone to accept what I believe.
We should be free that way, and never bullied, or persecuted.. simply for having our own opinions and beliefs.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
EliasCrowe 7 months ago
IF humans have been developed for 100,000 plus years and population grows at 1.2% we should have trillions of people here on earth am i wrong. Also i heard of two test of carbon dating on Mt St. Helen and results were it blew up 80,000 years ago? and a test on a live peguin and it was 8000 years old. are there tests wrong?
Sofyn 7 months ago
@Sofyn You have been watching too many Hovind videos. He lies and is in prison. Carbon 14 is not used except on once living things that get they Carbon from the air, it does no work on seals and snails. The know that. They publish papers about it and creationists turn it around and say it does not work. There are 20 different radiometric dating methods and they all cross check each other.
You don't know the population grows at 1.2%. They picked that number because it matches the bible.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20
I face the ignorance of creationist christians on a daily basis due to going to a baptist high school with the response to an argument on the origins of the universe, the earth and people with ''because it says so in the bible'' argh it is very frustrating that people intentionally ignore science proved facts for no other reason than being brainwashed into believing in a cult
KoolKidChantastic 7 months ago
"if the earth is billion and billions of years old, why does my calendar say 2011?"
squizill 7 months ago
@squizill because the Gregorian Calendar created by Christians was forced upon the world
WorldMilitia 7 months ago
the bible says our life times are but a blink of an eye to god . gods time and our time are on diffrent scales not that time its self is diffrent just the way its looked at .look at a jewish calander its year 5771 to them which is where the christians get the earth is only 6000 years old from. what they should have said is that they count from the start of the hebrew religion to today .which makes it almost 6000 years
dawala1000 8 months ago
@dawala1000 Give the wheel to a monkey and I'm pretty sure he might try to have sex with the hole in the middle.
Zandonus 8 months ago
By debating with the people whom you call "creationists", you give them credibility as having an alternate but acceptible position.
perstaere 9 months ago
@perstaere this is true, i think ridicule is the best option
ThatAtheistGuy20 9 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 Or maybe if we all just refused to give them any attention, they would go away.
perstaere 9 months ago
Yes, the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Also, God made Day and Light before god made Earth and Sun.
Cant believe some people are that dumb.
ES350ES350 9 months ago
@ES350ES350 lol
ThatAtheistGuy20 9 months ago
@ES350ES350 guy u need to wake up. ur embarrassing our religion
SevBodea720 6 months ago
@HorrorIllogium Oh, okay. So they just know for sure that it's inaccurate? Right? Yeah, i'm the moron. I don't have to look up common sense.
CodsNsuch 9 months ago
Religion =bullshit.
get real jesus freaks
Dreadnought942 10 months ago
well its sad.
the revolution.... u ever played spore or hows that game calls?
u shuld understand that it take almost billion years to take fish out of water.....
well that eve rything gets faster.....
more things to explore , more abilitys needed to learn....
and as u know its not that easy.....
(sorry for bad english i bet i mistake alot and yes it took around 2bilions of years to get what we are now and i dont talk about how earth created <.< it took even more..... ill post new comment noCHR)
A7KeLT 10 months ago
Dear poster,
You say you want to discus the statement that the earth is 6.000 years old. If I for example state c14 dating does not work, you will say there are other methods too. That's doesn't really work now does it. So...you tell me which radiometric dating method is absolutely correct, so I can respond on that.
shadowandreality 10 months ago
The earth doesn't look a day over 2 billion! lol
RadarKat73080 10 months ago
The Argon dating method was proven false simply due to the fact that it said that 168 year old volcanic rocks were 300 million to 3 billion years old. Hah.. Nice try evolution.
CodsNsuch 10 months ago
@CodsNsuch yeah, but they never used ONLY one method. for every 1 thats debunked, there are 10 hard-fact dating techniques
happyGinnypiggy 10 months ago
@CodsNsuch Actually, those materials aren't supposed to be dated because they are known to give inaccurate dates, look it up moron. You fail.
HorrorIllogium 9 months ago
I do have an open mind. At least you didn't get mad at me.
leo2nd74 10 months ago
@leo2nd74 Yes you may have an open mind, but it may be too open. Like i said with things like the age of the earth there really isn't much room for debate.
You could argue that it is slightly more or less than 4.5 billion years, but thousands or millions is just unrealistic. We must accept what the evidence shows not what we FEEL might be better.
ThatAtheistGuy20 10 months ago
I do think the earth is young, not untold millions of years old.
leo2nd74 10 months ago
@leo2nd74 it doesn't matter what you think it matters what you can prove. And unfortunately we have to align our beliefs with what we can see to be true, not what we want to be true.
ThatAtheistGuy20 10 months ago 7
@ThatAtheistGuy20 Time is relative if you travel apart and then return to the earth your age would vary with say your twin thus the earth being only 6000 years has no bearing as to how much the space apart from the earth has aged from that point of the beginning of the entire universe, etc..right? meaning scientifically hubble expansion can be explained by time and not the big bang. etc..right? Oh... thats right you folk mock real scientists like hubble instead force fit the data, etc..right?
mrbjph 1 month ago
@mrbjph the hubble telescope doesnt tell us anything...it tells us that we are in a universe surrounded by lots of stars..thats it....these so called scientists are trying to look for evidence to fit their religion"evolution".
malechauvinistxy 1 month ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 exacty/...radiometric carbon dating is unreliable.
malechauvinistxy 1 month ago
@malechauvinistxy far more reliable than the bible
keaverkite 1 month ago
@keaverkite nope
malechauvinistxy 1 month ago
@leo2nd74 why would u believe such a thing? j/w
happyGinnypiggy 10 months ago
Amazing!!!!! I put such a crazy post as "nothing created everything" and you say,"yeah, creationists are the ones who believe that." Look, I was being incredibly sarcastic. Nothing made everything or God created everything. Both seem far fetched either way. However, it's worth looking into the bible with an open mind and seeing if we are the wretched beings it claims we are.
BurningLove17 11 months ago
@BurningLove17 I dont think so. even if we decide that god exists then how do we decide which god it is? even Christians cant decide there are thousands of different sects of Christianity.
its to big a leap to believe god did it. and even if there was a god im not sure i would want to worship it.
ThatAtheistGuy20 11 months ago
Thank you for this video. I haven't done any of these tests for myself, so I'll have to take your/experts' word for it. It's amazing how far we have come since our ancestors in the ocean. I marvel at how accurately we can know what has happened over the last 500 billion years. Crazy creationists think they have a case when they ask how everything got here. Big bang, Duh! First there was stuff and energy then it banged! Everything from nothing! It's obvious you creationists!
BurningLove17 11 months ago
@BurningLove17 Yeah creationists ask "but how can everything come from nothing", but they are the only ones who claim that. they say god did it, so where did god come from, well hes always been there. lol
Is it harder to believe that very simple tiny particles just popped into existence or that an immense, complex and intelligent being popped into existence fully formed and perfect?
ThatAtheistGuy20 11 months ago
if someone truely believes the earth is 6000 years old then trying to convince them with logic is like trying to take down a tank by throwing darts at it.
braytex 11 months ago
@braytex Yeah thanks, i have come to realise this lately although wasnt aware of it when i started making videos.
ThatAtheistGuy20 11 months ago
Thank you for this. I can see that there are a lot of deluded people on youtube
homousios 11 months ago
What a load of boring crap. I don't know who's right or wrong? But I certainly don't want to listen to shit like this. Speak properly man - from the heart - as if it really is what you agree with. Very boring droning.
battlecircus10 1 year ago
@battlecircus10 Point taken :P but come on really? you don't know whos wrong and whos right? you seem like a decent person surely you dont believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old?
ThatAtheistGuy20 11 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20
No, I don't believe that for one minute. But, there are some valid points made by creationists - at least to me anyway. The problem is with most "atheists" as I see it, is they only seem to ridicule "Christianity" (whatever that is). Christianity (as exists today) was thought up by a bunch of controlling Romans as far as I see. (I just did it too) BUT..there are other religions. I don't see atheists deriding Islam for example...hmmmm, wonder why?
battlecircus10 11 months ago
@battlecircus10 I think most atheists pick on Christianity because its the religion they are most familiar with. Obviously we don't believe any other religion has a stronger case just most atheists i know live in western countries who's dominating religion is Christianity.
Also many people who claim to be christian are not really practicing, whereas most Muslims are practicing Muslims and its much more difficult to have a debate with them.
ThatAtheistGuy20 11 months ago
@Felhaven the flood didn't happen long enough for the bones to fossilize you fucktard. It takes a long time for that. And also did you know that the vast majority of our oceans are still undiscovered? No? Could've figured you were speaking out your ass.
cyborgjk 1 year ago
no where in the bible does it say the date of the earth nowhere
sk8pn 1 year ago
if the bible is right, then during the flood untold numbers of people and other animals died. they should have been deposited on the ocean floor and eventualy fosslized right? well why have we never found a single human bone in a layer benieth a dinosaur? not once! instead of attacking the methodology of science all IDers need to do is present a physical peice of counter evidence. and so far not ONE has been able to do that.
Felhaven 1 year ago
Try your logic on this. Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. I know a prophet that 170 years ago said the earth was 455,000,000 years old. Proving the age of the earth does not disprove Christianity. (Think)
NeedsSingingLessons 1 year ago
You are not an atheist, you age an anti-Christian. If you were really an atheist you wouldn't care. Why don't you preach against Buddhist or Hindus.
NeedsSingingLessons 1 year ago
@NeedsSingingLessons Because neither Buddhist nor Hindus try to inject their religion into politics or try to get creation "science" taught in our secular public schools. I think Newton said it best, "Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem..."
eyeammi 1 year ago
@thatatheistguy20 The Earth can be 6000 years old. The Earth is now traveling at least 486,000 miles per hour. If it was traveling much faster near the big bang which seems logical would not time pass very slowly on Earth near lightspeed. The question then becomes would the outside observer watching Earth speed by would he note Radioactive decay rates as 4.5 billion or 10billion or 100billion while on Earth only a few days pass by. Mystery solved.
Rapture092011Repent 1 year ago
@Rapture092011Repent The universe is about 13.5 billion years old. The expansion of the universe took place in an extremely small amount of time. Wiki: "The Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud 4.568 billion years ago".
The rate of expansion of the universe in the moments after the big bang has no relativistic implications on the dating of radio-isotopes today. Anyway, that sort of time difference is impossible (Try actually studying relativity). Pwned.
magicmentalmaniac 1 year ago
@magicmentalmaniac how do you know there is no relativistic implications on the dating of radio isotopes due to the big bang? I was under the impression if you traveled at the speed of light time stopped for you....So why couldn't 13.5 billion years pass for the universe while only a few days passed for you?
Rapture092011Repent 1 year ago
@Rapture092011 #1-No object with mass can travel at the speed of light.
#2-The universe expanded within 10e-33 and 10e-32 seconds (inflationary epoch [if you don't get the 'e' symbol, it means really really really fucking short amount of time])
#3-All natural elements on this planet, with the exception of hydrogen were made via fusion in stars, long after the formation of the universe itself.
magicmentalmaniac 1 year ago
@Rapture092011Repent as you mentioned yourself the answer is relativity. we are measuring elements from the earth and the measurements we use are relative to the earth.
Your making this much more difficult than it needs to be. if you are measuring the speed of a car do you measure it relative the the universe? No you dont otherwise a stationary car would be travelling at over 65,000 mph. You measure its speed across the earth not across the universe.
ThatAtheistGuy20 11 months ago
GET TO ZEE CHOPPA!
DippiFX 1 year ago
Very simple proof :
Salt and other minerals that rivers provide to oceans can be mesured
acording to that, the salt, and other minerals, that are in the oceans
can not be dumped in 10.000 years, more than that would make the oceans a solid block of salt.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Wrong, the study by creationists that you are probably referring to gave an upper age of 62 million years, which is still way too young for geologists. But they forgot to figure in the mechanisms that remove salt from seawater. When you account for both intake and outtake it is found that the system is balanced. And the work you are thinking of was by Austin and Humphreys.
subductionzone 1 year ago
@HaydenHatTrick On top of that to say it's like children aguing is an overly simplified way of looking at it IMO. There is conflict, Science seeks to undestand the nature of the universe, adding in fantasy component into the equation (which God is) just makes the science more complicated and completely unscientific. It's like a child who cannot solve his math homework.He just makes up an number or variable that suits his needs, then feels he has the correct answer. He doesnt,and neither do u.
GasMaskFilms 1 year ago
@HaydenHatTrick The job of the scientific community is not to disprove religion. Religion and the idea of God is unscientific, and thus has little to do with science as a whole. While Science is used by many of my fellow atheists to point out the holes in the idea of "God", ultimately you cannot use science, facts, and statistics to argue with people who defend an irrational believe. To say I am educated but not smart is an entirely different joke, one which I wont' waste my time defending..
GasMaskFilms 1 year ago
@HaydenHatTrick "Being a scientist" Give me a break. If you were really a "scientist" (BTW I love how you use the nondescript "Scientist" moniker) you would by definition subscribe to the scientific method. You ideas that "God made a story for it" is quite possible the most unscientific thing I have heard anyone say. Just admit you're a bible thumper and call it a day. That's your opinions and beliefs...that cool. Just dont pose. Poser are lame and you are in danger of being lame....
GasMaskFilms 1 year ago
@GasMaskFilms I was expressing how science doesn't disprove religion nor should it be claimed that is dose... I don't really care if its real or not. Its like two kids fighting, for there is no conflict between the two. Scientists (not those who do science, but make it) can understand a result found can only be used in an argument with a person, not with the religion. you sir are educated maybe, but not smart.
HaydenHatTrick 1 year ago
I don't really understand why people are arguing about this, if you throw a ball in space, and don't specify where it started, you could say that 4 million years ago it was somewhere arbitrary. If god created everything, he also created questions and answers to those questions. AKA god made it, and gave it a back story, hence, neither argument contradicts one another.
Its still valid science, and its still acceptable for religion... gee...
HaydenHatTrick 1 year ago
Doesn't carbon 14 dating only show that things are in the thousands of years not millions. It has a limit only in the thousands.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
Radiometric Dating is more flawed than anything, it shouldn't even be a credible use to date the world, and there is evidence concerning a young earth model, creationist dont just look away from the evidence, we interpret it differently. As evolutionists interpret it differently... the radiometric dating process has many flaws including Heat Contamination, Starting At A "Supposed" beginning of the element in the compound? and more!
corymartin2012 1 year ago
According to The Bible MAN is 6000 years old.
This video tries to proove the EARTH is greater than 6000 years old in order to disprove The Bible.
The Earth was here first, so logically, if the Earth is older than MAN and MAN has lived on The Earth for 6000 years then the Earth is older than 6000 years.
No amount of carbon dating is going to disprove God's Word.
Jedi2Bones 1 year ago
@Jedi2Bones according to facts, man is not 6000 years old, lmao
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
Weeeeeeeeeeeelsh!!!!!!! :D
musli4brekkies 1 year ago
where in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years old? but, the bible was written say 1000 years ago, so where in the bible does it actually state the age of the world?
.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
Comment removed
Buie144 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Hmmm interesting! LMAO go read your book and worship your magic man.
Science is proof and facts. You read a book. Ummm have you never heard of dinosaurs LMAO
karaokequeen71 1 year ago
@karaokequeen71 science is the interpreting of facts. umm yes I have heard of dinosaurs. When I was in school, science taught us they were cold blooded reptiles. LOL
Not sure what your point is. MY POINT is the bible does NOT say how old the world is. There are several passages that imply the world IS VERY VERY OLD
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 My point is there is nothing in your book that is even remotely believable. It completely contradicts all that science has already proven, and has yet to prove. It's common sense. I understand that some people prefer to live with this belief of an afterllife and if that helps you get through ife then that is fine. I prefer facts and truth to help me sleep better.
karaokequeen71 1 year ago
@karaokequeen71 science is the interpreting of facts. umm yes I have heard of dinosaurs. When I was in school, science taught us they were cold blooded reptiles. LOL
Not sure what your point is. MY POINT is the bible does NOT say how old the world is. There are several passages that imply the world IS VERY VERY OLD
New Living Translation (©2007)
But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@karaokequeen71 I don't understand how science has conflicted with religion in any way. IF god made it, he made a story for it to (assuming he can do what they claim). Being a scientist, it just frustrates me when we say science discredits religion, for they are completely independent of one another. Please keep hate speech rational.
HaydenHatTrick 1 year ago
@HaydenHatTrick When a person does not believe in religion why is it labelled hateful? Because I choose to not believe in fairytales does not mean I am a devil worshipper LOL
Religion thinks it knows every answer, it clearly does not. And religion is set in stone.
Science can change depending on evidence.
Also... science books are written by smart men based on evidence. Religious books (although it is also written by men) claim to be from god, and that is where things differ.
karaokequeen71 1 year ago
superlynn27...suck my ass,dude!go fuck your mother!and take yahushua with you!
griefviolence 1 year ago
Zec3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee.. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. ... Amen ...
Avidan3137 1 year ago
@Avidan3137 because everyone understands that
lordnuck33 1 year ago
But I will digress.
The earth could indeed be a mere 6,000 years old!
How?
Because while the minerals, gases, various elements and water may in fact be millions or billions of years old, that doesn't mean they have always existed in the form of the Earth!
Some theorize that planets create other planets through cataclysmic events. Some even theorize that a smaller planet can be expelled from a larger planet.
Hmmm, starting to sound like the cycle of life here but on a MUCH broader scale....
JonDeth 1 year ago
You're wrong about the carbon dating.
Carbon dating has shown living animals to be a million years old, the dolphin test for example. A living dolphin in carbon 14 radiometric dating showed to be immortal!
C-14 is a decent testing method but as with all things has a margin of error.
That being said, I would wager man has been here since the time of the dinosaur. As you say Wikipedia isn't always reliable, what text is?
None!
A margin of error and imperialistic control biases them.
JonDeth 1 year ago
God gave man 6000 years on this earth...nobody knows in what year we are really right now...We are close to the end of this earth.. The Antichrist is coming soon,,So we are close to the end. We need to be prepared,because hard times are coming,,Yahushua is coming soon, Even though there are so many people that arent really,they just laugh and laugh.,,REPENT and come to CHRIST,RIGHT NOW,REPENT!!!!
superlynn27 1 year ago
@superlynn27 first off you're a retard. the earth according to radioactive decay and nuclear physicists is approximately 4.6 billion years old. the irrefutable evidence is found in the half life of uranium 238. go speak to a chemist or nuclear physicist before making ignorant comments. also the repent thing shouldn't be reserved just for the end of the world. you should be continuously repenting also just to let you know the 2012 thing is complete bullshit.
FallofDarkness55 1 year ago
@FallofDarkness55 Repent before is too late for you,,.Read the bible and repent..
superlynn27 1 year ago
@superlynn27 hey retard. i have been repenting. it's called i'm catholic and i go to something called confession. i have read parts of the bible. the bible is a sacred book to be taught life lessons. it never was written to be taken literally and it's not a science book. radioactive decay is real. in fact this Wednesday in my physics lab i've measured the decay of alpha and beta particles via a Geiger-muller counter. the earth is 4.6 billion years old. it's a fact. so get over it retard.
FallofDarkness55 1 year ago
the half life of uranium 238 is proven by scientific experiments and is not flawed. go talk to a chemist and they'll explain it to you. this uranium 238 is in fact about 4.5 billion years old which is the oldest element on earth ever found which is why scientists believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
FallofDarkness55 1 year ago
my paperclip is 64,000 yrs old...rad. dating proved it.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz which kind of radiometric dating would that be and what scientific article is this taken from?
Korkzor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@h2omanz which kind of radiometric dating would that be and what scientific article is this taken from?
Korkzor 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
u said somethin about C14 rite?ok..do the same test u retard do and do it on human..guess how old that makes us..8000 yrs old..do the same test on lava that just came out..u get 12000 yrs old..C14 is unreliable..evolution is fake..Geological colum is fake.y? how do we tell the age of a fossil.by lookin the the layer..how do we tell the age of the layer..well we look at what fossils is found. fossils dont prove evolution. we dont know what happend to the fossil..all we know it's dead ..done
harisonlin 1 year ago
@harisonlin C14 is not the only method used in radiometric dating...........RETARD
ThatAtheistGuy20 1 year ago 16
@ThatAtheistGuy20 well yeah we have several different types of dating but guess what. The same errors occur in that also. How do you explain why our atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium of C-14 and it only takes 30,000 years to do so. Our world cannot be any more than a maximum of 30,000 years old. Do your homework man.
gabeparkerone 1 year ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 I watched your video and I've studied these dating methods and I know that Uranium is one of the most reliable methods for dating a piece of non-living matter, for example a piece of rock. However, that same method provides scientists ALWAYS two answers: 1. years according to the lead(Symbol Pb) atoms produced in the decay process and 2. years according to the helium(symbol He) atoms produced. The latter one is more accurate and gives the Earth an age below 10'000 years ;)
r3eat 1 year ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 i love the beginning sequence...next time put ave maria as an intro
Serpico261 1 year ago
@harisonlin damn, you fail so hard, it's astronomical, you really need to get off the kent hovind bus, different techniques, are used for different rocks or specimens that are analyzed, i'm going to guess that you are new here, and have missed all of the venomfangX pwnage and debunks of the creationist videos.
MetaLMunchies 1 year ago