@CreationMinistries by the way, i forgot to mention... my 8-year old brother is smarter than you because HE REALIZES YOUR GOD IS FAKE. AND HE HAS A MENTAL DISORDER. what is your excuse?
@CreationMinistries If we are wrong about the age of the universe (which EVERY PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTS) then science in general is wrong. I FIND IT FUCKING HILLAIROUS that you tell me science is wrong, over a computer, on the internet which are both developed using the findings of SCIENCE. SCIENCE has done more for humans than your fucking immoral god ever will. I AM MORALLY SUPERIOR TO YOUR GOD! (because i think slavery is wrong, and women are equal to men.)
@CreationMinistries I DARE YOU IMMORAL FUCKS TO CALL INTO THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE TV SHOW. YOU CANNOT WIN A DEBATE AGAINST A SCIENTIST, AND I (a high schooler) CLEARLY KNOW MORE ABOUT RADIOMETRIC DATING THAN YOU DO.
If we are wrong about the age of the universe, then the speed of light is wrong, making all of physics disintegrate. If we are wrong about the age of the universe, then chemistry is wrong, because that is where radiometric dating comes from. Biology would be wrong too.
@CreationMinistries Your god is an immoral fuck. killing everyone on earth in the biblical flood INCLUDES BABIES!
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
I think for some people the word 'truth' just means whatever they think is morally desirable within their world view. Such people start with the 'truth' in this sense and only then go about collecting evidence that appears to support it, instead of starting with evidence and letting it guide them to a conclusion that they may or may not like.
Carbon dating is like shooting a gun at night,you can hit short target's but you can't hit the distant night target,no matter how much math and calculation the shooter makes,the gun powder is weak. The shooter may end up shooting his foot. :D
What amazed Geologist is that after the 1/2 million years of empty rock layer,all of the sudden, LIFE,vegetation, mammals,and it's in post-cretaceous rock layer that man is found.
The word "was" in the 2nd verse is not the correct translation,this Hebrew word was also used when lot's wife "became" a piller of salt. So the correct word is "BECAME". So the 7day is not "the" creation but re-creation as it says in PSALM 104:30 NOTE: GEN. 1:16 It's past-tensed.
The first verse in genesis god made the heavens(physical universe) and the earth(physical).Second verse "the earth BECAME void" .My point? There's a time gap between 1 and 2, the first verse is the first creation where million-billion years of bio-matter, dinosaurs,etc. happened. But in the 2nd it all became void,chaos,and corrupt that light cannot reach the surface. Geologist have found a half-million year layer of rock that showed TOTAL extinction. Evolutionist refuse that physical proof.
If the earth is young (approx 6000 years?) how could there be fossils of tropical and temperate climate species in Antarctica, a continent that is permanently covered with ice and snow? The only thing I can think of is the theory of plate tectonics. Of course this would mean that Antartica was much further north. Is it possible for Antartica to move thousands of miles in just a few thousand years and accumulate ice over two miles thick?
@thybigballs the earth's sedimentary layers which contain the fossils were laid down by water. This is all evidence of the global flood. Continental drift occurred during the year-long flood, not over 'millions of years." Most of the ice accumulated over the poles as a result of the warm flood waters which led to massive evaporation and huge snowfall on the poles
@CreationMinistries The continent drifted from tropical areas to present day in a year? That's a distance of approx. 5400 miles? 5400mi./ 365 days= 15 miles per day! I'm curious what indicators you have that shows this because in my mind the earths crust would have to basically split wide open for this to occur. A massive evaporation would mean a much hotter planet, not cooler. There would be no ice anywhere. Besides, there is not enough water at the poles for a total flood to occur. ;-)
@thybigballs When the fountains erupted to begin the global flood earth's crust split (evidenced by the 50K miles of fault lines around the globe). The mountains arose & the sea basins collapsed toward flood's end as any land drift occurred. The thermal waters of the fountains warmed the seas leading to the evaporation & the ice caps. The supposed "ice age" enjoyed a tropical climate (A cooling cycle on earth would have cooled ocean waters ending evaporation & snowfall on the poles). :-)
@CreationMinistries Except that there's still not enough water to cover all land mass. Even if there were the strata still aren't sorted by their hydrodynamic principles and even if they were, there's still no sign across animalia of such a bottleneck of all species being dropped to two or 7.
@CreationMinistries if the global flood had happened it would have wiped out all life as fresh water and salt water does not mix and the depth and pressure would have killed the rest of the life on earth, meaning you and I would not be here. and fat change of anything surviving on top of it I.e. Noah, is it would be far to cold and not enough oxygen to live up there. besides the flood when on for what 1 mouth or so, all the creatures would only have had enough food for 1/2 day of that.
I would like to see references for the statements made here. I would also like to offer a video response: /watch?v=riLm-AMa7_I I seriously doubt my post will survive after offering the following counterpart to ole Russ. This scientist just shreads Russ' statements and shows him to not be entirely honest...not even close. See for yourself: /watch?v=XojFKG0_Vws
@thybigballs I have learned it's a waste of time to respond to scoffers who generally have nothng but insults to offer (name calling is the last bastion for those with nothing else). I decided to see the 'scientist's" comments in case he had ANYTHING worth learning to offer. I watched 3 hours of his comments. Unless you like to see someone swearing he offered NOTHING. I suggest everyone go to this linke. You will see they have nothing
Wow ol date the.earth they use igneause rocks that hold those atoms that decay slower. Again any creationists that says dating is off amd fails to.say where they got the information is lieing. Ironic huh comit a sin to further ignorance for our hravenly father wanyed to pass on the truth. Epic fail gota love evangelicals
Anyone who thinks "science doesn't work" better quit saying so on a computer. Do you realize all the precise science and engineering that is required to build one microprocessor, let alone a stable global data network carrying terabytes of data every day?
A god making a processor, now that could be interesting. Think he could miraculously heal my old motherboard with a blown NIC? The thing was only a few months out of warranty when it got hit with a surge.
@laughingcoyote111 WHO's SAYING "SCIENCE" doesn't work?! I use REAL SCIENCE to DEBUNK the religious beliefs of "millions of years" & Darwinism. Real science, knowlwdge derived from testable events has led to great discoveries, such as a processor. Anyone thinking your blown motherboard will evolve a new one or that their brian evolved from a wet rock needs to re-think what they've been taught
Wow... I have never heard so much bull-shit in 2 and a half minute...
NO scientist will EVER say the carbon dated something to a few million years. ONLY creationists say this crap. No real scientist will be this stupid, and this man knows it, thats why he doesn't give any examples, quotes or studies.
Meaning, this video is only meant for idiots, because when you have a brain, you know this guy is a liar. Look it up, educate yourself, dont just believe this fool on his word.
Creationists do nothing but drive people away from faith in God, and the fact is they should be ashamed. They WILL have to answer for the souls that were lost to GOD when it comes to Judgment time.
And one more thing. Ok, ok, the world is 6 thousand years old. Ok, so, after the flood, when exactly did the asteroids that made the 300km wide impact craters hit the earth? I suppose the flood waters just happened to create every observable geologic phenomenon, while also just being water? No. If the world was that young, asteroids would have annihilated us long before you or I existed. It's that simple. Asteroids hurt. A lot.
God this is scary... never thought propoganda could have such a nice, exciting, and inviting voice. Oh wait, that's always how creationists try to sound when they are lying to you through their teeth.
First, scientists don't use C14 dating as evidence of the age of the Earth as you assert near the beginning of your video. You state exactly why in your video: the half-life is to short to be of use in dating something more than 50k years.
Second, old fossils have a habit of being near uranium-rich materials. This Earth-based radiation (and it's part in the breakdown of nitrogen) is, in fact, the cause of C14 found in coal and diamond buried at those levels. (as opposed to the atmosphere- bas
You complete imbecile and philistine, carbon-14 is formed by other radioactive isotopes decomposing. Furthermore, scientists use other isotopes such as potassium-40 and uranium-147 which has a half-life of 1.06*10^11 which is far longer than is needed to show the age of the earth.
so Russ..if science is so flawed, don't bother going to the hospital when you get sick because all those drugs that are brought to you exclusively by the scientific method won't work...instead got to the church, they probably can still give you a blood letting there...
"Holy flying Jesus! We're using something that came from SCIENCE to fight back SCIENCE! SCIENCE is EVIL! ....but we're using it for good, so we can't be evil, so SCIENCE is GOOD! ...except when find out that we can't prove via tests and experiments the existence of any God...so SCIENCE is EVIL!"
Rinse and repeat and chase your own tail, Bible beaters.
"Holy flying Jesus! We're using something that came from SCIENCE to fight back SCIENCE! SCIENCE is EVIL! ....but we're using it for good, so we can't be evil, so SCIENCE is GOOD! ...except when find out that we can't prove via tests and experiments the existence of any God...so SCIENCE is EVIL!"
Rinse and repeat and chase your own tail, Bible beaters.
You do realize, that when they said they "carbon dated" something at some million years old, they are just using a blanket term, right? Its called "Radiometric Dating" and there are handfuls of different radiometric isotopes (Argon 39/40, Uranium 230, Potassium 40, these have ranges of millions of years, Carbon dating is good for the last 75,000 years, roughly the duration of man's time on earth. Before you "Debunk" anything, make sure you know what you're talking about you ignorant prick
@both958 Actually when someone says they "carbon dated" something that means they CARBON DATED it. Carbon is not referred to in the other radiometric techniques which are used on igneous and metamorphic rock. You had best stick to name-calling. that is your strength
@CreationMinistries Then why would you say that scientists are saying they carbon dated things from millions of years ago? No scientist, would ever say that unless they were referring to the generality of carbon dating. Your claims in all of your videos rely on the same ignorance you aim to feed your cult of creatonists. The earth, and its contents, are billions of years old; The bible was meant to be comprehended metaphorically and to learn from Jesus. not to read every word and take it as true
@both958 Old-earth ages are actually derived from the manmade geologic time scale, not from radiometric dating. Most often, no isotope date was taken at all. The global flood destroys all old-earth beliefs which is why old-earthers must deny it occurred (as foretold in 2 Peter 3)
@CreationMinistries This video cites exactly ZERO sources for everything in it and argues only one point: that carbon-14 has been found in every single rock formation down to cambrian. What he fails to mention is that in many areas of the world, Cambrian rock is, and has been exposed, for millions of years. Just because a new layer of rock is formed it doesn't automatically cover the entirety of the old layer.
@CreationMinistries Geologists didn't decide the Earth is 4.5 billion years old just because it sounded like a good number. Over the years they took lots and lots and lots of samples from the oldest Archean terrains around the world and ran lots and lots of samples in lots and lots of different labs and published lots and lots of peer reviewed articles and Masters theses and Ph.D dissertations. And I deny that "Noah's Flood" occurred because there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
@CreationMinistries Foretold connotes a predicting future events. If Peter foretold the end of old beliefs he would have had to exist when the beliefs were held; however, he was a disciple of Jesus and the Great Flood had happened before his time. Just saying.
@CreationMinistries You are not a scientist but a liar for profit and to say the world is 6000 years old is so knuckle scrapingly stoopid as EVERY branch of science attests to a world billions of years old.
And what do you have on your side? A 2000 year old book written by bronze age slave owning goat herder genocidalists and you break the 9th all the time yet profess to a higher morality which includes homosexual bigotry and bigotry against women, for shame.
@CreationMinistries 240,000 peer reviewed papers on evolution is hardly no viable evidence and dna is the fingerprint proof, the smoking gun, so your lies are seen for what they are.
If there is a god he must have put you here to mentally torture thinking people.
@CreationMinistries Would you mind answering a simple question. How did the author of the bible know that the WHOLE earth was flooded ? They had no clue that the earth is a sphere. And even if they knew, they had no way to go and look at the other side of the world to see if it was flooded. Nor could they communicate with somebody on the other side. They were supposely all drowned
See the videos "Noah's Flood: Mathematically Impossible" and "Mathematic Disproof of YEC", which will never be posted on a Creation Ministries video due to censorship.
@pontecanis Gee, you're proven wrong twice before we even start. Not enought water? Is that you big "proof" against the global flood? Sad. Earh is 71% covered by water which would stand 2 miles above a relativel smooth planet. Got anything else - perhaps something worth my time to respond to?
@CreationMinistries 2 miles above sea level is 10,000 feet. Everest is 29,000 feet. That leaves you 19,000 feet short, and Everest high and dry. See the video "Noah's Flood: Mathematically Impossible". Do the Math.
@pontecanis Wrong yet again - there is something to be said of consistency. The mountains arose and the valleys sank down at the latter stages of the flood
@CreationMinistries Nice attempt to remake geophysics and geology. You are either a willing dupe or an ouright liar. What you suggest is not only false but not possible from what is known about geology. The mountains in existence today predate any supposed date of the mythical flood by literally millions of years. Of course, given that you are a dogmaholic and biblical idolator, your dishonesty is expected. Given the level of narcissim your posts reflect, you won't examine any errors you make.
@Kaopsis See: Dr.J. Baumgardner, Dr. R. Humphreys, Dr. A. Snelling, and Dr. S. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Dr. R. Walsh, Editor, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pages 127-142; 2003
Tho I admit, russ should cite his sources, not because of his lame and raging opossition, but because of other creationists who might want to spread the info.
Also let's not forget (or remain intellectually retarded of) the fact that the notion of a global flood is not only implausible, but an impossibility;
@IloveYOUviruses Did you even read that page? It says absolutely nothing even resembling 'C-14 is found in all layers' and in fact explains why the C-14 is in the coal layers we do find it in with no mention of a global flood.
@TheScienceFoundation C14 is found in all layers, the neutrino detectors use scintillators with low C14/C12 ratio, they cite the paper on "old coal"
So, their big mistake is not a flaw as it is an admission, they are accepting that radioisotopes can and have been affected underneath the earth, that explains why deeper layers have experienced "faster" decay after the flood... oh, and the one thing that protects the best from radiation is: water, and the ark was above the... ^-^
That's certainly the claim that people like you and Russ keep making without supporting in any way whatsoever. Actually they explain that C-14 is found in some coal seams because of uranium decay
'and the one thing that protects the best from radiation is: water'
Yes, when you get an X-Ray at the dentist, they tell you to jump in the pool before you come. No wait, they use lead.
@TheScienceFoundation oops, I was thinking in the aftermath after the radioactive enrichment of the earth after the flood, obviously, several feet of water are far better than a lead shield in a boat.
You are hopeless, talkorigins accepts the fact that there's detectable C14 in most coal layers, so, what's your point?
And their 'de novo' explanation also renders radiometric dating unrelyiable :)
@IloveYOUviruses Or I could actually understand that Uranium causes decay of certain isotopes into C-14. I opt for that one, as it involves an understanding of reality.
@TheScienceFoundation been telling you that all this time and you still don't get it?
"They [TO] are accepting that radioisotopes can and have been affected underneath the earth, that explains why deeper layers have experienced "faster" decay after the flood... oh, and the one thing that protects the best from radiation (in a boat) is: water, and the ark was above the... ^-^ "
I'm very grateful with TO for that admission as you can see :)
@IloveYOUviruses No actually what they explain, if you actually read it, is that C-14 is found in coal deposits because of decay due to uranium. Also, remaining willfully retarded of the fact that the flood was an impossibility still isn't an argument.
@TheScienceFoundation lol straw man again, the flood wasn't one day in a bucket, in fact, minute ten in that video confirms the geologic column as the result of a lot of water, a lot of dirt and a year long
You still fail to understand that de novo C14 (which requires thermal Neutrons) means that the Uranium series decay can be affected by its own radiation.
TalkOrigins has just explained why deeper flood sediments had faster decay after being enriched by the flood.
@IloveYOUviruses Actually it shows that the geologic column is not at all sorted according to their collective properties in water. There's no other choice but pure dishonesty to claim that the strata shows otherwise.
I haven't failed to understand anything, you project your inability to grasp that C-14 in alpha/beta decay due to Uranium is not C-14 in situ because of a physically and genetically impossible flood.
@TheScienceFoundation Why would water+dirt in a bucket disprove a 1 year global flood?
The video you sent explains how you can have several layers tru several deposits UNDER THE WATER.
I have NO problems with de novo C14 in the earth, in fact it demonstrates that nuclear processes can and HAVE been affected by their own radiation, therefore, radiomatric dating in rocks is unreliable :)
@IloveYOUviruses Actually it showed that when detritus is mixed in with water you get graded bedding, sorting via hydrodynamic principles, something which we don't see at all in the strata.
You obviously have a problem grasping their very simple and reasonable explanation of C-14 being found in coal seams being the result of Uranium decay. Of course they're affected by their own radiation, if they weren't we couldn't date them at all.
@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, the radioisotopes in the rocks have never been in isolated conditions, with miles of rocks surrounding them, their normal (and estimated) decay was vastly accelerated by the background radiation deposited after the 1 year flood with all its volcanic activity.
@IloveYOUviruses Even if any of that were accurate or even constituted a rational thought, you keep missing the glaring fact that remaining ignorant of the impossibility of a global flood doesn't mean a global flood is possible.
Yes Russ, it's time for you to provide a source for this claim regarding C-14 being found in all layers or admit you're being deceptive.
Of course, anyone with any intellectual honesty can see it's the latter given that several of us have been asking for this source for over a month with absolutely no response of any kind.
First why wont you just say what book it is so people can check themself? second Radiometric dating is used to date the earth/rocks not carbon 14. Also the carbon 14 still doesn't support a 6000 year old year or global flood.
@TheGreatFoxKing Because it doesn't exist and he's aware of this. He's also aware of the fact that the other ignorant creationists don't care whether what he's saying has any basis in reality, just as long as it's under the auspices of jesus. I can't decided whether Russ is dumb or just dishonest, probably a combination.
BEWARE OF THE CREATIONIST LUNATICS
TheGizmoskate 1 week ago
You do know that carbon dating isn't regularly used anymore, right.
MrRewind86 4 weeks ago
@CreationMinistries by the way, i forgot to mention... my 8-year old brother is smarter than you because HE REALIZES YOUR GOD IS FAKE. AND HE HAS A MENTAL DISORDER. what is your excuse?
MoralRapist 1 month ago
@CreationMinistries If we are wrong about the age of the universe (which EVERY PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTS) then science in general is wrong. I FIND IT FUCKING HILLAIROUS that you tell me science is wrong, over a computer, on the internet which are both developed using the findings of SCIENCE. SCIENCE has done more for humans than your fucking immoral god ever will. I AM MORALLY SUPERIOR TO YOUR GOD! (because i think slavery is wrong, and women are equal to men.)
MoralRapist 1 month ago
@CreationMinistries I DARE YOU IMMORAL FUCKS TO CALL INTO THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE TV SHOW. YOU CANNOT WIN A DEBATE AGAINST A SCIENTIST, AND I (a high schooler) CLEARLY KNOW MORE ABOUT RADIOMETRIC DATING THAN YOU DO.
If we are wrong about the age of the universe, then the speed of light is wrong, making all of physics disintegrate. If we are wrong about the age of the universe, then chemistry is wrong, because that is where radiometric dating comes from. Biology would be wrong too.
MoralRapist 1 month ago
@CreationMinistries Your god is an immoral fuck. killing everyone on earth in the biblical flood INCLUDES BABIES!
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Richard Dawkins
MoralRapist 1 month ago
I think for some people the word 'truth' just means whatever they think is morally desirable within their world view. Such people start with the 'truth' in this sense and only then go about collecting evidence that appears to support it, instead of starting with evidence and letting it guide them to a conclusion that they may or may not like.
cavalrycome 2 months ago
Carbon dating is like shooting a gun at night,you can hit short target's but you can't hit the distant night target,no matter how much math and calculation the shooter makes,the gun powder is weak. The shooter may end up shooting his foot. :D
pillowhole 2 months ago
What amazed Geologist is that after the 1/2 million years of empty rock layer,all of the sudden, LIFE,vegetation, mammals,and it's in post-cretaceous rock layer that man is found.
pillowhole 2 months ago
The word "was" in the 2nd verse is not the correct translation,this Hebrew word was also used when lot's wife "became" a piller of salt. So the correct word is "BECAME". So the 7day is not "the" creation but re-creation as it says in PSALM 104:30 NOTE: GEN. 1:16 It's past-tensed.
pillowhole 2 months ago
The first verse in genesis god made the heavens(physical universe) and the earth(physical).Second verse "the earth BECAME void" .My point? There's a time gap between 1 and 2, the first verse is the first creation where million-billion years of bio-matter, dinosaurs,etc. happened. But in the 2nd it all became void,chaos,and corrupt that light cannot reach the surface. Geologist have found a half-million year layer of rock that showed TOTAL extinction. Evolutionist refuse that physical proof.
pillowhole 2 months ago
If the earth is young (approx 6000 years?) how could there be fossils of tropical and temperate climate species in Antarctica, a continent that is permanently covered with ice and snow? The only thing I can think of is the theory of plate tectonics. Of course this would mean that Antartica was much further north. Is it possible for Antartica to move thousands of miles in just a few thousand years and accumulate ice over two miles thick?
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs the earth's sedimentary layers which contain the fossils were laid down by water. This is all evidence of the global flood. Continental drift occurred during the year-long flood, not over 'millions of years." Most of the ice accumulated over the poles as a result of the warm flood waters which led to massive evaporation and huge snowfall on the poles
CreationMinistries 3 months ago
@CreationMinistries The continent drifted from tropical areas to present day in a year? That's a distance of approx. 5400 miles? 5400mi./ 365 days= 15 miles per day! I'm curious what indicators you have that shows this because in my mind the earths crust would have to basically split wide open for this to occur. A massive evaporation would mean a much hotter planet, not cooler. There would be no ice anywhere. Besides, there is not enough water at the poles for a total flood to occur. ;-)
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs When the fountains erupted to begin the global flood earth's crust split (evidenced by the 50K miles of fault lines around the globe). The mountains arose & the sea basins collapsed toward flood's end as any land drift occurred. The thermal waters of the fountains warmed the seas leading to the evaporation & the ice caps. The supposed "ice age" enjoyed a tropical climate (A cooling cycle on earth would have cooled ocean waters ending evaporation & snowfall on the poles). :-)
CreationMinistries 3 months ago
@CreationMinistries Except that there's still not enough water to cover all land mass. Even if there were the strata still aren't sorted by their hydrodynamic principles and even if they were, there's still no sign across animalia of such a bottleneck of all species being dropped to two or 7.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@CreationMinistries if the global flood had happened it would have wiped out all life as fresh water and salt water does not mix and the depth and pressure would have killed the rest of the life on earth, meaning you and I would not be here. and fat change of anything surviving on top of it I.e. Noah, is it would be far to cold and not enough oxygen to live up there. besides the flood when on for what 1 mouth or so, all the creatures would only have had enough food for 1/2 day of that.
gooders1002 1 month ago
I would like to see references for the statements made here. I would also like to offer a video response: /watch?v=riLm-AMa7_I I seriously doubt my post will survive after offering the following counterpart to ole Russ. This scientist just shreads Russ' statements and shows him to not be entirely honest...not even close. See for yourself: /watch?v=XojFKG0_Vws
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs I have learned it's a waste of time to respond to scoffers who generally have nothng but insults to offer (name calling is the last bastion for those with nothing else). I decided to see the 'scientist's" comments in case he had ANYTHING worth learning to offer. I watched 3 hours of his comments. Unless you like to see someone swearing he offered NOTHING. I suggest everyone go to this linke. You will see they have nothing
CreationMinistries 3 months ago
@CreationMinistries I'm still waiting on the source for C-14 having been found in all layers, Russ
You supposedly have the data yet can never present any of it. Do you never stop to think why that is?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
Wow ol date the.earth they use igneause rocks that hold those atoms that decay slower. Again any creationists that says dating is off amd fails to.say where they got the information is lieing. Ironic huh comit a sin to further ignorance for our hravenly father wanyed to pass on the truth. Epic fail gota love evangelicals
Seamn31 3 months ago
darwinism does not exist please get it right guys
MrChristainchris 3 months ago
carbon 14 is not used to show the age of the earth. bad luck guys.
MrChristainchris 3 months ago
Anyone who thinks "science doesn't work" better quit saying so on a computer. Do you realize all the precise science and engineering that is required to build one microprocessor, let alone a stable global data network carrying terabytes of data every day?
A god making a processor, now that could be interesting. Think he could miraculously heal my old motherboard with a blown NIC? The thing was only a few months out of warranty when it got hit with a surge.
laughingcoyote111 4 months ago
@laughingcoyote111 WHO's SAYING "SCIENCE" doesn't work?! I use REAL SCIENCE to DEBUNK the religious beliefs of "millions of years" & Darwinism. Real science, knowlwdge derived from testable events has led to great discoveries, such as a processor. Anyone thinking your blown motherboard will evolve a new one or that their brian evolved from a wet rock needs to re-think what they've been taught
RussMiller1000 4 months ago
@RussMiller1000 Anyone thinking that your strawman of the 'evolving processor' has anything to do with biology needs to rethink eating paint chips.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
Wow... I have never heard so much bull-shit in 2 and a half minute...
NO scientist will EVER say the carbon dated something to a few million years. ONLY creationists say this crap. No real scientist will be this stupid, and this man knows it, thats why he doesn't give any examples, quotes or studies.
Meaning, this video is only meant for idiots, because when you have a brain, you know this guy is a liar. Look it up, educate yourself, dont just believe this fool on his word.
SIC66SIC66 4 months ago
Creationists do nothing but drive people away from faith in God, and the fact is they should be ashamed. They WILL have to answer for the souls that were lost to GOD when it comes to Judgment time.
RomanHistoryNut 5 months ago
And one more thing. Ok, ok, the world is 6 thousand years old. Ok, so, after the flood, when exactly did the asteroids that made the 300km wide impact craters hit the earth? I suppose the flood waters just happened to create every observable geologic phenomenon, while also just being water? No. If the world was that young, asteroids would have annihilated us long before you or I existed. It's that simple. Asteroids hurt. A lot.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 5 months ago
God this is scary... never thought propoganda could have such a nice, exciting, and inviting voice. Oh wait, that's always how creationists try to sound when they are lying to you through their teeth.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 5 months ago
Honestly... I'm sad for you.
arieldanielle23 5 months ago
First, scientists don't use C14 dating as evidence of the age of the Earth as you assert near the beginning of your video. You state exactly why in your video: the half-life is to short to be of use in dating something more than 50k years.
Second, old fossils have a habit of being near uranium-rich materials. This Earth-based radiation (and it's part in the breakdown of nitrogen) is, in fact, the cause of C14 found in coal and diamond buried at those levels. (as opposed to the atmosphere- bas
opacapaca 5 months ago
You complete imbecile and philistine, carbon-14 is formed by other radioactive isotopes decomposing. Furthermore, scientists use other isotopes such as potassium-40 and uranium-147 which has a half-life of 1.06*10^11 which is far longer than is needed to show the age of the earth.
sagaxwiki 5 months ago
so Russ..if science is so flawed, don't bother going to the hospital when you get sick because all those drugs that are brought to you exclusively by the scientific method won't work...instead got to the church, they probably can still give you a blood letting there...
ab330 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not even going to BOTHER watching this video.
"Holy flying Jesus! We're using something that came from SCIENCE to fight back SCIENCE! SCIENCE is EVIL! ....but we're using it for good, so we can't be evil, so SCIENCE is GOOD! ...except when find out that we can't prove via tests and experiments the existence of any God...so SCIENCE is EVIL!"
Rinse and repeat and chase your own tail, Bible beaters.
MindOfGenius 5 months ago
I'm not even going to BOTHER watching this video.
"Holy flying Jesus! We're using something that came from SCIENCE to fight back SCIENCE! SCIENCE is EVIL! ....but we're using it for good, so we can't be evil, so SCIENCE is GOOD! ...except when find out that we can't prove via tests and experiments the existence of any God...so SCIENCE is EVIL!"
Rinse and repeat and chase your own tail, Bible beaters.
MindOfGenius 5 months ago
You do realize, that when they said they "carbon dated" something at some million years old, they are just using a blanket term, right? Its called "Radiometric Dating" and there are handfuls of different radiometric isotopes (Argon 39/40, Uranium 230, Potassium 40, these have ranges of millions of years, Carbon dating is good for the last 75,000 years, roughly the duration of man's time on earth. Before you "Debunk" anything, make sure you know what you're talking about you ignorant prick
both958 5 months ago 8
@both958 Actually when someone says they "carbon dated" something that means they CARBON DATED it. Carbon is not referred to in the other radiometric techniques which are used on igneous and metamorphic rock. You had best stick to name-calling. that is your strength
CreationMinistries 5 months ago
@CreationMinistries Then why would you say that scientists are saying they carbon dated things from millions of years ago? No scientist, would ever say that unless they were referring to the generality of carbon dating. Your claims in all of your videos rely on the same ignorance you aim to feed your cult of creatonists. The earth, and its contents, are billions of years old; The bible was meant to be comprehended metaphorically and to learn from Jesus. not to read every word and take it as true
both958 5 months ago
@both958 Old-earth ages are actually derived from the manmade geologic time scale, not from radiometric dating. Most often, no isotope date was taken at all. The global flood destroys all old-earth beliefs which is why old-earthers must deny it occurred (as foretold in 2 Peter 3)
CreationMinistries 5 months ago
@CreationMinistries This video cites exactly ZERO sources for everything in it and argues only one point: that carbon-14 has been found in every single rock formation down to cambrian. What he fails to mention is that in many areas of the world, Cambrian rock is, and has been exposed, for millions of years. Just because a new layer of rock is formed it doesn't automatically cover the entirety of the old layer.
MC473428 5 months ago
@CreationMinistries Geologists didn't decide the Earth is 4.5 billion years old just because it sounded like a good number. Over the years they took lots and lots and lots of samples from the oldest Archean terrains around the world and ran lots and lots of samples in lots and lots of different labs and published lots and lots of peer reviewed articles and Masters theses and Ph.D dissertations. And I deny that "Noah's Flood" occurred because there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
orion1anon 5 months ago
@CreationMinistries Foretold connotes a predicting future events. If Peter foretold the end of old beliefs he would have had to exist when the beliefs were held; however, he was a disciple of Jesus and the Great Flood had happened before his time. Just saying.
sagaxwiki 5 months ago
@CreationMinistries 'the global flood destroys all old-earth beliefs
How so Russ?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
Yet another video waiting to be debunked..
dgreyz 5 months ago
Carbon dating is only accepted by believers, when it fits them. When it doesn`t, they claim it`s unreliable. (see the Shroud of Turin)
ndzoko 5 months ago
This is censored I presume?
truckcompany 7 months ago
Name calling - the last bastian for those with no viable evidence to back up their failed claims
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries You are not a scientist but a liar for profit and to say the world is 6000 years old is so knuckle scrapingly stoopid as EVERY branch of science attests to a world billions of years old.
And what do you have on your side? A 2000 year old book written by bronze age slave owning goat herder genocidalists and you break the 9th all the time yet profess to a higher morality which includes homosexual bigotry and bigotry against women, for shame.
Rockster969 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries 240,000 peer reviewed papers on evolution is hardly no viable evidence and dna is the fingerprint proof, the smoking gun, so your lies are seen for what they are.
If there is a god he must have put you here to mentally torture thinking people.
Rockster969 7 months ago 4
Cmon Russ, we want more creationist stupidity.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
Why the desparate attempts to deny the global flood? Such a flood destroys all old-earth beliefs.
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries Would you mind answering a simple question. How did the author of the bible know that the WHOLE earth was flooded ? They had no clue that the earth is a sphere. And even if they knew, they had no way to go and look at the other side of the world to see if it was flooded. Nor could they communicate with somebody on the other side. They were supposely all drowned
ndzoko 5 months ago
See the videos "Noah's Flood: Mathematically Impossible" and "Mathematic Disproof of YEC", which will never be posted on a Creation Ministries video due to censorship.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis Gee, you're proven wrong twice before we even start. Not enought water? Is that you big "proof" against the global flood? Sad. Earh is 71% covered by water which would stand 2 miles above a relativel smooth planet. Got anything else - perhaps something worth my time to respond to?
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries 2 miles above sea level is 10,000 feet. Everest is 29,000 feet. That leaves you 19,000 feet short, and Everest high and dry. See the video "Noah's Flood: Mathematically Impossible". Do the Math.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis Wrong yet again - there is something to be said of consistency. The mountains arose and the valleys sank down at the latter stages of the flood
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries Nice attempt to remake geophysics and geology. You are either a willing dupe or an ouright liar. What you suggest is not only false but not possible from what is known about geology. The mountains in existence today predate any supposed date of the mythical flood by literally millions of years. Of course, given that you are a dogmaholic and biblical idolator, your dishonesty is expected. Given the level of narcissim your posts reflect, you won't examine any errors you make.
pontecanis 8 months ago
Wrong yet again - at least you are consistant. The mountains arose and the sea basins collapsed toward the end of the global flood
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries 'The mountains arose and the sea basins collapsed toward the end of the global flood'
This is what's known as ad hoc rationalization. You're using more unsupported conjecture to bolster your already unsupported claim of the flood.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
Do you have a source for C-14 being found in all layers?
Kaopsis 8 months ago
@Kaopsis See: Dr.J. Baumgardner, Dr. R. Humphreys, Dr. A. Snelling, and Dr. S. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Dr. R. Walsh, Editor, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pages 127-142; 2003
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries 1: That paper assumes that the flood was a possibility in the first pace, it's both a geological and genetic impossibility.
2: That paper completely neglects, or its publishers were ignorant of, the fact that numerous processes can contaminate coal.
talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
So, I ask again do you have a source (not based on ignorance and confirmation bias) of C-14 being found in all layers?
Kaopsis 8 months ago
@Kaopsis I didn't expect you to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence due to
your religious dogma
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries Actually I don't accept it because it's flawed for the exact reasons I pointed out.
Kaopsis 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CreationMinistries 'overwhelming scientific evidence due to'
>implying there was any evidence in the 'article' you posted.
Hahahaha
Not sure if you noticed, but it was never submitted for any legitimate peer review.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
1:31
Is he talking about himself?
martincrotty 8 months ago
ha ha ha ha ha h a h ah ahahahahahahhahahahahhahaha.
You are so wrong, and perfectly disproven.
Keep them coming. We love your poor delivery.
Niall646 8 months ago
Tho I admit, russ should cite his sources, not because of his lame and raging opossition, but because of other creationists who might want to spread the info.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
lol ... Ahhh Russ that was pretty poor even by you standards.
Danmill23 8 months ago
@Danmill23 Implying Russ has standards
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Dang it ... "stardards", of course that's me projecting again.
Danmill23 8 months ago
Also let's not forget (or remain intellectually retarded of) the fact that the notion of a global flood is not only implausible, but an impossibility;
/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation even talkorigins recognizes this fact!
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Oh really now? How and where so? Maybe you can provide something that resembles a source, Russ sure can't.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Google: talkorigins Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits, by Kathleen Hunt
Read it and I'll explain you their big flaw (just one)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Did you even read that page? It says absolutely nothing even resembling 'C-14 is found in all layers' and in fact explains why the C-14 is in the coal layers we do find it in with no mention of a global flood.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation C14 is found in all layers, the neutrino detectors use scintillators with low C14/C12 ratio, they cite the paper on "old coal"
So, their big mistake is not a flaw as it is an admission, they are accepting that radioisotopes can and have been affected underneath the earth, that explains why deeper layers have experienced "faster" decay after the flood... oh, and the one thing that protects the best from radiation is: water, and the ark was above the... ^-^
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses 'C14 is found in all layers'
That's certainly the claim that people like you and Russ keep making without supporting in any way whatsoever. Actually they explain that C-14 is found in some coal seams because of uranium decay
'and the one thing that protects the best from radiation is: water'
Yes, when you get an X-Ray at the dentist, they tell you to jump in the pool before you come. No wait, they use lead.
You have to be trying to be wrong at this point.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation oops, I was thinking in the aftermath after the radioactive enrichment of the earth after the flood, obviously, several feet of water are far better than a lead shield in a boat.
You are hopeless, talkorigins accepts the fact that there's detectable C14 in most coal layers, so, what's your point?
And their 'de novo' explanation also renders radiometric dating unrelyiable :)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses That might be partially relevant if the notion of a global flood hadn't already been shown to be impossible and retarded.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Nevermind the flood! you have two rational options:
either accept that carbon layers are young
or admit that radiocative processes are affected underneath the earth, thus, unreliable ;)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Or I could actually understand that Uranium causes decay of certain isotopes into C-14. I opt for that one, as it involves an understanding of reality.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I have no problem with that, it's good to know that TalkOrigins has rendered radiometric dating unreliable n_n
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses How did you get that out of anything I said? I really want to know, so don't dodge this time.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation been telling you that all this time and you still don't get it?
"They [TO] are accepting that radioisotopes can and have been affected underneath the earth, that explains why deeper layers have experienced "faster" decay after the flood... oh, and the one thing that protects the best from radiation (in a boat) is: water, and the ark was above the... ^-^ "
I'm very grateful with TO for that admission as you can see :)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses No actually what they explain, if you actually read it, is that C-14 is found in coal deposits because of decay due to uranium.
Also, remaining willfully retarded of the fact that the flood was an impossibility still isn't an argument.
/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses No actually what they explain, if you actually read it, is that C-14 is found in coal deposits because of decay due to uranium. Also, remaining willfully retarded of the fact that the flood was an impossibility still isn't an argument.
/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation lol straw man again, the flood wasn't one day in a bucket, in fact, minute ten in that video confirms the geologic column as the result of a lot of water, a lot of dirt and a year long
You still fail to understand that de novo C14 (which requires thermal Neutrons) means that the Uranium series decay can be affected by its own radiation.
TalkOrigins has just explained why deeper flood sediments had faster decay after being enriched by the flood.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Actually it shows that the geologic column is not at all sorted according to their collective properties in water. There's no other choice but pure dishonesty to claim that the strata shows otherwise.
I haven't failed to understand anything, you project your inability to grasp that C-14 in alpha/beta decay due to Uranium is not C-14 in situ because of a physically and genetically impossible flood.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Why would water+dirt in a bucket disprove a 1 year global flood?
The video you sent explains how you can have several layers tru several deposits UNDER THE WATER.
I have NO problems with de novo C14 in the earth, in fact it demonstrates that nuclear processes can and HAVE been affected by their own radiation, therefore, radiomatric dating in rocks is unreliable :)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Actually it showed that when detritus is mixed in with water you get graded bedding, sorting via hydrodynamic principles, something which we don't see at all in the strata.
You obviously have a problem grasping their very simple and reasonable explanation of C-14 being found in coal seams being the result of Uranium decay. Of course they're affected by their own radiation, if they weren't we couldn't date them at all.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, the radioisotopes in the rocks have never been in isolated conditions, with miles of rocks surrounding them, their normal (and estimated) decay was vastly accelerated by the background radiation deposited after the 1 year flood with all its volcanic activity.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Even if any of that were accurate or even constituted a rational thought, you keep missing the glaring fact that remaining ignorant of the impossibility of a global flood doesn't mean a global flood is possible.
Stupidity is not a way of knowing things.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Maybe this short vid will help with the C14 thing: /watch?v=riLm-AMa7_I
thybigballs 3 months ago
Yes Russ, it's time for you to provide a source for this claim regarding C-14 being found in all layers or admit you're being deceptive.
Of course, anyone with any intellectual honesty can see it's the latter given that several of us have been asking for this source for over a month with absolutely no response of any kind.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
First why wont you just say what book it is so people can check themself? second Radiometric dating is used to date the earth/rocks not carbon 14. Also the carbon 14 still doesn't support a 6000 year old year or global flood.
TheGreatFoxKing 8 months ago
@TheGreatFoxKing Because it doesn't exist and he's aware of this. He's also aware of the fact that the other ignorant creationists don't care whether what he's saying has any basis in reality, just as long as it's under the auspices of jesus. I can't decided whether Russ is dumb or just dishonest, probably a combination.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
Ah, source?
sweatytoothmadman 8 months ago