Radiometric Dating Revisited

[coolvideo28]

This whole Video is Nonsense  Fairytales No Science at all. You cant say Once upon a time we think maybe that poss. there was this much of this & this much of that in this rock, so since it is decaying at a rate of this Now we will ASSUME everything else. This isnt Science its a Fairtale how do people fall for such garbage. No evolution dating method is Science they are all based on ASSUMPTIONS stacked upon tons of lies. Anyone want to learn some Real Science check out my Favorited Videos.

[bluemoonrising26]

@coolvideo28

Fuck off moron, there is ZERO evidence for Creationism, ZERO evidence that Jesus lived, ZERO evidence that God exists and even ZERO logical or philosophical arguments for His existence that can withstand scrutiny.

Shouting "You lie! You lie!" is not true, not an argument and not proof of anything other than your own fucktardedness. Now crawl back under your rock and die a painful death.

[coolvideo28]

@bluemoonrising26 HAHAhahahaa you might want to check your calander its 2011 AD (after death) After JESUS CHRISTS death so I guess the world knows Jesus exists and knows he not only lived but he was so important we base our entire calander/dating system on JESUS CHRISTs life death and resurection. look around everything is proof of a Creator God Creation. You believe in God you are fighting to stay in denial and I ruined your denial so you flip out on me like a 11 year old

[bluemoonrising26]

@coolvideo28

1) AD doesn't even stand for After Death you clown, it stands for Anno Domini.

2) No, we do not base our entire dating system on Christ. The year, yes, but even those who believe in Jesus now say he would have been born around 4AD.

3) "Look around everything is proof" - Circular Reasoning, a favourite technique of the Creatard.

4) "I ruined your denial" - WTF does this even mean!?

5) Just give me one piece of evidence that you feel, above ALL others, proves God's existence.

[coolvideo28]

@bluemoonrising26

1 AD stands for AFTER DEATH, but tons of people have been trying to change what it stands 4 because they hate God & want to remove it from our dating system

2. Yes our whole dating system is based on JESUS Christ U even admit it after U say it isnt.

3. U know everything needed a Creato,r no 1 can honestly look around & say I think it all magically fell into place lol.

4 U believe in God U pretend you dont its sad.

5 watch the videos on my channel tons of evidence

[bluemoonrising26]

@coolvideo28

1. LMAO, Anno Domini means "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" anyway you fucktarded mong. Who's trying to remove God!? If Jesus was Born in AD1, then it wouldn't be AFTER DEATH anyway you retard.

2. Firstly, it isn't, you clown, and secondly, what exactly would this prove regarding the VALIDITY of Christian belief?

3. I have seen painters paint, I have seen builders build. I have never seen a God create a Universe, however.

4. No, I don't. Funny response though.

5. All fallacious crap.

[gregrutz]

AND Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before dating methods showed the earth is billions of years old.

[TimiS0]

heh what a coincidence i was playing Gmod (Half-Life addon) when i was listening to this

[GoodScienceForYou]

watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

The radiometric dating is flawed.

[CapnOrdinary]

You know, it's funny, I actually thought I'd already blocked you, mr. "GoodScienceForYou"..... Oh well, never too late to remedy an oversight.

[Tonyzzz7]

Excellent.

PLease send me more, with specifics and examples. I LOVE this stuff.

Thank you in advance,

Tonyzzz7

[Iaxobus]

It sounds like Darth Vader......good video, helped me out.

[Kurce12345]

Ha! Awesome video! I love the Black Mesa reference. I am a HUGE fan of the Half-Life games. I found this video because I have heard claims that radiometric dating is hugely inaccurate. I'm glad this video cleared it up.

[stupidtreehugger]

02:40 "Taking acount that some of the particles that the original decays into may already have been present." How can you know what was there in the past? What do you make of Polonium halos? Also, aren't you hiding the principle supposition of radiometric dating: HOW MUCH ISOTOPE WAS PRESENT TO BEGIN WITH???? And when one measures active against decayed product, again: how does one know how much original 'decayed' product was already there?

[CapnOrdinary]

You can either use isochron dating (and thus calculate the start conditions) or you can make assumptions. In either case, you date the same sample with several different methods, and only if they yield similar results do you accept the dating. It really is quite simple.

I recommend you search the talk origins archive before asking further stupid questions.

Polonium's a product of uranium decay, and the halos have only ever been found in uranium rich rock, where we expect 'em.

[stupidtreehugger]

FYE: Polonium halos are very precisely POLONIUM halos, irrespective of U238/4, Th234, Pa234,Th230,Ra226, Rn222 origin: they are witness of the decay of Polonium. At current rates, Polonium has a half-life of 138.376 days. How can the halos possibly be there if the rock they're found in formed over even 100 years, never mind millions?

[stupidtreehugger]

Even the author Chris Stassen admits:

* The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for).

* No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.

And: "one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age." We see proof of a lack of such caution every time Empire Science changes its assertions, as it has done HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDs of times.

[stupidtreehugger]

"and only if they yield similar results do you accept the dating." That's as clear a definition of precisely what is wrong with Empire Science, the hegemonic tour de force of banksters and egotists: REJECT EVERYTHING UNTIL IT FITS THE PARADIGM, as distinct from the uncompromised search for truth we are all told it is and should be.

[stupidtreehugger]

Thank you for your response. As you know, we call radioactive decay 'random' because we cannot predict nor meaure the mechanism leading up to a quazi-spontaneous i.e. natural decay event, not because we believe it has no cause. As we can neither measure nor control these fundamental mechanisms, we have no idea whatsoever if they might have changed.

[kaminarigaston]

If you throw a dice you get a random number. But that doesn't mean that we cannot know that if you throw the dice millions of times you will get 16.66...% of fours. The best clocks are based on the predictability of isotopes decay rate. What constant are you going to brush aside next? You might want to try C, since the light that we see from the stars took millions of years to get here. Keep burying your head in the sand, ostrich boy.

[stupidtreehugger]

Seeing as you think insults = science I shall try to be as derogatory as possible so that you can understand.

I know what decay rates are you dumbsickle - the point I made was that no-one has any good reason to believe they didn't hickup in the past - learn to read sewermouth.

Its 'c' not 'C' and you should search for 'Red Shift Quantized' so the fecal fistule between your ears might grow into a brain.

Well I hope you found that edifying; if you need any more help just give us a shout

[kaminarigaston]

I like you ostrich boy.

[stupidtreehugger]

I like you too dumbsickle. Least you got a sense of humour. If you can't have a laugh what's the point of being here.

[stupidtreehugger]

Also, re:"Polonium's a product of uranium decay, and the halos have only ever been found in uranium rich rock, where we expect 'em":

From testimony of hostile witness Dr BG Dalrymple: Polonium-218 is derived in this occasion from radon-222. And what he has found is that the polonium haloes, and this is what he claims to have found, are the polonium-218 haloes, but not radon-222 haloes.

[CapnOrdinary]

The talk origins archive has an FAQ on this subject. Since what you'd get from me would be a reiteration of what is stated there, pretty much, I suggest you simply go there, rather than waste both our times with this.

[aarongabriel2]

Great video! make more! go into isochron dating!

[warriorprince1010]

Radiometric dating is useful for nothing. Atheists don't use any dating method they simply place all fossils in their evolutionary myth table.  We simply cannot date anything wihtout secondary evidence.

[CapnOrdinary]

Wow. Let me guess, you didn't even watch the video, did you?

Well, suffice it to say, that post constitutes a breach of my channel rules, as outlined in my video "Rules of Engagement".

Welcome to the ranks of the blocked.

[jameskguy]

What basis is there for assuming that the <i>rate of decay</i> has not itself... <i>decayed</i>?

[CapnOrdinary]

The assumption is based on the fact that it does not currently change, and hasn't in the period of time that we have observed it. Also, several hundred different isotopes' decay rates would have had to decay at the same rate... This is statistically unreasonably improbable, and there is no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis.

[CapnOrdinary]

And the last nail in the coffin: If the rates had been high enough to get the results we see in anything less than a couple of billion years, life would have been impossible due to the level of radiation.

[XGralgrathor]

But then again, we wouldn't have had to invent the microwave: your goose would have been instantly cooked anyway.

[CapnOrdinary]

LOL yeah! wouldn't've had time to grow any decent meat, though ^_^

[boorens18]

jameskguy, just to further capnO, if its true what creationists say and radioactive decay was faster in the past (hypothetically) in order to make up for a 4.5 billion year mistake from 6000 years, the rates would have been so fast the energy given off would essentially vaporize the entire earth. Doesnt look vaporized to me. Energy from decay is part of the energy keepin the earths core from cooling just to give u an idea of the amount of energy

[Avatra1]

good vid.

[Maxicolly]

Sant, men dom som inte tror på sånt här tror ju att gud la dit det för att lura oss. Så frågan är om det här kommer att övertyga någon.

[CapnOrdinary]

(Translation: True, but those who believe think God did this to trick us, so the question is, will this convince anyone)

Yes, I'm aiming to convince at least those who are in doubt. The ones that are already firm believers are probably for the most part a lost cause, but the doubters! That's the target I'm aiming for.

[Maxicolly]

keep on then

[CapnOrdinary]

By the way, sorry for switching languages on you like that, but my swedish really stinks, so I'd have had to answer in Danish...

Plus of course I like to have the largest possible number of people understand what I'm saying.

[Maxicolly]

I understod that, sorry.

[CapnOrdinary]

Hey, no worries. It just hit me that maybe I was being a bit rude switching to english like that. Anyway, peace.

[worldlystone]

HALF LIFE!!!5STARS!

[bluemustangxxxgt]

5* !!!!!

[ltzippy2]

Whoa, simple and to the point as always. This covered what took 45 mins in one of my chemistry (or was that physics, so long ago I can't remember) at school.