X-rays are stopped by a few cms of lead; gamma radiation requires a couple of metres; neutrinos though ... to stop a beam of neutrinos would require lead 1 light year thick!)
Subclaim about the earth's magnetic field reversal being a factor.
I don't see how magnetic fields can possibly be relevant. Neutrinos as the name suggests, pretty much don't react with anything
4: Rates of isotope decay may not have been constant due to different neutrino densities at some time in the past
Frankly this is really puzzling! Neutrinos are pretty much the last thing that's going to be a factor
Every second 60+ billion neutrinos go through every square cm of the earth and yet collision are incredibly rare (because the neutrino is very small:Imagine firing bullets randomly at a target the size of the solar system and hitting anything ... that's something like the scale
3: Rocks from recent eruptions give incorrect ages when K-Ar RD was used.
K-Ar radiometric dating involves a 1/2life of 1.3 billion yrs, and its accuracy is going to be +- hundreds of thousands of yrs at best. Anyone who uses it to test samples that are just a few decades old is using the wrong tool. This is like investigating bacteria with a telescope.
This would be a surface effect at best; and why would uranium be more prone to leaching than the lead? (lead leaching is why lead pipe are no longer used in domestic water supplies)
For this argument to produce a false result it would need to be shown that the 2 elements leach at asymmetrically rates, and that this is not mentioned I think means we can guess the answer ...
1: while discussing the U-Pb radiometric dating.... he says it's invalid because we don't know how much lead was there in the first place
Ans: It doesn't matter! A very readable explanation of why it doesn't matter can be found at meteoritestudies(.)com/protected_dating.htm which describes RD of a meteorite. It uses Rb-Sr decay, but the problem of "how much decay product was there to begin with", and the solution, is the same as for U-Pb
when will medical science discover the cure for creationism? or at least the genes that cause it, so we can stop all these poor, retarded babies from being born in the first place :(
One of the main reasons that radiometric dating is unsound is that we have no idea how much naturally occurring decay products existed in any specimen to start with, & radiometric dating *ASSUMES* that there was none. Thus, what may be thousands of years old may APPEAR to be millions of years old all due to unfounded assumptions.
Over 100 years before radiometric "dating" techniques were developed, James Lyall created the geologic column & dated the index fossils by the rock layers they are in. Then in a classic case of circular reasoning, he dated the rock layers by the fossils that are in them. This is the standard used today, as the measure for adjusting ALL (including the latest) radiometric dating. If radiometric dating still fails to give the age desired, they simply discard the data as faulty.
(cont) Besides which; 80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in the 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution.
Evolutionism should never be elevated to the status of a theory as, theories are based upon phenomena obtained through research and observation. Evolutionism is an unsubstantiated FAITH BASED hypothesis based on guesswork of what never happened millions of years ago. Not a theory.
I should clarify " If radiometric dating still fails to give the age desired, they simply discard the data as faulty." It should read: If radiometric dating still fails to give the age desired, they repeat and repeat the test until they get the age desired, or if they are still unable to get the desired outcome, they discard the data as faulty.
Also, the clocks are thrown out if and when they do not agree *with each other,* not if they fail to give the desired age. Any scientist who bended the data to fit his agenda like that was would be burned alive by his peers. Such people have no place in academia.
@sulljoh1 I absolutely agree. For instance: I accept the theory of evolution however, I completely reject unproven and unprovable doctrinal goo-2-u evolution. One major reason being that “Humans show no signs of recombination of mtDNA in the germline to replace natural losses despite an intense search for such evidence.” (Innan & Nordborg, 2002)
*
Try looking for "evidence" in the KJV bible. You will be amazed at the evidences of what is KNOWN in real science.
@Bereitwilligkeit I took a look. Innan & Nordborg are arguing that John Maynard Smith's team "happened to pick sites that gave a negative correlation." It could very well be true that the correlations happened to be picked at random, although we would need to see if the results were replicated, but what exactly are you saying this implies? That mitochondrial DNA could not have evolved without a miracle?
Since every isotope has a different half life, different amounts of the daughter products would have to have been present in each case to result in the same age using different methods. It's possible to imagine this happening once, but rock after rock after rock giving similar ages via different methods?!
Another method used to avoid this is to pick substances which chemically reject the daughter elements as they cool. For example zircon (ZrSiO4).
As it cools zircon will accept Uranium into it's crystals, but reject lead.
When you add in the fact that Uranium has 2 common isotopes U238 and U235, and they decay into 2 different lead isotopes (U238 to Pb206 and U235 to Pb207) so a precise mix of the 2 lead isotopes would have to have been present to give you a 6000 year age rather than a 4GigaYear age this "assumption" is really *not* a problem.
Haha, I love the guy in the lab coat. He is so reading from a script. If he knew what he was talking about, it would be a little more fluid. This is awesome.
Well my friend I am happy to know that there is someone that helps support my hypotisis about radiometric dating you have a verry good clip explaneing the flaws with the theroy. thank you for posting the truth.
There is a very important point they are missing. We use multiple methods of dating on a fossil and they all come up with the same age. If the dating methods are as random and unreliable as this Professor Boudreau claims they are, how in the world do all the different clocks just happen to give the same age?
I was almost taking him serious until that last sentence. The whole Big Bang theory invented to support evolution? Try googling "Edwin Hubble."
@Bereitwilligkeit Just because these guys don't understand it does not mean dating methods don't work. Geologist know the earth was old before radiometric methods were invented.
So if this video is fake, why do none of the opposing posts have any answers to the actual questions posed therein? It is one thing to bash someones ideas but without a willingness to actually investigate the questions there is no science...only faith in whomever you have decided to believe. Neither Evolution or Creation can be proven. We can only make observations. The truth is that observations can be used to persuade, but never prove either theory. Let's use out brains more constructively.
First, the inherent amount of lead in any igneous rock does not and cannot create a reading outside the acceptable margin of error because there are FOUR stable isotopes and THIRTY-EIGHT unstable isotopes of lead.
In order to cast doubt on Uranium 235 testing, you'd need to assume that every bit if lead in the igneous sample upon formation was Pb 207, and not ANY of the other isotopes.
Sinatrabooth - Don't criticize a chemist when you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. Carbon-12, the most common type of carbon atom, IS NOT radioactive. However, carbon dating measures the amount of Carbon-14 left in an organism. Carbon-14 IS a radioactive isotope of carbon.
This is the creationist trick of "quoting the 5%", where if a method has an accuracy rating of 95%, you can always quote the 5% as 'proof' that the method is entirely unreliable.
The important thing is to realize that the creationists are claiming that every measurement made everywhere, by anyone, anywhere in the world, are wrong, and wrong in such a way that the coincide with each other. It is an emphasis on ignorance.
I can't imagine what part of my post would make you think that I'm not aware of the other dating methods.
You say that "sciencetists" use only the method that "supports their worldview". This would include dendochronology, varves, sedimentary deposit rates, coral growths, biochemical decay rates, and over a dozen different and independent radiometric dating methods, each of which can be and are correlated.
Now... what dating method dates the earth to 6,000 years old, again?
I am sorry Fiver, the methods u mentioned can go every direction.
I dont think there are tree's millions of years old ( in age) and corals don't always grow on the same speed, sometimes they go faster, sometimes slower. We as creationists have also a model for sedimentary deposit rates, but that will not be accepted because it does not fit in the millions of years
You're right, dendochronology only goes back about 12,000 years. The point is that it can be corellated with carbon dating to make sure that carbon dating is accurate (and it is!).
But I'll ask again: what dating method dates the earth to 6,000 years old? Or, another good question: suppose you find a bone in the ground. What dating method would you use to determine it's age?
My point is that, as a creationist, you must ignore every dating method known to man.
@FiverBeyond Sounds like U have been force fed propaganda via indoctrination of NWO scat! Ever look at the errors proven in carbon & radio dating? There is so much error that the dates are selected. Do some research; I am sure U will come to a different conclusion. There are too many variables & isotope deterioration can be effected by outside influences. Many of them! 6000yrs old? How long were Adam&Eve immortal before the fall? Were they not timeless B4 the fall? Man's history started when?
I'm afraid that I simply cannot gather from your post what your point or position is. I've looked into the different dating methods enough to satisfy my curiosity for the moment, and that's why I bring them up.
Let me put it this way: which dating method do you believe should be used to date fossils? How old do you believe that the earth is... and do you have any objective and measurable data which supports that particular date (or range of dates)?
@FiverBeyond If you are truly and sincerely interested in wisdom I will guide you.
Morpheus, "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland. And, I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
But after the theory of evolution has hijacked science the servants of this theory try to dictate who is a scientist based on their acceptance to the holy theory of evolution.
LMAO.... this guy is like the cuckoo bird who fools other bird brains to hatch its eggs thinking they are it own eggs.... the name for what this guy in the white coat was doing is cuckoo science....
2) There are dozens of non radiometric dating such like dendrochronology, ice cores, light beaming from distant stars, sedimentary rocks, etc, that are coherent with radiometric dating.
3)Use uranium, argon date 200 years rocks is very inadequate use of method that leads to very wrong results.
4) If the rate of the decay was accelerated that would generate much more heat, that would be impossible to cool down in less than 1 mi years.
"... Radiometric dating is one of the means that should prove the evolution theory is true..."
What...?
Actually, science is not a competition to prove creationism wrong. Neither do Astronomers 'conspire' together with biologists in order to support each their theory of evolution. Pull your head of your ass please. Science is a method of exploring the world. It contradicts the bible, get over it. If you don't understand it then don't talk about it and stop spreading misinformation.
@Patrickthedutch The ones who are biased are the ones who have decided that the world is a few thousand years old before they start searching for evidence. It's easy to gather positive verification of such a theory and then ignore all of the evidence against it. Just as it is easy to pick out a few areas where scientific methods don't work and then try to discard them entirely (look at above video.) are parallax shift, red shift and the theory of relativity all wrong? Good luck convincing anyone
@drokles the funny thing is, christians Jews and others always believed that the earth was thousands of years old. Till darwin came, the geologists where in the beginning against darwin, and that over time changed, one by one got convicted and start to search for evidence that supports their theory. hence the layers, which theory is 150 years old. (give or take) b4 the radiometric dating only so they could place the bones in a timeframe that suited the evo theory
@drokles How ignorant. The Bible is the original science book. Science means knowledge. Are U trying to tell believers that there is no knowledge in Scripture unless we call it science? Unless the words in scripture match the science glossary they have no meaning for u? Do u know that there are facts revealed in Scripture that can only be proven w/ a spectrascope? How did they know? Misinformation is what u are preaching! Roman1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
@jouc12 And anyone can buy a lab coat and talk about things they don't understand because they are in denial. But, hey, you're right, you shouldn't take my word for it. I'd recommend you watch cdk007's video about it if you want to learn more. It never harms to do independent research either. I can't be bothered to explain everything here, but just remember, you may regret it later if you dismiss something before taking your time to understand it.
@jouc12 the rate of decay of a radioactive substance is constant, nothing affects it.
the Decay of Uranium 238 is 4.81 trillion years, by examining the amount of Uranium in a sample and then measuring the amount of Lead-206 decay product, we can use the equation
Log (base 2) (Original amount/remaining amount)
to determine the age of something in this case, the use of Uranium proves that earth is 4.5 billion years old or older because we have tested rocks that only go back that far.
@drokles The evolutionist claims that their theory is a proven fact, of course this can be just semantics and they often correct it to we are 99% certain that the theory is correct. So the statement above can be interpreted like this, radiometric dating should indicate with 99% certainty that ToE is correct, why then does it not work to do so. It is easy to dismiss the above clip if it goes against your current paradigm, it is dishonest to then say that science contradicts the Bible.
@gregrutz Just because some scientist make hypothesis and theorize on something that may contradict the Bible, does not mean the theory is correct. There are evidence for a flood on this earth, explains the fossil record just perfectly. Circle of the earth? Indeed the earth is circular a 3D circle, but perhaps it is not accurate enough? :) Paradigm is the only one that decides the last statement of yours, even though science claim the earth is 4.6 billion years is simply an assumption.
@Mekelsior No it does not mean the theory is correct, the facts show the theory is correct and the bible is wrong. Circles are 2D. Everything points ot a old earth, Geology, the fossil record which was not sorted by a global flood, tree rings, human history goes back 8,000 years proving you wrong.
@gregrutz Im sorry greg, we are at difference here as are science. Just because you have a theory does not mean it is right, even if you claim them to be correct, being stubborn is no evidence in itself either. Real science that is based on hard empirical facts does not contradict science, for example.. why is the oldest river, the oldest tree, the oldest dessert not older than 4-5000 years? So no, not everything points to an old earth, only paradigms point to an old earth.
@gregrutz So you say that circles are 2D, how strange that the world they lived in were 3D? So your argument fails even in its conception. How do you know that the fossil record was not sorted by a global flood? Tree rings? The oldest tree in the world is not older than 4-5000 years, tree ring dating is hardly accurate, pine cone trees are example of this. Redwood forrest are first generation forest and they are about 4-5000 years old. Recorded human history is about 4-5000 years old aswell.
@warriorprince1010 Science has proven the bible wrong many time. Galileo proved the earth is not the center of everything like the bible says. Geologist proved the earth is old and there was no global flood.
There was only one Fraud, Piltdown Man. Evolution is studied at every major university.
@gregrutz Science supports the bible as did Galileo as he supported the bible, the bible states the earth is a sphere. Science is in full support of the bible. Science has also refuted evolutionism.
@gregrutz Geology proves nothing to little. No dating methods are accepted scientifically due to soluble parent isotopes and present daughter isotopes.
@warriorprince1010 Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old. Go look at the layers in the Grand Canyon, like the Super Group which is under the level layers.
@gregrutz But you have layers missing, flat layers.. chunks of time.. million of years just washed away.. causing a flat surface? Why don`t we see that today? Why is erosion on this earth not flat? Professor Walter J veith has a wonderful explaination of all of this if you are interested in learning about different theories that make at least to me much more sense than uniformitarianism, the very idea of uniformitarianism kinda breaks with evolutionary thinking by its default nature... anyway..
@warriorprince1010 No dip shit. Science proved the earth is millions of years old. Geologists say the canyon took 5 million years to cut and even if a flood cut the canyon that does not expain how all the different layers got there. Not all sedimentry rock comes from water, did you read about the Coconino Sandstone??
Fuddimentalists think there was a global flood, science proved there never was one.
@warriorprince1010 The third layer down in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone, It comes from desert wind blown sands. We know this from the fossils in it. NOT all sedimentary rock is water borne. There are ash layers and distinct layers of different kinds of rock. Floods don't do that.
@gregrutz We do not know anything form the fossils found in them as the geological column is not scientific, merely part of evolutionism. As I have said science is confident that the flood laid down most layers in the grand canon, it does not look like it happened over along time.
@warriorprince1010 No one can be that dumb, you have to be a joke. evolutionism! that is funny. ''geological column is not scientific'' Right, I don't know any scientists the made it. LOL
@gregrutz The fact that local university teach evolution is not evidence for it to be correct. Geology is based on false assumptions and a bunch of uncertainties and contradictions and exist only in its present form to give the evolutionary theories any credibillitiy. We have talked a lot about this before greg but you are very stubborn in your belief in modern science. Broaden your horizon and your scientific inquiry. Study hard and study well and you may see as well the falacies of evolution.
Unfortunately this chemist does not know what he is talking about. For one he is attempting to refer to carbon dating, not radiometric dating. In carbon dating one measures the ratio of C14:C12 in organic substances. Carbon is not radio active. In contrast a a rock that contains a level of uranium for example is radioactive. And here we can measure the amount of radio active decay in relation to the half life constant of the substance.
However Radio metric dating and carbon C14 dating are not the same thing. In radiometric dating you are measuring the half life of the present Uranium Isotope. Various isotopes of Uranium have half lives varying from U232 which is 68 years, to U238 which has a half life of 4.46 billion years. Second in regards to the washing out per-say of Uranium from the sample.
The Uranium washed away would be just Uranium including the protons and neutrons in the atoms. The water will not split apart the atoms in the same. And it is within these atoms that we are measuring the decay from the Uranium Isotope to the element of lead.
All Scientific dating methods are all based on the ASSUMPTION that the earth has stayed the same or Constant. If it didnt all dating systems are wrong, And we know the earth wasnt always the same the flood ect, but even science claims asteroids hit the earth and ice ages so All dating techniques used by evolution are completly wrong, So there is no millions or billions of years so evolution couldnt have hapened and is a scam. Check mate
What changes in conditions do you think will change the rate of radioactive decay?
Radioactive decay is a result of the interaction of the strong & weak nuclear forces. These forces are not affected by the range of temperatures & pressures experienced by sedimentary or igneous rocks and certainly are not affected by being immersed in water.
so My hand shoots up and I say I dont mean to be rude but thats Not science. She says oh but it has to be right it is science if it wasnt right then we dont have millions of years. I didnt say another word because I rest my case. In order to believe the millions of years dating techniques you have to Assume what does assuming do ? I think we both know perhaps you and every other evolutionist needs to look
How about the assumption that the lead was formed with the Uranium and was always there?
Primordial lead, the kind that forms naturally, is Pb204. Lead that forms from decay of Uranium is Pb206, Pb207 or Pb208. These are the 4 stable isotopes of lead. Once you know the isotope, you then know if the lead was due to nuclear decay or original formation. 204 is naturally occurring lead. 206, 207 and 208 are only produced by the radioactive decay of uranium.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
up the definition of Science because the word assume is not in it, because assumiong is not science that is exactly why all datting systems are wrong / Not scientific and there is no evidence for millions of years, without millions of years evolution doesnt exist and evolution Fails Period.
you refuse to answere me questions because you know they are wrong and unreliable thats why science dumped them in the trash can. They need to do the same with all there other dating techniques as they are all WRONG
wow...fail vid. I can refute this entire speel with knowledge we learned in highschool. You measure a sample with MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF RADIOACTIVE ELEMENT. That way if you get a consistant date....you rule out any contamination or leeching of other elements. (such as lead leaching into a sample.) If you have 3 dating methods ALL suggesting 150 million years for example, then you can be fairly certain that there has been no contamination after all...what are the odds they ALL say the same?
Awsome Video keep spreading the Truth. evolution aka (erol) evolution of lies believers cant refute this video so they talk bad about the video and Creationists. Its soo funny the double standard they have.
But damn it! If it's opposed to some desert scribbling written by a bunch of barbaric sand monkeys in the middle east, 2000 years ago, the quantum theory about how particles interact and decay and particle physics in general doesn't work. Sure.
If you actualy watched this Video instead of just going to every Creation video you can and atacking it in the Comments You would learn the Truth. And your comment is completly irelevant to the argument here your just made evolution is a scam and you know it but dont know what to do because you still dont want to serve God
Radiometric dating tells us that the age of this video is somewhere between 11 million and 13 million years old. Scientists are studying the fossils of those interviewed right now. So far, they've determined that the chemist had been exposed to dangerous levels of lead, and likely died of a brain aneurysm. Little is known about the interviewer, other than the remnants of a small metal cross, probably on a necklace, that was made in China.
I watched this whole video just to hear the guy at the end say that the big bang theory was constructed to support the theory of evolution?
WHAT A CRACKPOT! His credibility just went out the window. WAY out. And a "supernova from a nearby star?" If life here survived that, where's the remnants of this supernova? The nearest known supernova is SN 1987A - 168,000 light years from here! Hardly a nearby star.
Once again I dont call science a fraud it is evolution that trys to call itself Science when it isnt science at all it is a scam. If you werent taught the lies/brain washed with evolution in school you would never believe it. You are taught to only believe evidence from peer reviewed scientific articales & jurnals ect. evidence peer reviewed by who ? humm? oh ya evolution "scientists" so they got you wraped around there finger. and they ignore and wont publish anything that proves it wrong.
I sent you evidence from Scientists but you like all other evolutionists denie the evidence and try to explain it away with lame excuses but why? why do you guys do this? I will tell you why because evolution religion of lies preechers aka evolution scientists have you guys so brainwashed your told not to exept any evidence unless it is peer reviewed by evolution scientists humm sounds like a ponzy sceme hu? yep its a scam sorry you fell for it. The Truth is in the Bible I care so I tell you.
Nope I did alot of research and I have the best evidence and alot of it is in videos and there saved in my favorites. I know alot of evolutionists laugh and usualy attack the videos that tell the Truth because evolution is there religion and they cant handle it being disproven even thouggh it has been so many times. evolutionists are taught to not listen to evidence unless it comes from evolution preechers aka "scientists" so they ignore the truth just like evolution scientists do
Wow Do you know how to tell the Truth AT ALL Iam soooo sick of you lying but you need to lie to prove evolution right.
Try scrolling down and see all my comments on this video go several pages down before you spread anymore lies.
I onhestly dont get it you must feel like you lost the argument like you are backed in a corner or somthing. Because at first when we started debating you seemed misguided but it didnt seem like you liesd now you lie like crazy.Its realy sad.
You can compare treerings of trees that are gradually older, basically counting back in time using older and older trees, take some time and do that for yourself.
Dendrochronologists have managed to date trees back ten thousand years.
It's knowm how to treat composite materials and things of known age have been dated accurately (in 1949).
There's generally no f'ing carbon in fossils of animals.
Methuselah - The World's Oldest Tree is 4,768 years old its in the gueness book of world records so what do you call what you said? Because from were I come from we call that a lie.
There is no acurate dating method Period I can prove this they are all based on assumtions and guess work based on evolutional lies. If you searched for the Truth you would find the Bible and you would gain great knowledge. If you keep worshiping your faith the evolution religion of lies you will remain brainwashed
The Bible tells us the Begining the present and the end readit and you will learn what is happening why and what will soon happen. When you dont even know this its hard to explain more complex thing to you.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
I understand completly you have been brainwashed by evolution religion of lies you have great faith in evolution religion. If Charles darwin could talk to you he would say good job! No.... No he would say turn from these lies I was wrong turn to Jesus Christ I am in Hell it is unbearable continual pain please! run from my teachings. Iam not joking and you will meet his fate if you dont turn to Jesus
I don't believe in religion, I believe in objectively proven truth based on physical evidence and reasoned logic. That has nothing to do with believing in a religion or believing in a person, let alone someone who lived 150 years ago.
I couldn't give a shit if I ended up in hell, I'd rather be in hell with the devil than with the god who WHILE he is perfect created an earth as RUINED as it is.
You shall be torchered for eternity because you want to denie Jesus Christ who was torchered and died on a cross for you? well you shall get what you want. People and satan is the reason this earth is messed up not God so many have chosen to turn from God he gives us free will we deside what to do with it.
evolution is a religion that believes we came from a rock this is what you believe? Read the truthits in the Bible.
Iam not trying to instill fear but it is very ignorant you saying that somone warning you from impending doom is Loving not installing fear. If I was to warn you to get out of the street a bus was coming at you at 60 mph would that be instilling fear? how about telling you somone loosened the lug nuts on all your wheels of your car would that be instilling fear in you No it would be warning you so you could evade danger that is what I did I care so I tell you the truth hell is a very real place
If you would warn me an invisible godbus from the sky someone made up a few thousand years ago was coming at me at 60 mph, I wouldn't move out of the way.
How is it a real place? Have you ever been there? Have you ever heard of anyone who was there? Have you got any evidence (the bible isn't evidence, the bible is just as much proof of hell as Harry Potter is for the existence of Hogwarts)? You know it's physically impossible to burn forever.
Hell isn't a real place, stop being afraid.
You're saying you're doubting whether or not you would tell me if you'd tell me if my car was rigged if you knew?
It is a real place because God said so you know the one who created everything that exists. Yes People have been tain in the spirit to hell and have writen books about it if you wish I could tell you some. Hell is very real if you denie Christ You will spend eternity being tortured there but its your choice. I care so I tell you the truth before its to late.
So let me get this straight. God inspired the bible through divine intervention, but the only "evidence" this god even exists is the bible itself.
You have committed a logical fallacy called begging the question, or circular reasoning. You cannot prove something exists by saying, "it proves itself". It cannot prove itself if we cannot observe it directly.
Even if your god existed in any way, shape or form, the bible can never be proof of that god on it's own. Learn the difference.
I dont know if you are angry at God or what, but I do know you believe in him so what gives? You are very confused There is evidence For God Everywere. He created everything . Everything is Far to complex to have gotten here anyother way then a creator creation, Thinking everything got here any other way is a fairyl tale. The Bible is Gods living Word and yes Gods Perfect living Word is proof/ evidence of God, as in 2000 years not one trhing in the book can be proven wrong Id say thats evidence
You must not be familiar with the existence of god debate to be making that many fallacies all at once.
Irreducibly complex is an argument that has been destroyed multiple times with multiple examples. I can reference dozens of youtube videos that give great evidence as such.
Not only that, but the bible itself is flawed. There are inconsistencies between the god of the old testament, and the god of the new testament. "god" also condones genocide. How is that perfect in any way?
If you want to try to show me some proof of the Bible being wrong please I beg you send it, because I have debated many on the Bible the Bible always wins it can not be proven wrong it is Gods perfect living word. 2000 years and still going strong couldnot be proven wrong even Once hummmm maybe thats because its the truth Yep thats itr read it and ask God for wisdom and understanding and you will be very wise
First off (probably the easiest one to pick), the bible states the earth is flat, which in multiple ways is wrong. If God were perfect, his word would be perfect, or the world would in fact be flat.
Or how about the jealous and petty nature of god in the OT? Why would that god give up his son (who lol also happens to be himself) to die for sins he certainly didn't forgive before?
By definition the judeo-christian god is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent. Therefore it never changes.
Were does it say the earth is Flat you still havent showed me or will you show me more assumptions that you make of of twisting verses to mean what you want them too.
Two minutes in and the "expert" says C-14 decays into C-12? Good Job Eddie!
snakeguy76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Geologists proved the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old.
gregrutz 2 months ago
7: The whole BBT was constructed to support evolution theory.
Well this is just flat out a lie, but useful at least in demonstrating this guy's (poorly) hidden agenda
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
5: the rate of the earth's magnetic field decrease implies it is 10,000 yrs old
The magnetic field is known to fluctuate UP and DOWN. Implying it's only decreasing is being dishonest again.
6: cosmic dust accretion has been calculated and if the universe was really billions of years old, the moon should be metres deep by now.
This argument is from an estimate made in 1960 involving a guy standing at the top of a mounting holding a smog detector.
It's been long established as simply WRONG
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
>>>
X-rays are stopped by a few cms of lead; gamma radiation requires a couple of metres; neutrinos though ... to stop a beam of neutrinos would require lead 1 light year thick!)
Subclaim about the earth's magnetic field reversal being a factor.
I don't see how magnetic fields can possibly be relevant. Neutrinos as the name suggests, pretty much don't react with anything
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
4: Rates of isotope decay may not have been constant due to different neutrino densities at some time in the past
Frankly this is really puzzling! Neutrinos are pretty much the last thing that's going to be a factor
Every second 60+ billion neutrinos go through every square cm of the earth and yet collision are incredibly rare (because the neutrino is very small:Imagine firing bullets randomly at a target the size of the solar system and hitting anything ... that's something like the scale
>>>
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
3: Rocks from recent eruptions give incorrect ages when K-Ar RD was used.
K-Ar radiometric dating involves a 1/2life of 1.3 billion yrs, and its accuracy is going to be +- hundreds of thousands of yrs at best. Anyone who uses it to test samples that are just a few decades old is using the wrong tool. This is like investigating bacteria with a telescope.
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
2: uranium leached from rock results in false age
This would be a surface effect at best; and why would uranium be more prone to leaching than the lead? (lead leaching is why lead pipe are no longer used in domestic water supplies)
For this argument to produce a false result it would need to be shown that the 2 elements leach at asymmetrically rates, and that this is not mentioned I think means we can guess the answer ...
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
Boudreau's claims and some replies
1: while discussing the U-Pb radiometric dating.... he says it's invalid because we don't know how much lead was there in the first place
Ans: It doesn't matter! A very readable explanation of why it doesn't matter can be found at meteoritestudies(.)com/protected_dating.htm which describes RD of a meteorite. It uses Rb-Sr decay, but the problem of "how much decay product was there to begin with", and the solution, is the same as for U-Pb
SysyphusJones 3 months ago
when will medical science discover the cure for creationism? or at least the genes that cause it, so we can stop all these poor, retarded babies from being born in the first place :(
Dalekdanceparty 6 months ago
Wow. This was a text book example of special pleading.
1927Solvay 6 months ago
...In God We Rust.
dekekyo 7 months ago
gooday guvna
JoshBHC 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you recognize Latin Beauty ** rockmycity.info **
rudysasseetf 1 year ago
Comment removed
NikosTH4I 1 year ago
RADIOMETRIC DATING IN THE REAL WORLD
One of the main reasons that radiometric dating is unsound is that we have no idea how much naturally occurring decay products existed in any specimen to start with, & radiometric dating *ASSUMES* that there was none. Thus, what may be thousands of years old may APPEAR to be millions of years old all due to unfounded assumptions.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
(cont)
Over 100 years before radiometric "dating" techniques were developed, James Lyall created the geologic column & dated the index fossils by the rock layers they are in. Then in a classic case of circular reasoning, he dated the rock layers by the fossils that are in them. This is the standard used today, as the measure for adjusting ALL (including the latest) radiometric dating. If radiometric dating still fails to give the age desired, they simply discard the data as faulty.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
(cont) Besides which; 80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in the 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Evolutionism should never be elevated to the status of a theory as, theories are based upon phenomena obtained through research and observation. Evolutionism is an unsubstantiated FAITH BASED hypothesis based on guesswork of what never happened millions of years ago. Not a theory.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
I should clarify " If radiometric dating still fails to give the age desired, they simply discard the data as faulty." It should read: If radiometric dating still fails to give the age desired, they repeat and repeat the test until they get the age desired, or if they are still unable to get the desired outcome, they discard the data as faulty.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Comment removed
sulljoh1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The clocks have to be properly zeroed.
Also, the clocks are thrown out if and when they do not agree *with each other,* not if they fail to give the desired age. Any scientist who bended the data to fit his agenda like that was would be burned alive by his peers. Such people have no place in academia.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 Keep up the faith baby, keep up the faith! LOL
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit I'll take faith in the power of evidence over faith in the Bible/Koran any day
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 I absolutely agree. For instance: I accept the theory of evolution however, I completely reject unproven and unprovable doctrinal goo-2-u evolution. One major reason being that “Humans show no signs of recombination of mtDNA in the germline to replace natural losses despite an intense search for such evidence.” (Innan & Nordborg, 2002)
*
Try looking for "evidence" in the KJV bible. You will be amazed at the evidences of what is KNOWN in real science.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit I took a look. Innan & Nordborg are arguing that John Maynard Smith's team "happened to pick sites that gave a negative correlation." It could very well be true that the correlations happened to be picked at random, although we would need to see if the results were replicated, but what exactly are you saying this implies? That mitochondrial DNA could not have evolved without a miracle?
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 I don't respond to people who twist words.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit It was an honest question. What's this twisting word stuff? I want to understand your point.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
This is not accurate for several reasons.
The most important is that many samples are dated using several different methods and typically the different methods give similar dates.
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
Since every isotope has a different half life, different amounts of the daughter products would have to have been present in each case to result in the same age using different methods. It's possible to imagine this happening once, but rock after rock after rock giving similar ages via different methods?!
Another method used to avoid this is to pick substances which chemically reject the daughter elements as they cool. For example zircon (ZrSiO4).
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
As it cools zircon will accept Uranium into it's crystals, but reject lead.
When you add in the fact that Uranium has 2 common isotopes U238 and U235, and they decay into 2 different lead isotopes (U238 to Pb206 and U235 to Pb207) so a precise mix of the 2 lead isotopes would have to have been present to give you a 6000 year age rather than a 4GigaYear age this "assumption" is really *not* a problem.
kandtell 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
online Asian wives ***lushfmlk.info***
adriekebriy 1 year ago
Haha, I love the guy in the lab coat. He is so reading from a script. If he knew what he was talking about, it would be a little more fluid. This is awesome.
mgt247 1 year ago
Well my friend I am happy to know that there is someone that helps support my hypotisis about radiometric dating you have a verry good clip explaneing the flaws with the theroy. thank you for posting the truth.
aTheTrellbell 1 year ago
@aTheTrellbell The earth being old and evolution were both accepted before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 1 year ago
There is a very important point they are missing. We use multiple methods of dating on a fossil and they all come up with the same age. If the dating methods are as random and unreliable as this Professor Boudreau claims they are, how in the world do all the different clocks just happen to give the same age?
I was almost taking him serious until that last sentence. The whole Big Bang theory invented to support evolution? Try googling "Edwin Hubble."
sulljoh1 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@sulljoh1 'Try googling "Edwin Hubble."'
Or "Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître".
I am particularly amused by the irony of the few Catholics who oppose the Big Bang theory. :)
kandtell 1 year ago
If what you describe ever occurred it would be a first. It only happens because you believe in Sandy Claws. HO- HO- HO!
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
bullshit
Xaselm 1 year ago
Ratings disabled= no popularity contest
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Ratings disabled = can't take the TRUTH.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz All I can do is quote williamscarlet just below this post:
"So if this video is fake, why do none of the opposing posts have any answers to the actual questions posed therein?"
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Just because these guys don't understand it does not mean dating methods don't work. Geologist know the earth was old before radiometric methods were invented.
gregrutz 1 year ago
So if this video is fake, why do none of the opposing posts have any answers to the actual questions posed therein? It is one thing to bash someones ideas but without a willingness to actually investigate the questions there is no science...only faith in whomever you have decided to believe. Neither Evolution or Creation can be proven. We can only make observations. The truth is that observations can be used to persuade, but never prove either theory. Let's use out brains more constructively.
williamscarlet 1 year ago
@williamscarlet Creationism is not a theory, it is religion, every religion has a creation story.
The theory of evolution shows how evolution happened.
Evolution the process has been proven.
The earth is millions of years old, proven.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"Radiometric dating is one of the means that should prove the evolution theory is true. "
No, it's used to measure the age of rocks. You fail.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Ratings disabled = dishonesty and cowardice.
Drweavil 1 year ago 5
Ratings disabled = dishonesty.
wilmracer 1 year ago 2
Sheer, willful ignorance.
First, the inherent amount of lead in any igneous rock does not and cannot create a reading outside the acceptable margin of error because there are FOUR stable isotopes and THIRTY-EIGHT unstable isotopes of lead.
In order to cast doubt on Uranium 235 testing, you'd need to assume that every bit if lead in the igneous sample upon formation was Pb 207, and not ANY of the other isotopes.
generalataris 1 year ago
Please ignore the last argument. About the moondust.
As a creationist, i know that argument is proven wrong.
Go to aig, they will explain why.
Patrickthedutch 1 year ago
Sinatrabooth - Don't criticize a chemist when you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. Carbon-12, the most common type of carbon atom, IS NOT radioactive. However, carbon dating measures the amount of Carbon-14 left in an organism. Carbon-14 IS a radioactive isotope of carbon.
tfr4wolf 1 year ago 2
This is the creationist trick of "quoting the 5%", where if a method has an accuracy rating of 95%, you can always quote the 5% as 'proof' that the method is entirely unreliable.
The important thing is to realize that the creationists are claiming that every measurement made everywhere, by anyone, anywhere in the world, are wrong, and wrong in such a way that the coincide with each other. It is an emphasis on ignorance.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago 3
@FiverBeyond
It is not about quoting the 5 %
There are serveral dating methods, sciencetists only uses the one that fits in their worldview, they ignore the rest of the methods.
Speaking of ignorance
Patrickthedutch 1 year ago
@Patrickthedutch
I can't imagine what part of my post would make you think that I'm not aware of the other dating methods.
You say that "sciencetists" use only the method that "supports their worldview". This would include dendochronology, varves, sedimentary deposit rates, coral growths, biochemical decay rates, and over a dozen different and independent radiometric dating methods, each of which can be and are correlated.
Now... what dating method dates the earth to 6,000 years old, again?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
I am sorry Fiver, the methods u mentioned can go every direction.
I dont think there are tree's millions of years old ( in age) and corals don't always grow on the same speed, sometimes they go faster, sometimes slower. We as creationists have also a model for sedimentary deposit rates, but that will not be accepted because it does not fit in the millions of years
Patrickthedutch 1 year ago
@Patrickthedutch
You're right, dendochronology only goes back about 12,000 years. The point is that it can be corellated with carbon dating to make sure that carbon dating is accurate (and it is!).
But I'll ask again: what dating method dates the earth to 6,000 years old? Or, another good question: suppose you find a bone in the ground. What dating method would you use to determine it's age?
My point is that, as a creationist, you must ignore every dating method known to man.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Sounds like U have been force fed propaganda via indoctrination of NWO scat! Ever look at the errors proven in carbon & radio dating? There is so much error that the dates are selected. Do some research; I am sure U will come to a different conclusion. There are too many variables & isotope deterioration can be effected by outside influences. Many of them! 6000yrs old? How long were Adam&Eve immortal before the fall? Were they not timeless B4 the fall? Man's history started when?
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives
I'm afraid that I simply cannot gather from your post what your point or position is. I've looked into the different dating methods enough to satisfy my curiosity for the moment, and that's why I bring them up.
Let me put it this way: which dating method do you believe should be used to date fossils? How old do you believe that the earth is... and do you have any objective and measurable data which supports that particular date (or range of dates)?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond If you are truly and sincerely interested in wisdom I will guide you.
Morpheus, "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland. And, I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
PM me.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives
If you would like to either address my statements, answer my questions, or engage in any kind of civilized discourse, I am happy and eager to oblige.
If you are looking for a disciple who will follow you blindly and unquestioning, I must flatly tell you that your 'offer' is degrading and insulting.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
It won't be accepted because it has zero evidence in its support.
generalataris 1 year ago
That's actual science in the video!!!
But after the theory of evolution has hijacked science the servants of this theory try to dictate who is a scientist based on their acceptance to the holy theory of evolution.
pebi86 1 year ago
LMAO.... this guy is like the cuckoo bird who fools other bird brains to hatch its eggs thinking they are it own eggs.... the name for what this guy in the white coat was doing is cuckoo science....
Inventeeering 1 year ago
So fail...
1) C-14 isn't used to date fossils.
2) There are dozens of non radiometric dating such like dendrochronology, ice cores, light beaming from distant stars, sedimentary rocks, etc, that are coherent with radiometric dating.
3)Use uranium, argon date 200 years rocks is very inadequate use of method that leads to very wrong results.
4) If the rate of the decay was accelerated that would generate much more heat, that would be impossible to cool down in less than 1 mi years.
nixdorfbrazil 1 year ago
@nixdorfbrazil so that guy isn't a scientist then?
johnnyeze 1 year ago
If he is a scientist, maybe he was. I dont know. But he is a liar. He KNOWS that he is lying.
nixdorfbrazil 1 year ago
"... Radiometric dating is one of the means that should prove the evolution theory is true..."
What...?
Actually, science is not a competition to prove creationism wrong. Neither do Astronomers 'conspire' together with biologists in order to support each their theory of evolution. Pull your head of your ass please. Science is a method of exploring the world. It contradicts the bible, get over it. If you don't understand it then don't talk about it and stop spreading misinformation.
drokles 1 year ago 20
@drokles
It contradicts the bible, with methods and ideas that are proven wrong. Or bring up theories, where barely is evidence for.
Remember, it is not the science we are fighting against, it is the people behind it, they are biased, they want to proof what they think.
It is the people.
Patrickthedutch 1 year ago
@Patrickthedutch The ones who are biased are the ones who have decided that the world is a few thousand years old before they start searching for evidence. It's easy to gather positive verification of such a theory and then ignore all of the evidence against it. Just as it is easy to pick out a few areas where scientific methods don't work and then try to discard them entirely (look at above video.) are parallax shift, red shift and the theory of relativity all wrong? Good luck convincing anyone
drokles 1 year ago
@drokles the funny thing is, christians Jews and others always believed that the earth was thousands of years old. Till darwin came, the geologists where in the beginning against darwin, and that over time changed, one by one got convicted and start to search for evidence that supports their theory. hence the layers, which theory is 150 years old. (give or take) b4 the radiometric dating only so they could place the bones in a timeframe that suited the evo theory
Patrickthedutch 1 year ago
@drokles How ignorant. The Bible is the original science book. Science means knowledge. Are U trying to tell believers that there is no knowledge in Scripture unless we call it science? Unless the words in scripture match the science glossary they have no meaning for u? Do u know that there are facts revealed in Scripture that can only be proven w/ a spectrascope? How did they know? Misinformation is what u are preaching! Roman1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@drokles can you disprove the information in this video? Anyone can say its wrong without backing up their claims.
jouc12 1 year ago
@drokles can you disprove the information in this video? Anyone can say its wrong without backing up their claims.
jouc12 1 year ago
@jouc12 And anyone can buy a lab coat and talk about things they don't understand because they are in denial. But, hey, you're right, you shouldn't take my word for it. I'd recommend you watch cdk007's video about it if you want to learn more. It never harms to do independent research either. I can't be bothered to explain everything here, but just remember, you may regret it later if you dismiss something before taking your time to understand it.
drokles 1 year ago
@jouc12 the rate of decay of a radioactive substance is constant, nothing affects it.
the Decay of Uranium 238 is 4.81 trillion years, by examining the amount of Uranium in a sample and then measuring the amount of Lead-206 decay product, we can use the equation
Log (base 2) (Original amount/remaining amount)
to determine the age of something in this case, the use of Uranium proves that earth is 4.5 billion years old or older because we have tested rocks that only go back that far.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 1 year ago
@drokles
um, what he's saying is that science does not contradict the bible.
dragonking700 1 year ago
Comment removed
darkfireroughton2 1 year ago
@drokles The evolutionist claims that their theory is a proven fact, of course this can be just semantics and they often correct it to we are 99% certain that the theory is correct. So the statement above can be interpreted like this, radiometric dating should indicate with 99% certainty that ToE is correct, why then does it not work to do so. It is easy to dismiss the above clip if it goes against your current paradigm, it is dishonest to then say that science contradicts the Bible.
Mekelsior 11 months ago
@Mekelsior Does the bible say there was a flood? Then science contradicts the bible.
Does the bible say ''circle of the earth''. Then science contradicts the bible.
Does the bible say the earth is about 6000 year old? Then science contradicts the bible.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Just because some scientist make hypothesis and theorize on something that may contradict the Bible, does not mean the theory is correct. There are evidence for a flood on this earth, explains the fossil record just perfectly. Circle of the earth? Indeed the earth is circular a 3D circle, but perhaps it is not accurate enough? :) Paradigm is the only one that decides the last statement of yours, even though science claim the earth is 4.6 billion years is simply an assumption.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior No it does not mean the theory is correct, the facts show the theory is correct and the bible is wrong. Circles are 2D. Everything points ot a old earth, Geology, the fossil record which was not sorted by a global flood, tree rings, human history goes back 8,000 years proving you wrong.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Im sorry greg, we are at difference here as are science. Just because you have a theory does not mean it is right, even if you claim them to be correct, being stubborn is no evidence in itself either. Real science that is based on hard empirical facts does not contradict science, for example.. why is the oldest river, the oldest tree, the oldest dessert not older than 4-5000 years? So no, not everything points to an old earth, only paradigms point to an old earth.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@gregrutz So you say that circles are 2D, how strange that the world they lived in were 3D? So your argument fails even in its conception. How do you know that the fossil record was not sorted by a global flood? Tree rings? The oldest tree in the world is not older than 4-5000 years, tree ring dating is hardly accurate, pine cone trees are example of this. Redwood forrest are first generation forest and they are about 4-5000 years old. Recorded human history is about 4-5000 years old aswell.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@drokles Science supports the bible. Evolutionists try to use fraudulent evident to refute the bible and have failed.
warriorprince1010 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Science has proven the bible wrong many time. Galileo proved the earth is not the center of everything like the bible says. Geologist proved the earth is old and there was no global flood.
There was only one Fraud, Piltdown Man. Evolution is studied at every major university.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Science supports the bible as did Galileo as he supported the bible, the bible states the earth is a sphere. Science is in full support of the bible. Science has also refuted evolutionism.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Go to your local university and see if they are praying or teaching evolution.
Geology proves there was no global flood and the earth is millions of years old.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Geology proves nothing to little. No dating methods are accepted scientifically due to soluble parent isotopes and present daughter isotopes.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old. Go look at the layers in the Grand Canyon, like the Super Group which is under the level layers.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz The grand canyon layers were laid down at the flood, science has shown this.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Then why is there only one Grand Canyon?
The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it. There are 44 Distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK exposed in the Grand Canyon.
Some are slow growing corals.
Floods don’t do that.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz But you have layers missing, flat layers.. chunks of time.. million of years just washed away.. causing a flat surface? Why don`t we see that today? Why is erosion on this earth not flat? Professor Walter J veith has a wonderful explaination of all of this if you are interested in learning about different theories that make at least to me much more sense than uniformitarianism, the very idea of uniformitarianism kinda breaks with evolutionary thinking by its default nature... anyway..
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@gregrutz Science has shown that the grand canyon came in a sudden flood. Yes there would be different types of soil in it.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 No dip shit. Science proved the earth is millions of years old. Geologists say the canyon took 5 million years to cut and even if a flood cut the canyon that does not expain how all the different layers got there. Not all sedimentry rock comes from water, did you read about the Coconino Sandstone??
Fuddimentalists think there was a global flood, science proved there never was one.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Kent Hovind is not a scientist, he is a liar and in jail. Read a Geology book and learn something about the earth.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Science supports cretaion. There is no room in science accident.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 The third layer down in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone, It comes from desert wind blown sands. We know this from the fossils in it. NOT all sedimentary rock is water borne. There are ash layers and distinct layers of different kinds of rock. Floods don't do that.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz We do not know anything form the fossils found in them as the geological column is not scientific, merely part of evolutionism. As I have said science is confident that the flood laid down most layers in the grand canon, it does not look like it happened over along time.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 No one can be that dumb, you have to be a joke. evolutionism! that is funny. ''geological column is not scientific'' Right, I don't know any scientists the made it. LOL
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz The fact that local university teach evolution is not evidence for it to be correct. Geology is based on false assumptions and a bunch of uncertainties and contradictions and exist only in its present form to give the evolutionary theories any credibillitiy. We have talked a lot about this before greg but you are very stubborn in your belief in modern science. Broaden your horizon and your scientific inquiry. Study hard and study well and you may see as well the falacies of evolution.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@drokles So you argue that science should not try and prove the theory of evolution to be true? :)
Mekelsior 9 months ago
The Hawaiian volcano test was done to verify assumptions that the specific test at hand was useless on that specific kind of condition.
Geochron 1 year ago 3
Unfortunately this chemist does not know what he is talking about. For one he is attempting to refer to carbon dating, not radiometric dating. In carbon dating one measures the ratio of C14:C12 in organic substances. Carbon is not radio active. In contrast a a rock that contains a level of uranium for example is radioactive. And here we can measure the amount of radio active decay in relation to the half life constant of the substance.
sinatrabooth89 1 year ago 4
Carbon 14 is radioactive. It's half life is 5760 years. He explains that in the video....
leyk17 1 year ago
However Radio metric dating and carbon C14 dating are not the same thing. In radiometric dating you are measuring the half life of the present Uranium Isotope. Various isotopes of Uranium have half lives varying from U232 which is 68 years, to U238 which has a half life of 4.46 billion years. Second in regards to the washing out per-say of Uranium from the sample.
sinatrabooth89 1 year ago 13
The Uranium washed away would be just Uranium including the protons and neutrons in the atoms. The water will not split apart the atoms in the same. And it is within these atoms that we are measuring the decay from the Uranium Isotope to the element of lead.
sinatrabooth89 1 year ago 2
And Carbon14 dating works well for once living things up to 60,000 years.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@sinatrabooth89 you didn't watch the whole video did you.
johnnyeze 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All Scientific dating methods are all based on the ASSUMPTION that the earth has stayed the same or Constant. If it didnt all dating systems are wrong, And we know the earth wasnt always the same the flood ect, but even science claims asteroids hit the earth and ice ages so All dating techniques used by evolution are completly wrong, So there is no millions or billions of years so evolution couldnt have hapened and is a scam. Check mate
coolvideo28 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They use more than one method and cross check them. Other dating methods include:
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The dating systems oh I love this so Iam in class today and my science teacher says so we have to assume that conditions were always the same
coolvideo28 2 years ago
What changes in conditions do you think will change the rate of radioactive decay?
Radioactive decay is a result of the interaction of the strong & weak nuclear forces. These forces are not affected by the range of temperatures & pressures experienced by sedimentary or igneous rocks and certainly are not affected by being immersed in water.
hexkid 1 year ago
Comment removed
coolvideo28 2 years ago
so My hand shoots up and I say I dont mean to be rude but thats Not science. She says oh but it has to be right it is science if it wasnt right then we dont have millions of years. I didnt say another word because I rest my case. In order to believe the millions of years dating techniques you have to Assume what does assuming do ? I think we both know perhaps you and every other evolutionist needs to look
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Take a closer look, that is a great idea!
Let's find out more about Edward Boudreau from UNO... hmmm, UNO has no Edward Boudreau on their faculty and never have. Where did he come from?
OK, how about peer-reviews scientific papers he has published.. nope, not a single one, which by definition makes him NOT a scientist in the field.
How is a Chemist qualified to present a topic such as Nuclear Physics? He is not qualified, sorry.
Next up: The wonders of Lead!
PlanetOfTheMonkeys 2 years ago
It's Boudreaux. Well known YEC and apologist.
achtungcircus 2 years ago
How about the assumption that the lead was formed with the Uranium and was always there?
Primordial lead, the kind that forms naturally, is Pb204. Lead that forms from decay of Uranium is Pb206, Pb207 or Pb208. These are the 4 stable isotopes of lead. Once you know the isotope, you then know if the lead was due to nuclear decay or original formation. 204 is naturally occurring lead. 206, 207 and 208 are only produced by the radioactive decay of uranium.
Glad you could learn something today!
PlanetOfTheMonkeys 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
up the definition of Science because the word assume is not in it, because assumiong is not science that is exactly why all datting systems are wrong / Not scientific and there is no evidence for millions of years, without millions of years evolution doesnt exist and evolution Fails Period.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Geologist discovered the earth was millions of years old, 200 years ago.
Evolution was accepted 150 years ago.
Both before dating method were discovered.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Then how did they determine it was that old if there was no dating techniques? awaiting some circualar reasoning.
HAHA lol
coolvideo28 2 years ago
They looked at the geology of the earth, like unconformities, sediment rates, etc.
And figured the earth was millions of years old. Dating says it is billions of years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
gregrutz
Wow please explain how this is done ?
unconformities, sediment rates Wow Thats Good.
So why dont they use these methods anymore ?
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Because radiometric methods are so accurate! LOL
gregrutz 2 years ago
you refuse to answere me questions because you know they are wrong and unreliable thats why science dumped them in the trash can. They need to do the same with all there other dating techniques as they are all WRONG
coolvideo28 2 years ago
I answered your question, read a geology book dummy.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No you dint answere the Quuestions I said
"Wow please explain how this is done ?
unconformities, sediment rates Wow Thats Good. So why dont they use these methods anymore ? "
You said
"Because radiometric methods are so accurate! LOL"
The Truth hurts I know
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Ratings DISABLED ~ ★☆☆☆☆
a1mint 2 years ago
Propaganda to make the church morons feel good.
a1mint 2 years ago
wow...fail vid. I can refute this entire speel with knowledge we learned in highschool. You measure a sample with MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF RADIOACTIVE ELEMENT. That way if you get a consistant date....you rule out any contamination or leeching of other elements. (such as lead leaching into a sample.) If you have 3 dating methods ALL suggesting 150 million years for example, then you can be fairly certain that there has been no contamination after all...what are the odds they ALL say the same?
boorens18 2 years ago
Awsome Video keep spreading the Truth. evolution aka (erol) evolution of lies believers cant refute this video so they talk bad about the video and Creationists. Its soo funny the double standard they have.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
So it works for fission atom bomb.
It works for the fusion hydrogen bomb.
It works for cesium atomic clocks.
It works for nuclear power plants.
It works for atom smashers.
It works for the fluorescent dials in your watch.
But damn it! If it's opposed to some desert scribbling written by a bunch of barbaric sand monkeys in the middle east, 2000 years ago, the quantum theory about how particles interact and decay and particle physics in general doesn't work. Sure.
Seek the TRUTH
gregrutz 2 years ago
If you actualy watched this Video instead of just going to every Creation video you can and atacking it in the Comments You would learn the Truth. And your comment is completly irelevant to the argument here your just made evolution is a scam and you know it but dont know what to do because you still dont want to serve God
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Why do you keep changing the subject to God? Do you have a God fixation?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Radiometric dating tells us that the age of this video is somewhere between 11 million and 13 million years old. Scientists are studying the fossils of those interviewed right now. So far, they've determined that the chemist had been exposed to dangerous levels of lead, and likely died of a brain aneurysm. Little is known about the interviewer, other than the remnants of a small metal cross, probably on a necklace, that was made in China.
JamesMorlan 2 years ago
I watched this whole video just to hear the guy at the end say that the big bang theory was constructed to support the theory of evolution?
WHAT A CRACKPOT! His credibility just went out the window. WAY out. And a "supernova from a nearby star?" If life here survived that, where's the remnants of this supernova? The nearest known supernova is SN 1987A - 168,000 light years from here! Hardly a nearby star.
JamesMorlan 2 years ago
Wow. Wonder if this guy's ever heard of a zircon.
And the punchline at the end. I guess Einstein's mathematical models are invalid without fossil evidence. lol.
ExCreationist 2 years ago
Once again I dont call science a fraud it is evolution that trys to call itself Science when it isnt science at all it is a scam. If you werent taught the lies/brain washed with evolution in school you would never believe it. You are taught to only believe evidence from peer reviewed scientific articales & jurnals ect. evidence peer reviewed by who ? humm? oh ya evolution "scientists" so they got you wraped around there finger. and they ignore and wont publish anything that proves it wrong.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
I sent you evidence from Scientists but you like all other evolutionists denie the evidence and try to explain it away with lame excuses but why? why do you guys do this? I will tell you why because evolution religion of lies preechers aka evolution scientists have you guys so brainwashed your told not to exept any evidence unless it is peer reviewed by evolution scientists humm sounds like a ponzy sceme hu? yep its a scam sorry you fell for it. The Truth is in the Bible I care so I tell you.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Nope I did alot of research and I have the best evidence and alot of it is in videos and there saved in my favorites. I know alot of evolutionists laugh and usualy attack the videos that tell the Truth because evolution is there religion and they cant handle it being disproven even thouggh it has been so many times. evolutionists are taught to not listen to evidence unless it comes from evolution preechers aka "scientists" so they ignore the truth just like evolution scientists do
coolvideo28 2 years ago
"...and they cant handle it being disproven even thouggh it has been so many times."
Funny how you take evolutionist arguments and turn them around to make them your own.
JamesMorlan 2 years ago
You said I sent you know evidence when you are right now commenting on one of the many many videos I sent you laded with evidence
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Wow Do you know how to tell the Truth AT ALL Iam soooo sick of you lying but you need to lie to prove evolution right.
Try scrolling down and see all my comments on this video go several pages down before you spread anymore lies.
I onhestly dont get it you must feel like you lost the argument like you are backed in a corner or somthing. Because at first when we started debating you seemed misguided but it didnt seem like you liesd now you lie like crazy.Its realy sad.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Awsome Video keep spreading the Truth. erol believers hate when you tell the Truth,it exposes all the lies of (erol) evolution religion of lies
coolvideo28 2 years ago
... radiometric dating can't be used anymore in order to support the evolution theory."
Evolution was accepted before dating methods were invented.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it is billions of years old
Nice video though........
gregrutz 2 years ago
They date ash layes above and below the fossil.
gregrutz 2 years ago
A 20 year old video by a guy the University of New Orleans has never heard of (Yes, I contacted UNO.)
Look here before you believe in any other stupid stuff:
answersingenesis. org/ get-answers/ topic/ arguments-we-dont-use
watch?v=w5369-OobM4
Anyone who believes this video needs to catch up with their reading. Even Creationists don't make these ridiculous claims any more.
HarshColby 2 years ago
This guy is awsome I love hearing the truth its so refreshing with so many fake scientists lieing (evolution scientists) its hard to hear the truth
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Ba dum tiss.
You can compare treerings of trees that are gradually older, basically counting back in time using older and older trees, take some time and do that for yourself.
Dendrochronologists have managed to date trees back ten thousand years.
It's knowm how to treat composite materials and things of known age have been dated accurately (in 1949).
There's generally no f'ing carbon in fossils of animals.
Stop snogging Kent Hovind.
MelleB90 2 years ago
Methuselah - The World's Oldest Tree is 4,768 years old its in the gueness book of world records so what do you call what you said? Because from were I come from we call that a lie.
There is no acurate dating method Period I can prove this they are all based on assumtions and guess work based on evolutional lies. If you searched for the Truth you would find the Bible and you would gain great knowledge. If you keep worshiping your faith the evolution religion of lies you will remain brainwashed
coolvideo28 2 years ago
The oldest tree alive, sure.
Where did you see me saying "LIVE TREES ONLY"?
Dendrochronology makes use of once-living material.
Brainwashed? You're calling a branch of archaeology (science) lies? Typical.
From where you come from they obviously didn't teach you to think for yourself but to recant things others told you.
A comment like this is sad and miserable if anything. The bible doesn't give you consolation, it brings you to an intellectual dead end if anywhere.
MelleB90 2 years ago
The Bible tells us the Begining the present and the end readit and you will learn what is happening why and what will soon happen. When you dont even know this its hard to explain more complex thing to you.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
proverbs 1:7
coolvideo28 2 years ago
React to the content of my reaction at least.
I've read the bible and I wasn't impressed.
I don't choose to get knowledge from thin air. I get my knowledge from physical evidence and reasoned logic.
You should give it a try one day, it feels liberating.
MelleB90 2 years ago
I understand completly you have been brainwashed by evolution religion of lies you have great faith in evolution religion. If Charles darwin could talk to you he would say good job! No.... No he would say turn from these lies I was wrong turn to Jesus Christ I am in Hell it is unbearable continual pain please! run from my teachings. Iam not joking and you will meet his fate if you dont turn to Jesus
coolvideo28 2 years ago
REACT TO THE CONTENT OF MY COMMENT.
I don't believe in religion, I believe in objectively proven truth based on physical evidence and reasoned logic. That has nothing to do with believing in a religion or believing in a person, let alone someone who lived 150 years ago.
I couldn't give a shit if I ended up in hell, I'd rather be in hell with the devil than with the god who WHILE he is perfect created an earth as RUINED as it is.
MelleB90 2 years ago
You shall be torchered for eternity because you want to denie Jesus Christ who was torchered and died on a cross for you? well you shall get what you want. People and satan is the reason this earth is messed up not God so many have chosen to turn from God he gives us free will we deside what to do with it.
evolution is a religion that believes we came from a rock this is what you believe? Read the truthits in the Bible.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
I thought God was almighty and loving? Not almighty and loving enough to prevent random events happening to christians and non-christians alike, eh?
Once again, react to the content and stop trying to instill fear. It's not gonna work.
Do you know the BIBLE actually states man was formed from mud and woman from a dirty rib? Way to disprove your own religion.
MelleB90 2 years ago
Iam not trying to instill fear but it is very ignorant you saying that somone warning you from impending doom is Loving not installing fear. If I was to warn you to get out of the street a bus was coming at you at 60 mph would that be instilling fear? how about telling you somone loosened the lug nuts on all your wheels of your car would that be instilling fear in you No it would be warning you so you could evade danger that is what I did I care so I tell you the truth hell is a very real place
coolvideo28 2 years ago
If you would warn me an invisible godbus from the sky someone made up a few thousand years ago was coming at me at 60 mph, I wouldn't move out of the way.
MelleB90 2 years ago
How is it a real place? Have you ever been there? Have you ever heard of anyone who was there? Have you got any evidence (the bible isn't evidence, the bible is just as much proof of hell as Harry Potter is for the existence of Hogwarts)? You know it's physically impossible to burn forever.
Hell isn't a real place, stop being afraid.
You're saying you're doubting whether or not you would tell me if you'd tell me if my car was rigged if you knew?
Loving person you are!
Or do I mean hypocrite?
MelleB90 2 years ago
MelleB90 The Bible is Gods living word read it and you will get a real education or dont read it and remain willfuly ignorant its up to you.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
This is the last time I am asking you to react to the actual content of my comments.
I conclude you don't have anything to say.
I've read the bible, I wasn't impressed.
Peace,
MelleB90 2 years ago
It is a real place because God said so you know the one who created everything that exists. Yes People have been tain in the spirit to hell and have writen books about it if you wish I could tell you some. Hell is very real if you denie Christ You will spend eternity being tortured there but its your choice. I care so I tell you the truth before its to late.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
So let me get this straight. God inspired the bible through divine intervention, but the only "evidence" this god even exists is the bible itself.
You have committed a logical fallacy called begging the question, or circular reasoning. You cannot prove something exists by saying, "it proves itself". It cannot prove itself if we cannot observe it directly.
Even if your god existed in any way, shape or form, the bible can never be proof of that god on it's own. Learn the difference.
snoman99991 2 years ago
I dont know if you are angry at God or what, but I do know you believe in him so what gives? You are very confused There is evidence For God Everywere. He created everything . Everything is Far to complex to have gotten here anyother way then a creator creation, Thinking everything got here any other way is a fairyl tale. The Bible is Gods living Word and yes Gods Perfect living Word is proof/ evidence of God, as in 2000 years not one trhing in the book can be proven wrong Id say thats evidence
coolvideo28 2 years ago
You must not be familiar with the existence of god debate to be making that many fallacies all at once.
Irreducibly complex is an argument that has been destroyed multiple times with multiple examples. I can reference dozens of youtube videos that give great evidence as such.
Not only that, but the bible itself is flawed. There are inconsistencies between the god of the old testament, and the god of the new testament. "god" also condones genocide. How is that perfect in any way?
snoman99991 2 years ago
If you want to try to show me some proof of the Bible being wrong please I beg you send it, because I have debated many on the Bible the Bible always wins it can not be proven wrong it is Gods perfect living word. 2000 years and still going strong couldnot be proven wrong even Once hummmm maybe thats because its the truth Yep thats itr read it and ask God for wisdom and understanding and you will be very wise
coolvideo28 2 years ago
First off (probably the easiest one to pick), the bible states the earth is flat, which in multiple ways is wrong. If God were perfect, his word would be perfect, or the world would in fact be flat.
Or how about the jealous and petty nature of god in the OT? Why would that god give up his son (who lol also happens to be himself) to die for sins he certainly didn't forgive before?
By definition the judeo-christian god is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent. Therefore it never changes.
snoman99991 2 years ago
snoman99991 Typical evolution religion believer Lying to try to prove your point. Show me were it says the earth is flat ????????????
God created everything he makes the rules you dont like them Hes God and you will answere to them or too Bad.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.
Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
Psalm 96:10: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...
Psalm 104:5: Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
Isaiah 45:18: ...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...
snoman99991 2 years ago
Were does it say the earth is Flat you still havent showed me or will you show me more assumptions that you make of of twisting verses to mean what you want them too.
coolvideo28 2 years ago