Can the age of a diamond be found through other tests? As for how long Carbon 14 lasts, I don't know of any process that slows radioactive decay, maybe extreme temperature or extreme speed relative to the observer. But, maybe there is a previously unknown process that occurs within diamonds? Maybe diamonds are so fascinating to look at because of this as yet unknown phenomenon. With all of these possible explanations why guess?
The truth is Carbon 14 dating does not work on diamonds.
The ICR cult tried to find evidence that decay rates of radioactive isotopes of elements can be modified by natural causes; the cult did this by quote-mining physicists, and they still failed to find any quotes that they could mangle, lie about, and fraudulently use to make the quote mean what they want it to mean and not what the physicist meant.
There are no processes in normal space-time that can modify decay rates to the extent Creationists desperately need and want.
He is wearing a chemistry t-shirt and has a dinosaur poster!
The rebel flag bears no indication of his ability to learn and understand geology, but does mean that he has a penchant toward intolerence and believing in invisible sky spooks.
We got into a bit of a pissing contest (myself and Heston83 - who I think was making a backwards movie ref to Moses as played by Charles Heston). When I sent him my creds, he sort of backpeddaled real quick. Seems someone who actually knows the technology behind isotpic dating was too much.. last straw, maybe? Nah.. I'm not that good..
Golly, that happens rather often after I make reply videos. I dunno why. He also removed his reply video. And he still insists he's not a Creationist!
Yeah, I stand by my statement. He's following the creationist playbook. Make baseless claims, then resort to personal insults when called on them, followed up by the flounce out. His flounce out was fairly weak, I was hoping for more, some sort of definitive last word. Desperate historical revisionism of the Bush era is a new tact, but not particularly interesting.
I think it is really interesting how some folks who shout the loudest about "The Truth" have such a hard time sticking to it on a personal basis, often misrepresenting themselves for the sake of promoting "The Truth" in some fashion never seeming to realize they negate themselves through their deception. I can't help but think that some major psychological tension must exist in their minds due to the cognitive dissonance necessarily arising from a crusade for truth that utilizes deception.
I think creationists think that Darwinian evolution is related to the theory that the Earth is about 6 billion years old. This about sums up the LEAST stupid thing they think.
She really hammered him; I mean, she *REALLY* tore him a new anus. It makes me very glad she isn't miffed at me.
Unfortunately I did not copy most of Heston83's comments for his own videos before he removed his videos. I was thinking of uploading his videos to YouTube, but that would violate copyright.
LMFAO!! He lost me right when he said, "I am a geologist who works a lot of times with dinosaur bones." It was downhill from there. I only minored in geology, and I suspect that I know more about rocks AND paleontology than he ever will.
Where on Earth do idiots such as this get the balls to upload such crap?? Do they really not know how STOOOOPID they look??
I dated a fossil once, myself, but it was only because she was buying.....
"Where on Earth do idiots such as this get the balls to upload such crap?"
That's a damn good question. I suppose they believe it is a holy thing when they do it to defend Creationism.
I would love to show him a piece of chert and a piece of slate and ask him which one is the fulgurite. Ha! He would probably reply "Jesus is the answer!"
I'm as prone to spelling errors as anyone else. Maybe even more so since my fingers often struggle to keep up with my mind's general breakneck train of thought. I'm not to keen on the language police thing either. But; if you're going to use derisive language against someone, and claim someone's mental capacity is beneath your own (by calling them an idiot), it's important to check your grammar.
'Your' should read as 'you're'. You didn't even spell fuckin' correctly.
But sorry to disagree DesertPhile, but geologists do study fossils, since most fossils are mineralized. (Darwin was part geologist). Donald R. Prothero, author of "Evolution:What the Fossils Say", (a great book) is a professor of geology and an expert on fossils. The two fields overlap.
To be more accurate: as a paleontologist, you will need some knowledge regardging geology, and as a geoligist, you will benefit from a certain amount of paleontological knowledge.
Thank you; you are certainly correct. Marty Leipzig for example is a petro-geologist who is also a saurianologist (if that's the correct word); he has more degrees than a thermometer factory. He also has a fondness for cigars, bourbon, and cheeseburgers. :-)
you are an evolutionist. there is no absolute dating. There are only hypotheses. The OTHER theory is that there is scientific evidence to contradict the theory of radiometric dating. No one can tell you how old anything is they can only surmise based on assumptions that are unprovable or testable. finding C-14 in diamonds is good evidence that the diamonds are not old. come on DP you know that no one is smarter than me. do a video about sailing that is something you know about.
You can say NO to the facts all you want. Actually, that is pretty much what evolutionists do most of the day anyway. Evolutionists walk around saying NO to facts shown to them that refute their made up hypothesis.
I will break it down for you. The statement was "There is no absolute truth." The words "there is no" set forth that I am about to state something that does not exist, for example: there is no god, or there is no Santa.
In order for you to prove my statement false, you must prove that absolute truth does exist. Remember, self referential statements don't have a truth value: This statement is false if you do not read it.
The whole point is that my statement excludes itself.
If you believe that absolute truth does exist then absolute dating would have to exist because there would be an absolute truth about the date. Therefore you would be wrong.
If absolute truth does not exist then my statement is obviously true and your argument about absolute dating would be the petty semantic argument that you knew it was when you made it.
There is no way to tell how old the earth is. there are ways to tell how old it is not though. for example: It is thought that diamonds take millions of years to form. It is known that C-14 cannot last millions of years. Diamonds contain C-14. Therefore diamonds are not millions of years old.
The thing about C14 is that it's contained in organic material and therefore useful for measuring the age of organic material. For measuring how old the earth is they use different methodes. One is to look for different Pb isotopes. The ratio in which they are found tells us how old the earth is and not only how old it is not. I'm only a student and my knowledge about this is small and I'm lazy of correcting people, but I know that you CAN measure the age of the earth. Go and visit Wikipedia.
"The thing about C14 is that it's contained in organic material" There should be none left in diamonds but it's there. Either the age is wrong or the assumption is wrong. However, one must be wrong.
The only assumption that is wrong is your assumption that C14 can only be formed in the atmosphere, when in fact C14 can form through exposure to radioactive materials like Uranium.
About whether radioactivity causes C14 to form? I think the physics is pretty well understood on this since it is the same reaction that you are relying on for atmospheric C14.
The U.S. NSF's PNAP did a study on this called the "Old Carbon Project." Fungal and bacterial contamination may also be a factor in the presence of C-14 traces.
not sure that sheesh is a legitimate counterargument, but if you can offer proof that the tests results were not thrown off due to fungal and bacterial contamination, I would be happy to discuss it.
Why would I look at the results of a test performed by someone who came up with those results before performing the test? The scientists who performed tests on diamonds came up with anomolous results that actually contradicted what they thought they would find.
It is you that have made assumptions. I follow the empirical evidence. You assume that diamonds are old. You assume c-14 cannot last millions of years.
I see C-14 in diamonds. It is one of your two assumptions that are wrong I made no assumptions.
Ok, right that makes sense well I guess god was wrong, because god is the cause of all assumptions. Glad we could work together to prove that god was wrong.
Once again you have to resort to making things up. Why don't you quote me reciting this straw man argument? You can't because I did not make the argument. You made up all these assumptions about diamonds and I corrected you. Good job blaming me for god's idiocy.
I didn't make up anything. the rate team found c-14 in diamonds from locations all over the globe. the tests were done by independent labs. Either they are not old or c-14 dating is incorrect.
Whie your choice dichotomy is obviously false, since there are many other possibilities including improper testing procedures, the most obvious problem with your theory is that Carbon 14 dating is not intended to be used on non-biological material. Carbon 14 dating does not work on the fossilized remains of marine animals either.
Natural gas will not work in a diesel engine. Pregnancy tests don't work for trees.
Actually I know nothing about chemistry. However the RATE team is comprised of multiple PHD scientists and the tests were completed by independent University based labs. So unless your claim is that the PHD scientists that designed the test and the independent university labs that conducted the tests are not as competent as you, then the premise that there should be no c-14 left in diamonds, is probably valid.
Your premise: there should not be c-14 in daimonds
The test results you relied on: there is c-14 in diamons
Your conclusion: everyone else is wrong but me.
Clearly, your premise about whether there should be Carbon 14 in diamonds was incorrect. You need to explain why your premise was wrong. I offered you some possible explanations, but you seem to believe that there is no explanation.
I saw that assertion by "mejc2" and I fell out of my chair from shock. 14c dating of *ORGANISMS* is due to atmospheric inhalation, which ceases when the organism dies. That has nothing at all to do with 14c in diamonds, coal, mica, iron, etc. Gods, Creationists are nuts.
I liked how he claimed that I made the assertion that diamonds should be able to be dated using Carbon 14 dating. It was a very bold claim, since anyone reading the comments can see that I never made any claims about diamonds or Carbon 14.
This is not my premise. it has been studied by the RATE team. Those scientists claim that if diamonds are millions of years old, there should be no C-14 inside. Go tell them and the labs that did the testing that they are wasting their time. They should be on You Tube apparently DP knows better.
Every element in the universe that contains carbon will contain 14c, no matter how old. That applies to diamonds on Earth that are hundreds of millions of years old. Diamonds decay into graphite: place a diamond in the atmosphere (i.e., dig it up) and it will accumulate 14c on its surface, and 14c will also embed in inclusions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So you don't understand the testing methods. that's OK I'll say it again slowly.
The diamonds were from all around the world which eliminates your contamination theory. they were tested by independent Universities which eliminates testing bias. The diamonds contained c-14 inside, which is impossible if they are millions of years old.
So either the diamonds are not old OR your assumptions about c-14 are incorrect.
The methods that are used to perform Carbon 14 dating in biological material do not work on non-biological materials and materials over 60,000 years old.
Who performed the test and where the specimens were from do not matter, because there is no way to eliminate the sources of error. The erroneous test results have nothing to do with the specific items tested.
If you get a positive test result on a pregnancy test from a tree, I guarantee that tree will still not have a baby.
"... and where the specimens were from do not matter...."
That is 100% true. Can you imagine a lab receiving industrial grade diamonds and being asked to date them?! The lab techs would have busted up with laughter, or they were filled with pity for the stupid shit that sent the samples to be tested.
Diamonds are not dated using any radiochronology techniques: the gangue diamonds are found in are.
it doesn't last as long as the supposed age of the diamonds and there is no way for it to enter the diamonds once they are formed. It has been found in diamonds from different locations around the world. Therefore ........
Only retards who do not understand physics try to get absolute dates of diamonds. That is, only Creationists retards try that: physicists do not date diamonds--- they date the gangue. Rb-Sr in garnet; Sm-Nd in garnet and pyroxene; Re-Os and U-Th-Pb in sulfide; K-Ar in pyroxene; and U-Pb in zircon. They date the inclusions, not the diamond. Archean diamonds are from 2.8 to 3.2 billion years old; Proterozoic diamonds are from 1 to 2 billion years old.
The point is that the results of the test do not prove anything. Even if the diamond gets a 180 on the IQ test, it still is not a genius. Even if the diamond has AB type blood, it still is not a person.
There are ways to tell how old the Earth is see: The Age of Our World Made Easy.
The C-14 found in diamonds is not atmospheric in origin. The Carbon in diamonds is exposed to radiation from Uranium found nearby and the amount of C-14 is directly related to the proximity of the diamond to Uranium.
Oh my no gods! How very typically Creationist of him! Well, I have most of the comments that were left for that video, and I have a copy of the video. He must have been ashamed of his video.
I fail to understand why it seems amazing that so many people are stupid. We are in Human Infancy right now. We are really not much better than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago. We still have no idea what we are doing here and we still kill each other for no reason other than greed. We are stupid because we are still young as a species and if we intend to get OLD as a speicies we better hurry up and learn a thing or three. Otherwise we will disappear into the limestone of time.
Like all reputable scientists giving learne`d lectures to the public, Heston83 wears a T-shirt and sits in his bedroom with a Confederate flag behind him while he displays his vast erudition for the world to marvel at. He is just soooo convincing!
More seriously, thanks, Desertphile, for this entertaining answer to nonsense. Keep up the good work!
There's no way this guy can call himself a "geologist" after throwing evolution into the mix. Rocks don't evolve, buddy. The can morph, but they don't "evolve".
honest with themselves? lol same rationale for Christian scientists who believe that prayer has more efficacy in dealing with diabetes than medicine and doctors.
this guy's a clown.. science isn't validated by strong gut feelings from a "Holy Spirit" or because of common sense but peer-reviewed criticism.
Creationists love to argue from "common sense" "duh" or "no brainers"
It's common sense that e=mc2 sounds like a rapper's name, but it isn't a fucking rapper. lol
did you look at his other videos he does not look like he is educated at all. he looks like nothing more than the average creationist that is more than willing to lie
DuDe !!! youre a hero >i mostly wach youre video's to now about the SHAAAMS and the FRAUUUUD's cause there's realy a lot of crap. That movie about the forgotten girlfriends was verry different i laught fore an hour,it still makes me smile so funny
Yes, you look annoyed, and with good reason. It never ceases to amaze me that these xtian fundamentalists, who supposedly venerate their holy text which condemns false witness, are the first to bear such false witness in defense of their ideology.
Who knew you could become a geologist by putting on a molecule shirt and putting up a dinosaur poster? wow! it sure sounds easy, I thought you had to get some sort of degree or something but oh boy I was wrong.
Excellent. I go to the white cliffs on the south coast of England sometimes. It's made of dead plankton accumulating over millions of years which was at THE SEA BED and rose over many MORE millions of years to get where it is today. I'm rolling my eyeballs and facepalming @ heston83's comments.
the dewartering structures are probably due to the extreme compaction of the sediment as it was buried unto tons of overlying material. it has NO bearing on the age of something, to do that you would need to estimate the rate of sedimantation and if you are lucky, find an ash deposit that can be absolutally dated.
And I apologize for the double post, but you also said "Richard Dawkins -is- a geologist!" You should have said he isn't. Maybe an annotation correction, but it's just best to be accurate.
Paleontology is bastard child of biology and geology soI don't see any problem with geologist working in dinosaur dig. Paleontological team often has multiple geologist to map the geological context of the fossils.
that said, this guy doesn't seem to understand the basic geology. jebus, I learned this stuff in my first year.
what i found interesting was the fact at points in his video heston83 was standing in front of a picture with dinosaurs, if you look closely you will see humans in the painting too. look real carefully.
creationist indeed. prolly got the painting in kentucky ;)
Why are you screaming that Dawkins "is a GEOLOGIST"? I think you meant that he's a biologist. I understand you anger over ignorance, but I think it caused you a little tongue slip ;-)
whats he got a LSD molecule on his shirt and a rebel flag LOL he looks like a skin head I bet he is stoned he looks like he's been drinking what a dumb creationist HAHA
he is so obvious attacking Dawkins he thinks Evolution is an atheist religion HAHA what a shit head
Desertphile: the answer to your last question in this video is YES you do look annoyed.
Most probably I do not look annoyed, I probably look quite pleased just now as I do rather enjoy watching when you do such a good job of exposing bunkum.
One question though. At 6:31 do you shout out that Dawkins is a Geologist? If so, slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment, clearly.
I think the Confederate flag behind that clown tells us all we need to know.
TruthNotReligion 2 years ago 3
6.28 your wrong Richard Dawkins is not a geologist he is a biologist.
Andrewkinghorn15 2 years ago
Can the age of a diamond be found through other tests? As for how long Carbon 14 lasts, I don't know of any process that slows radioactive decay, maybe extreme temperature or extreme speed relative to the observer. But, maybe there is a previously unknown process that occurs within diamonds? Maybe diamonds are so fascinating to look at because of this as yet unknown phenomenon. With all of these possible explanations why guess?
The truth is Carbon 14 dating does not work on diamonds.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago 2
The ICR cult tried to find evidence that decay rates of radioactive isotopes of elements can be modified by natural causes; the cult did this by quote-mining physicists, and they still failed to find any quotes that they could mangle, lie about, and fraudulently use to make the quote mean what they want it to mean and not what the physicist meant.
There are no processes in normal space-time that can modify decay rates to the extent Creationists desperately need and want.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Desertphile should own YouTube.
Wesleyfromindy2 2 years ago
Hahahahahahaha. Wow. Yeah, he's a geologist alright. Just like Kent Hovind taught high-school science for 15 years.
Doctrinius 2 years ago
LOL! once again desertphile wins the day!
emancoy 3 years ago
Obviously this guy is a geologist...
He is wearing a chemistry t-shirt and has a dinosaur poster!
The rebel flag bears no indication of his ability to learn and understand geology, but does mean that he has a penchant toward intolerence and believing in invisible sky spooks.
messiahjonz 3 years ago
We got into a bit of a pissing contest (myself and Heston83 - who I think was making a backwards movie ref to Moses as played by Charles Heston). When I sent him my creds, he sort of backpeddaled real quick. Seems someone who actually knows the technology behind isotpic dating was too much.. last straw, maybe? Nah.. I'm not that good..
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Ah Academic dishonesty, the creationist Signature,
Almost like Zorro`s Z but not as cool.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
"Almost like Zorro`s Z but not as cool."
ROTFL!!!!!
Desertphile 3 years ago
Score! He removed the video.
NomadSoul76 3 years ago 2
"Score! He removed the video."
Golly, that happens rather often after I make reply videos. I dunno why. He also removed his reply video. And he still insists he's not a Creationist!
Desertphile 3 years ago
"And he still insists he's not a Creationist! "
Yeah, I stand by my statement. He's following the creationist playbook. Make baseless claims, then resort to personal insults when called on them, followed up by the flounce out. His flounce out was fairly weak, I was hoping for more, some sort of definitive last word. Desperate historical revisionism of the Bush era is a new tact, but not particularly interesting.
NomadSoul76 3 years ago
"Science doesn't do truth"
Good line.
Shows why Al Gore abd GW BS is not science
SteveWrathall 3 years ago
Hehe.. yeah, ZombieGuy1. Since some also believe that the world is less than 6000 years old, the cognitive dissonance must be deafening for them :P
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
I think it is really interesting how some folks who shout the loudest about "The Truth" have such a hard time sticking to it on a personal basis, often misrepresenting themselves for the sake of promoting "The Truth" in some fashion never seeming to realize they negate themselves through their deception. I can't help but think that some major psychological tension must exist in their minds due to the cognitive dissonance necessarily arising from a crusade for truth that utilizes deception.
EartherZero 3 years ago
And WTF does "Darwinian Evolution" have to do with geology?
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
I think creationists think that Darwinian evolution is related to the theory that the Earth is about 6 billion years old. This about sums up the LEAST stupid thing they think.
ZombieGuy1 3 years ago
Well, they both fall under the "Fucks with my comfy worldview" discipline, so they're basically the same thing.
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago
Since the video is down, does anybody have a link to KTM's response video? I really want to see it but can't find it in a search.
Oh, and excellent smackdown as always DP, sometimes it's just too easy isn't it?
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago
/watch?v=dR76RbDIWz8
She really hammered him; I mean, she *REALLY* tore him a new anus. It makes me very glad she isn't miffed at me.
Unfortunately I did not copy most of Heston83's comments for his own videos before he removed his videos. I was thinking of uploading his videos to YouTube, but that would violate copyright.
Desertphile 3 years ago
LMFAO!! He lost me right when he said, "I am a geologist who works a lot of times with dinosaur bones." It was downhill from there. I only minored in geology, and I suspect that I know more about rocks AND paleontology than he ever will.
Where on Earth do idiots such as this get the balls to upload such crap?? Do they really not know how STOOOOPID they look??
I dated a fossil once, myself, but it was only because she was buying.....
anmoose 3 years ago 2
"Do they really not know how STOOOOPID they look??"
They are so dumb, they think they look smart!
CreationistComedy 3 years ago
"Where on Earth do idiots such as this get the balls to upload such crap?"
That's a damn good question. I suppose they believe it is a holy thing when they do it to defend Creationism.
I would love to show him a piece of chert and a piece of slate and ask him which one is the fulgurite. Ha! He would probably reply "Jesus is the answer!"
Desertphile 3 years ago
both of you are sad representations of your beliefs whatever they may be.
ak12543 3 years ago
The fucking idiot looks, sounds, and acts like a white supremacist scumbag Christian fascist.
NotSoOldHippy 3 years ago
"white supremacist scumbag Christian fascist."
Very redundant, that. :-)
Desertphile 3 years ago
Oh man, can you imagine? The absurdity of a "Creationist geologist" is fucking outrageous. LOL!
NotSoOldHippy 3 years ago
" your a fucken idiot "
I'm as prone to spelling errors as anyone else. Maybe even more so since my fingers often struggle to keep up with my mind's general breakneck train of thought. I'm not to keen on the language police thing either. But; if you're going to use derisive language against someone, and claim someone's mental capacity is beneath your own (by calling them an idiot), it's important to check your grammar.
'Your' should read as 'you're'. You didn't even spell fuckin' correctly.
Hockeygod98 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your a fucken idiot
grotrev 3 years ago
Great video.
But sorry to disagree DesertPhile, but geologists do study fossils, since most fossils are mineralized. (Darwin was part geologist). Donald R. Prothero, author of "Evolution:What the Fossils Say", (a great book) is a professor of geology and an expert on fossils. The two fields overlap.
dudev 3 years ago
« The two fields overlap. »
To be more accurate: as a paleontologist, you will need some knowledge regardging geology, and as a geoligist, you will benefit from a certain amount of paleontological knowledge.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
New argonomical keyboard. Sorry.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Thank you; you are certainly correct. Marty Leipzig for example is a petro-geologist who is also a saurianologist (if that's the correct word); he has more degrees than a thermometer factory. He also has a fondness for cigars, bourbon, and cheeseburgers. :-)
Desertphile 3 years ago
How can you tell when a creationist is lying?....
He claims to be telling the truth....
mobiltec 3 years ago 2
Q: Why is it NOT true that you can tell when a Christian is lying because their lips move?
A: Because some of them are ventriloquists.
theblackcelts 3 years ago
you are an evolutionist. there is no absolute dating. There are only hypotheses. The OTHER theory is that there is scientific evidence to contradict the theory of radiometric dating. No one can tell you how old anything is they can only surmise based on assumptions that are unprovable or testable. finding C-14 in diamonds is good evidence that the diamonds are not old. come on DP you know that no one is smarter than me. do a video about sailing that is something you know about.
mejc2 3 years ago
Troll
mobiltec 3 years ago
"you are an evolutionist."
No.
"there is no absolute dating."
No.
Desertphile 3 years ago
why don't you add.
there is no earth, there is no sky.
You can say NO to the facts all you want. Actually, that is pretty much what evolutionists do most of the day anyway. Evolutionists walk around saying NO to facts shown to them that refute their made up hypothesis.
mejc2 3 years ago
why don't you admit that there is no absolute truth.
You want to play semantic games about what the word age means?
Tell us, how old you are without using any "man made" time scale.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
if there is no absolute truth, then the statement that there is no absolute truth isn't absolutely true.
mejc2 3 years ago
prove it
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
you stated it. Your logic says it can't be true. Why should I prove your logic to you.
mejc2 3 years ago
If it is so easy, prove it.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
dude..... You said it. there is no absolute truth. therefore the statement cannot be true.
You shot your own foot off with that one ma man.
mejc2 3 years ago
I will break it down for you. The statement was "There is no absolute truth." The words "there is no" set forth that I am about to state something that does not exist, for example: there is no god, or there is no Santa.
In order for you to prove my statement false, you must prove that absolute truth does exist. Remember, self referential statements don't have a truth value: This statement is false if you do not read it.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
I am not claiming that your statement is false.
I'm claiming that your statement eliminates itself from being absolutely true.
mejc2 3 years ago
Sounds like you are either admitting or denying that absolute truth does exist.
Denying that absolute truth exists proves my point and makes your argument irrelevant.
Claiming that absolute truth does exist requires some further proof on your part.
Unfortunately for you there is no way for you to win this argument.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
your statement excludes itself.
If absolute truth does not exist then your statement cannot be "absolutely" true.
If absolute truth exists then your statement is just wrong.
Either way you are wrong.
I've already won the argument.
mejc2 3 years ago
The whole point is that my statement excludes itself.
If you believe that absolute truth does exist then absolute dating would have to exist because there would be an absolute truth about the date. Therefore you would be wrong.
If absolute truth does not exist then my statement is obviously true and your argument about absolute dating would be the petty semantic argument that you knew it was when you made it.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
I believe that absolute truth exists. However, I do not believe it is within our capacity to find it in all cases.
mejc2 3 years ago
Do you believe that we have found it in any case?
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
in simple matters and simple statements, yes I do. However in most things I do not.
mejc2 3 years ago
how about the age of the Earth?
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
There is no way to tell how old the earth is. there are ways to tell how old it is not though. for example: It is thought that diamonds take millions of years to form. It is known that C-14 cannot last millions of years. Diamonds contain C-14. Therefore diamonds are not millions of years old.
Easy peasy, Lemon squeezy.
mejc2 3 years ago
The thing about C14 is that it's contained in organic material and therefore useful for measuring the age of organic material. For measuring how old the earth is they use different methodes. One is to look for different Pb isotopes. The ratio in which they are found tells us how old the earth is and not only how old it is not. I'm only a student and my knowledge about this is small and I'm lazy of correcting people, but I know that you CAN measure the age of the earth. Go and visit Wikipedia.
schneemann1991 3 years ago
"The thing about C14 is that it's contained in organic material" There should be none left in diamonds but it's there. Either the age is wrong or the assumption is wrong. However, one must be wrong.
mejc2 3 years ago
The only assumption that is wrong is your assumption that C14 can only be formed in the atmosphere, when in fact C14 can form through exposure to radioactive materials like Uranium.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
You are wrong. Check out the Rate team results.
mejc2 3 years ago
About whether radioactivity causes C14 to form? I think the physics is pretty well understood on this since it is the same reaction that you are relying on for atmospheric C14.
The U.S. NSF's PNAP did a study on this called the "Old Carbon Project." Fungal and bacterial contamination may also be a factor in the presence of C-14 traces.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
We are talking about diamonds here. the hardest substance on the planet. Fungal and bacterial contamination? Sheesh.
Check out the Rate Team results.
mejc2 3 years ago
not sure that sheesh is a legitimate counterargument, but if you can offer proof that the tests results were not thrown off due to fungal and bacterial contamination, I would be happy to discuss it.
Why would I look at the results of a test performed by someone who came up with those results before performing the test? The scientists who performed tests on diamonds came up with anomolous results that actually contradicted what they thought they would find.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
Maybe the polonium halos are case by all the angels sitting on pin heads.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
case?
mejc2 3 years ago
does it really matter?
Words do not express fact.
He who accepts words is lost, he who adheres to phrases is deluded.
Can you answer without an answer?
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
Not in your fantasy world.
mejc2 3 years ago
I live in a fantasy world, lol.
When C14 decays into Nitrogen inside a diamond, what happens to the diamond?
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
There should be no c-14 in diamonds it's there .
Sorry charlie.
mejc2 3 years ago
That proves your assumptions are wrong. Don't blame me that you have mistaken assumptions.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
It is you that have made assumptions. I follow the empirical evidence. You assume that diamonds are old. You assume c-14 cannot last millions of years.
I see C-14 in diamonds. It is one of your two assumptions that are wrong I made no assumptions.
mejc2 3 years ago
Ok, right that makes sense well I guess god was wrong, because god is the cause of all assumptions. Glad we could work together to prove that god was wrong.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
That, my friend, is funny.
I have to remember that one.
You make a mistake and it is God's fault for creating you stupid.
Great stuff.
Thank you.
mejc2 2 years ago
Once again you have to resort to making things up. Why don't you quote me reciting this straw man argument? You can't because I did not make the argument. You made up all these assumptions about diamonds and I corrected you. Good job blaming me for god's idiocy.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
I didn't make up anything. the rate team found c-14 in diamonds from locations all over the globe. the tests were done by independent labs. Either they are not old or c-14 dating is incorrect.
mejc2 2 years ago
Whie your choice dichotomy is obviously false, since there are many other possibilities including improper testing procedures, the most obvious problem with your theory is that Carbon 14 dating is not intended to be used on non-biological material. Carbon 14 dating does not work on the fossilized remains of marine animals either.
Natural gas will not work in a diesel engine. Pregnancy tests don't work for trees.
Learn something about chemistry.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
Actually I know nothing about chemistry. However the RATE team is comprised of multiple PHD scientists and the tests were completed by independent University based labs. So unless your claim is that the PHD scientists that designed the test and the independent university labs that conducted the tests are not as competent as you, then the premise that there should be no c-14 left in diamonds, is probably valid.
mejc2 2 years ago
You might want to read over your comment again.
Your premise: there should not be c-14 in daimonds
The test results you relied on: there is c-14 in diamons
Your conclusion: everyone else is wrong but me.
Clearly, your premise about whether there should be Carbon 14 in diamonds was incorrect. You need to explain why your premise was wrong. I offered you some possible explanations, but you seem to believe that there is no explanation.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
I saw that assertion by "mejc2" and I fell out of my chair from shock. 14c dating of *ORGANISMS* is due to atmospheric inhalation, which ceases when the organism dies. That has nothing at all to do with 14c in diamonds, coal, mica, iron, etc. Gods, Creationists are nuts.
Desertphile 2 years ago
I liked how he claimed that I made the assertion that diamonds should be able to be dated using Carbon 14 dating. It was a very bold claim, since anyone reading the comments can see that I never made any claims about diamonds or Carbon 14.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
"...I never made any claims about diamonds or Carbon 14."
Well, he had to imagine SOMETHING he could attack (however feebly). You left him with nothing else.
Desertphile 2 years ago
This is not my premise. it has been studied by the RATE team. Those scientists claim that if diamonds are millions of years old, there should be no C-14 inside. Go tell them and the labs that did the testing that they are wasting their time. They should be on You Tube apparently DP knows better.
Sheesh DP
do a video on sailing .
mejc2 2 years ago
So you believe that there should be Carbon 14 inside diamonds?
Now your position is this:
RATE claims: There should be no Carbon 14 inside a diamond
RATE claims: We found Carbon 14 inside a diamond
RATE CONCLUSION: We were right?
Sounds like the RATE team started with a premise that was wrong. I still have no idea why this is a problem for me.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
you are really slow.
1. there should be no c-14 in diamonds if they are old.
2. there is c-14 in diamonds
3. Either the diamonds are not old or the c-14 can last a lot longer than expected.
simple, why can't you get this.
mejc2 2 years ago
There is a reason that RATE detected Carbon 14 in diamonds. Here are some possibilities:
1. The specimens tested were contaminated.
2. The test was performed improperly.
3. The Carbon 14 was formed through exposure to radioactive elements in the ground nearby.
4. The Carbon 14 was formed through exposure to radiation from a source other than elements in the ground.
5. The diamonds tested were formed recently and there are other diamonds that don't contain Carbon 14.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago 2
Every element in the universe that contains carbon will contain 14c, no matter how old. That applies to diamonds on Earth that are hundreds of millions of years old. Diamonds decay into graphite: place a diamond in the atmosphere (i.e., dig it up) and it will accumulate 14c on its surface, and 14c will also embed in inclusions.
Desertphile 2 years ago
1. specimens were from different parts of the planet.
2. The tests were performed by independent University laboratories.
3. See 1.
4. See 1.
5. Then the diamonds aren't old that is a possibility.
mejc2 2 years ago
So you agree that there are a lot of reasons why improper results were obtained and that clearly Carbon 14 dating does not work on diamonds.
Like I said, pregnancy tests don't work on trees.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you don't understand the testing methods. that's OK I'll say it again slowly.
The diamonds were from all around the world which eliminates your contamination theory. they were tested by independent Universities which eliminates testing bias. The diamonds contained c-14 inside, which is impossible if they are millions of years old.
So either the diamonds are not old OR your assumptions about c-14 are incorrect.
See logic, it's easy give it a try.
mejc2 2 years ago
The methods that are used to perform Carbon 14 dating in biological material do not work on non-biological materials and materials over 60,000 years old.
Who performed the test and where the specimens were from do not matter, because there is no way to eliminate the sources of error. The erroneous test results have nothing to do with the specific items tested.
If you get a positive test result on a pregnancy test from a tree, I guarantee that tree will still not have a baby.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago 3
"Who performed the test...."
...if it happened at all...
"... and where the specimens were from do not matter...."
That is 100% true. Can you imagine a lab receiving industrial grade diamonds and being asked to date them?! The lab techs would have busted up with laughter, or they were filled with pity for the stupid shit that sent the samples to be tested.
Diamonds are not dated using any radiochronology techniques: the gangue diamonds are found in are.
Desertphile 2 years ago
The tests were performed by independant university labs, to eliminate bias.
The diamond samples were from different locations, to eliminate contamination.
They contained c-14 inside which can supposedly only last thousands of years.
Either the diamonds were not old or our assumptions about c-14 are wrong.
mejc2 2 years ago
Repeating the same claims over and over won't change anything. They already said these facts you mentioned don't matter.
Mithcoriel 2 years ago 2
"there should be no c-14 in diamonds if they are old. "
Okay, I give up: why not?
Desertphile 2 years ago
it doesn't last as long as the supposed age of the diamonds and there is no way for it to enter the diamonds once they are formed. It has been found in diamonds from different locations around the world. Therefore ........
mejc2 2 years ago
Only retards who do not understand physics try to get absolute dates of diamonds. That is, only Creationists retards try that: physicists do not date diamonds--- they date the gangue. Rb-Sr in garnet; Sm-Nd in garnet and pyroxene; Re-Os and U-Th-Pb in sulfide; K-Ar in pyroxene; and U-Pb in zircon. They date the inclusions, not the diamond. Archean diamonds are from 2.8 to 3.2 billion years old; Proterozoic diamonds are from 1 to 2 billion years old.
Desertphile 2 years ago
If they are that old how does c-14 still exist inside?
See DP no one is trying to date the diamonds here.
Either the diamonds are not old OR your assumptions about c-14 are incorrect.
you are kind of like the androids that followed Harry Mudd around, Unable to handle anything that contradicts your programming.
mejc2 2 years ago
"If they are that old how does c-14 still exist inside?"
No.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Tests that don't work on diamonds:
Blood test
Pregnancy test
Ph test
IQ test
The point is that the results of the test do not prove anything. Even if the diamond gets a 180 on the IQ test, it still is not a genius. Even if the diamond has AB type blood, it still is not a person.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago 3
There are ways to tell how old the Earth is see: The Age of Our World Made Easy.
The C-14 found in diamonds is not atmospheric in origin. The Carbon in diamonds is exposed to radiation from Uranium found nearby and the amount of C-14 is directly related to the proximity of the diamond to Uranium.
The Earth is not the same age as a diamond.
Good thing easy isn't always correct.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
he just deleted his video
kunkuno 3 years ago
"he just deleted his video"
Oh my no gods! How very typically Creationist of him! Well, I have most of the comments that were left for that video, and I have a copy of the video. He must have been ashamed of his video.
Desertphile 3 years ago
ashamed... i cant see that on a creationist
but i was specting that to happen soon or later
kunkuno 3 years ago
This video really caught me off guard. It gave me areally good laugh though. =D It just shows that you really have to pay attention to EVERYTHING.
chick5581 3 years ago
Awesome job pwning this wingnut!
PanamaJackson 3 years ago
classic DP video here! this is so damn funny and amazing people are so stupid...
beenpimped31 3 years ago
I fail to understand why it seems amazing that so many people are stupid. We are in Human Infancy right now. We are really not much better than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago. We still have no idea what we are doing here and we still kill each other for no reason other than greed. We are stupid because we are still young as a species and if we intend to get OLD as a speicies we better hurry up and learn a thing or three. Otherwise we will disappear into the limestone of time.
mobiltec 3 years ago
"I fail to understand why it seems amazing that so many people are stupid."
I fail to see how these asshole Creationist bastards (thrice redundant) believe EVERYONE is as stupid as they are.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Like all reputable scientists giving learne`d lectures to the public, Heston83 wears a T-shirt and sits in his bedroom with a Confederate flag behind him while he displays his vast erudition for the world to marvel at. He is just soooo convincing!
More seriously, thanks, Desertphile, for this entertaining answer to nonsense. Keep up the good work!
Puchicas9 3 years ago
Yes.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
same fucking augments from these people ,they are so annoying , and this little shit claiming to be a scientist it is very dishonest
sausage4mash 3 years ago
geology shmeology
/shrug/
MeIoco 3 years ago
Hestons T-shirt contains more science than his entire video :-) Poor lying bastard, he's going to hell.
Finkeren 3 years ago
There's no way this guy can call himself a "geologist" after throwing evolution into the mix. Rocks don't evolve, buddy. The can morph, but they don't "evolve".
Relyt22 3 years ago
Amazing... First 10 seconds of Heston's video he exposes himself as a ignorant liar.
Seriously, if you are going to lie, at least get the right field of study down before you go making your ignorant claims...
Freshmanrob 3 years ago
honest with themselves? lol same rationale for Christian scientists who believe that prayer has more efficacy in dealing with diabetes than medicine and doctors.
this guy's a clown.. science isn't validated by strong gut feelings from a "Holy Spirit" or because of common sense but peer-reviewed criticism.
Creationists love to argue from "common sense" "duh" or "no brainers"
It's common sense that e=mc2 sounds like a rapper's name, but it isn't a fucking rapper. lol
Awesome video!
tubeheadz1 3 years ago
did you look at his other videos he does not look like he is educated at all. he looks like nothing more than the average creationist that is more than willing to lie
nailo1 3 years ago
Busted!
Marcusisit 3 years ago
Wonderfully done, keep the fight against stupidity strong...
damicuis 3 years ago
That creationist looks stoned.
isreasontaboo 3 years ago
Obvious creationist, is Obvious
tricky159 3 years ago
As an Astrophysicist and former Astronaut I discovered the young leather clad rockabilly Elvis to be cooler than the fat, sell out Vegas Elvis..
SofaKingLoaded 3 years ago 2
lmao, love it DP, great vid.
NoSz4 3 years ago
a geologist with a rebel flag behind him. nice! : D He kinda loses credibility right there..lol.
HergerSeamas 3 years ago
I would say he lost credibility as soon as he appeared in a video trying to sound smart while clearly stoned on something or another...
damicuis 3 years ago
usually I can watch you tear a new one in any scientifically illiterate person, but this one is just sad. I can't even finish the video.
DonHoraldo 3 years ago
at 6:30 did you say dawkins was a Geologist?
AnonaThetan 3 years ago
DuDe !!! youre a hero >i mostly wach youre video's to now about the SHAAAMS and the FRAUUUUD's cause there's realy a lot of crap. That movie about the forgotten girlfriends was verry different i laught fore an hour,it still makes me smile so funny
firefoxwizard 3 years ago
Yes, you look annoyed, and with good reason. It never ceases to amaze me that these xtian fundamentalists, who supposedly venerate their holy text which condemns false witness, are the first to bear such false witness in defense of their ideology.
klangsteiner 3 years ago
swweet
Diamondsays1 3 years ago
Guilty as charged of bare-faced lying in the first degree, and being too stupid to realise that it would be obvious.
Don't think God will be happy with him for making Christianity look like a barrel of liars, AGAIN!
philhellenes 3 years ago
If god exists and is omnipotent, he already knows christians are a pack of liars.
RevKentHovind 3 years ago
Again a really fine video from Desertphile.
Flapjackbatter 3 years ago
LOL nice flag Douche
ragetony 3 years ago
hah that was great.
also i love how he had a molecule shirt to help make it look like he knew what he was talking about .
petieee 3 years ago 3
Who knew you could become a geologist by putting on a molecule shirt and putting up a dinosaur poster? wow! it sure sounds easy, I thought you had to get some sort of degree or something but oh boy I was wrong.
labrat882 3 years ago 2
Oh yeah... add in a few 10's of thousands of years for the ice age to break and expose the cliffs.
kentmage 3 years ago
Excellent. I go to the white cliffs on the south coast of England sometimes. It's made of dead plankton accumulating over millions of years which was at THE SEA BED and rose over many MORE millions of years to get where it is today. I'm rolling my eyeballs and facepalming @ heston83's comments.
kentmage 3 years ago
the dewartering structures are probably due to the extreme compaction of the sediment as it was buried unto tons of overlying material. it has NO bearing on the age of something, to do that you would need to estimate the rate of sedimantation and if you are lucky, find an ash deposit that can be absolutally dated.
TheProf1988 3 years ago
Lol, you yelled "Richard dawkins is a GEOLOGIST". Did you misspoke or didnt I just get it?
latuman 3 years ago 3
Did you shout "Richard Dawkins is a geologist!" at 6:25 ? xD
DerCrossi 3 years ago 3
I love the RAEG!!!!! MOAR!!!
so awesome
manan0nim0us4 3 years ago
why do you waste your time on these crackpots mr desertphile?
ApopheniaIV 3 years ago
yeS a DEBuKN VIDEO
LUVIN IT AHAHahah
erdal0 3 years ago
this so called geologist is amusing
Atheist001 3 years ago
It's not even a real flag of the CSA.
lamnaa 3 years ago
DP Rocks,
while stoning Creationists
and phony Geologists.
Airave 3 years ago
Lets be fair. Maybe he thinks finding a rock in his back yard and knowing its limestone makes him a geologist.
Crosisborg 3 years ago 5
I thought "radio metrics" was used to determine distance and velocity, not age by radioactive decay. Is that right?
NoWattz 3 years ago
Yet again,more good work!!!
BloodonaBible 3 years ago
Also, is that supposed to be a nucleotide on his shirt? The irony is strong in this one....
lwahlberg100 3 years ago 2
My head hurts from the stupid.
"Durr hurr....I iz a jeeologist!"
Ugh.
lwahlberg100 3 years ago 2
His other flag is the Texas state flag.
justintempler 3 years ago
Comment removed
rich0319726 3 years ago
And I apologize for the double post, but you also said "Richard Dawkins -is- a geologist!" You should have said he isn't. Maybe an annotation correction, but it's just best to be accurate.
Ethrock 3 years ago
Your description says "fuctard's" it should say "fucktard's". Great video as always DP keep 'em comin'!
Ethrock 3 years ago
Paleontology is bastard child of biology and geology soI don't see any problem with geologist working in dinosaur dig. Paleontological team often has multiple geologist to map the geological context of the fossils.
that said, this guy doesn't seem to understand the basic geology. jebus, I learned this stuff in my first year.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
what i found interesting was the fact at points in his video heston83 was standing in front of a picture with dinosaurs, if you look closely you will see humans in the painting too. look real carefully.
creationist indeed. prolly got the painting in kentucky ;)
hellshade2 3 years ago
Why are you screaming that Dawkins "is a GEOLOGIST"? I think you meant that he's a biologist. I understand you anger over ignorance, but I think it caused you a little tongue slip ;-)
Akatam0t0ma 3 years ago 3
Excellent! A knowledgeable response!
Darwinsgift 3 years ago 2
Oh... and yes, do you seem to be just a tad annoyed.
mordinvan 3 years ago
I would really like to know this clown's credentials. A layer of sandstone with 2 separate layers of limestone in it.... and its not ancient?
How can you can lime stone under sandstone, and not have it being VERY old?
mordinvan 3 years ago
"How can you can lime stone under sandstone, and not have it being VERY old?"
Simple. Hire Disney Studios. They can build it for you in a week. :-)
anmoose 3 years ago
They can make something that looks like it from about 5 feet away... but to a trained geologist... might be a little harder.
mordinvan 3 years ago
Welcome back to the fray. He may be a geologist, but he gives us real geologists a bad name!
What an idiot. Have a few glasses of your homemade wine and chill. I think I will do the same.
Really, what a moron.
157626 3 years ago
whats he got a LSD molecule on his shirt and a rebel flag LOL he looks like a skin head I bet he is stoned he looks like he's been drinking what a dumb creationist HAHA
he is so obvious attacking Dawkins he thinks Evolution is an atheist religion HAHA what a shit head
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
It's actually not an LSD molecule. It's a testosterone molecule.
h8uall66 3 years ago
LOL thats even worse hes a steroid junkie he must have a tiny wang and a ton of hemorrhoids LOL
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
Desertphile: the answer to your last question in this video is YES you do look annoyed.
Most probably I do not look annoyed, I probably look quite pleased just now as I do rather enjoy watching when you do such a good job of exposing bunkum.
One question though. At 6:31 do you shout out that Dawkins is a Geologist? If so, slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment, clearly.
GeeKayKayGee 3 years ago 2
desertphile: despite your claims you should know that the real ugly geologists and biologists will date ANYTHING.
ooolikujy 3 years ago 5
5:49.
Confederate flag in background. Coincidence?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 3
Well, he's the geologist so he should know if there are problems with radiometric dating... or maybe, just maybe, he's just another creationist liar.
baraqiyal 3 years ago
Aaaah. I bask in the warm glow of rationality.
OminousVoice 3 years ago 2
Just what we need another pretend scientist.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago 3
Patriot Bible University has geology degrees now?
justintempler 3 years ago 2
he means he has rocks in his head and that his brain has fossilized.
ooolikujy 3 years ago