The constancy of atomic decay rates is based on observed evidence.
The analogy you are attempting to draw is false, but if decay rates had been thousands of times faster in the past, which would be required for a young earth to jibe with the data, the Garden of Eden would have been molten and more radioactive than Chernobyl.
Entertaining fanciful ideas without thinking them through to their logical conclusion is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.
We have enough transittional fossils to replace every brick in vatican city. We have more fossils older than 6000 years than there are sentences in the bible.
Did I seriously just here an evolutionists use the argument of variable deposition rates? How completely and utterly hypocritical. They are going to claim we don't know that the rates have always been the same for moon dust but when it comes to parent to daughter isotopes in decay rates with Rubidium Strontium, Uranium, various Lead methods and Carbon dating when dating fossils they won't dare allow for that. But I guess really why should I be surprised?
On polystrat trees, the 7 or so deposits surrounding the tree, are not necessarily from one flood deposit containing different stone. Trees can sometimes stay stood up right for 1000s of years depending on environment and varios other factors. There could be 7 flood deposits, and each deposit containing one layer of that which is surrounding the tree, a tree would have no problem withstanding a dozen catastrophic events. Good video, what you said was allso accurate
Yet another example of don exodus propaganda. Polystrate fossils are a very good example of an evolutionary assumption coming undone. They have been found extending up through many sedimentary layers and through multiple separated coal seams.
@TheZooCrew How, this video talks about Superficial appearance(what he thinks), and what about the Bible, it has artifacts that are widely known, for instance the money coin of the leader Caesar and many more, just read the book of Matt and manY More
"what about the Bible, it has artifacts that are widely known"
Harry Potter contains real places. Meaningless argument.
"this video talks about Superficial appearance(what he thinks),"
You twit. DonExodus' opinion plays no part in this video. He is merely showing what is indisputably true about "polystrate" fossils. Scientists don't just make shit up. If they did, they'd be called creationists.
Funny. This video doesn't mention the creation of polystrate tree fossils in Spirit lake, near Mount St. Helen. Good science should be observable, and we can observe the creation of polystrate trees in Spirit lake.
It's funny how this guy avoid the use of real pictures of polystrata fossils.
This guy is more dishonest than the creationists he tries to debunk lol
btw, this "explanation" does not fit with observations in joggins, were polystrata logs simply appear without the special DonExodus surrounding, but a geological formation hundreds of meters long (or tall, it's tilted anyway), it is obvious that joggins formation was made in a short period of time.
If "all the mud was the same date" it is not a polystrate fossil. You shouldn't even make a video if you can't make one with some semblance of intelligence.
...We see huge trees...bark and roots ripped off as the result of tumbling, all over the world, buried deep in the earth. We saw the same thing at Mt. St. Helens, huge trees transported then bobbing upright in Sprit Lake, thier bark and roots ripped completely off. DON EXODUS....who do you you think your kidding? lol
@odinata ...My friend Dr. Walter Veith de-bunked the nonsense in this video 20 years ago, you people don't care about facts, what you do care about is drawing people into your naturalist philosophy. The alchemists have been at this for centuries seeing themselves as some sort of illuminated new world man, aka cannabis addicts hooked on the occult. That is all this stuff really is...Aaron Ra is another one, "walking like an Egyptian". The Egyptians were using DMT.
@odinata ...Walter has been doing this for a long time.....long before Don Exodus finished elementry school. Naturalist philosophy is centuries old....google it's history, Darwin, his dad as well as guys like Francis Bacon were all subscibers, and people think drug use is something new.
And yet NONE of Vieth's ideas have made it into the Universities, and all of DonExodus proofs are found in the real science of the real world.
It would seem that anyone that doesn't share your personal religious opinions (and that would be 99.8% of the rest of the planets population) are to be demonized and ridiculed by you.
Oh well. When you wake up tomorrow, science is what will be taught in every university on Earth, and not your mystical mumbo jumbo.
Don, the trees do go through several strata, it is just that the layers were laid down rapidly or like the creationist say, 'the tree would have rotted'' The rapid covering is the only part they got right. "... layers that evolutionists say took millions of years'' IS A LIE. Those bastards.
Nice..... in an attempt to disprove creationist claims, this video actually makes the case that a 'flood' would be responsible for creating this phenomenom- ironic.
Flooding has always been one phenomenon responsible for sedimentation and is a part of sedimentology. It's only ironic if the basis of the science which ended up building evidence towards an old earth using common phenomena, over the catastrophic and unseen phenomenon of global flooding, is ironic. The unrealistically large flooding is the contention, not flooding itself. Dry and wet sedimentation also bury modern trees vertically.
@123rani321 Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating showed it was Billions of years old.
Nice video. As a geologist can tell you the word Polystrate is not a geological term. We use the term in-situ which means in place. I actually watched a video by Carl Baugh who made the claim that he could has never found the term Polystrate in any geological text and that this was evidence of science trying to hide the evidence. I wrote him to explain that geologist use the word in-situ and that on his next show he should make this correction. Of coarse I never got a response.
@momentofsciencetx Polystrate simply means multiple layers. And it's not our fault if they refuse to use the term, or use a different one. It is a simple to understand term, and is mostly used by creationists because evolutionists rarely discuss this common observation. Terminology aside, the fact is that this occurs around the globe and is observable, your point is moot. Would people quit believing what they watch on the tube and actually go out and look for themselves please
@AdonaiYHWH the term in-situ is used. This is the term used by scientist, geologist like myself. Just because creationist use a word and not find it in science text doesn't mean science is ignoring this "common observation" . You can find the discussion of this observation in science text that date back to the 1800's. As for myself I am a geologist I have worked in the field and have observed this. We know how it occurs. rapid deposition. You can observe this happening today!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I would like everyone to notice that's he's showing you his ILLUSTRATION. Not the real pictures. This is a common tactic by evolutionists.
I've got real pictures here, and on my website, of petrified trees running through multiple rock layers. I also have one running through two different coal seams. If you want to BELIEVE those trees don't run through multiple layers you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it part of science just because you want to believe it.
@DonExodus2 "I would give the rebuttal, but its obvious to anyone having watched the video." You aren't fooling me, let's hear it. What a 'sneaky' avoidance tactic. Everyone can understand from looking at photographs too, well, almost everyone.
@momentofsciencetx - it was DonExodus who didn't want to give a rebuttal, not me. But I will anyway, of course it happened rapidly, All organisms have to be buried rapidly in order to become fossils, anything that dies naturally above ground will decompose quickly, that is fact using evidence, which supports the flood. (not all fossils come from the great flood, fossilization still happens). Don't twist reality by saying this is an alternative when it uses the same evidence.
@AdonaiYHWH you must think all fossils are soft bodied. The vast majority are not. What is the rate of decomposition for a sea shell? What is the rate of decomposition of a bone? What about petrified wood? The vast majority of fossils found do not decompose quickly at all. Take a geology class. You have been educated.
@HimesInu Another doctrinated cult member. Yes, if you have nothing to say call them asshole instead of proving them wrong.. Who is don? I bet you'd suck his cock for a used lollipop..
@gianboy2001 Don Exodus. And I didn't call you a moron, I was warning you against looking or making yourself into an asshole. And since you didn't bring anything, there was nothing to disprove. And why the personal insult? Is that really the best you can do?
@HimesInu I guess thats not personal insult.. after all atheist doesnt have a moral foundation... my point is that not all petrified trees are what explained in the video.. you didn't warn me you said "you are doing" if you know what it means you wouldn't say you are warning me.. thats already assuming that I am an asshole. how old are you??? And how calling someone a liar an asshole when in fact what your lead don said is not all true?
@gianboy2001 I didn't call you an asshole. I said you're making yourself look like an asshole. If you can't see the difference, then that's your problem.
@creationliberty Kindly refer to potholer54debunks video on this topic for how your two coal seams for the tree do not represent a problem.
/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
Coal is formed from large accumulations of plant matter under pressure, which easily form in swamps. Two coal seams simply means an older deposit of swamp vegetation and then another shortly there after, nothing more.
Yes, I've seen the real pictures. In fact, I've seen the real trees. Now, here's the funny thing: a lot of those trees have their fine rootlet systems intact. That would be impossible for an uprooted tree; these trees grew in place. The problem for Creationists is that those rootlets extend through many layers of "Flood sediment." If the Flood model is correct, that means they took root and grew to full size during the Flood, which is just a BIT hard to swallow.
@creationliberty Absolutely, they know that if they used actually evidence that everyone would see how bogus it is. They choose to believe only what they want, and not what is there, an illustration proves absolutely nothing, and pay attention when watching any evolution program, that's the majority of their evidence, even in the textbooks. Let me go draw up a few of my own to use as evidence. This video is a major FAIL. Look up the Petrified Forest National Park for 1
This is too rich. Creationists object to uniformitarianism by claiming there may have been catastrophic events that altered the speed by which geological structures were formed.
Now the situation is reversed. With moon dust, the current rate of deposition supports creationists' dates; and here we have an evolutionist saying, "No fair, no fair! You don't know what happened in the past that may have altered the rate that the moon dust was layed down!"
@CaptainCrunchOwns your analogy is a false one. The moon undergoes a completely different system for deposition. For one it doesnt have an atmosphere. Impacts from meteorites etc (MUCH more common) alter the rate of particulate matter when they impact. So on the moon it is not a steady process. Further, large impacts can actually strip dust off the moon. The point is, creationist arguments make unjustified assumptions, so thus are their conclusions.
Do you know, the first time I heard this argument re moon dust, it took me a few minutes to work out that without an atmosphere, a radiocactive core, sod all gravity and high exposure to meteor assault- that the moon is somewhat different to the Earth. In fact, I note that even AiG has recommended creationists ditch this argument cos it can't hold water.
@ozowen I don't doubt the creationists' argument is completely bunk with the moon dust. However, the way Don answers it is ridiculous and extremely reminiscent of creationist answers to modern geological dating methods.
I.e., the creationist might say to the modern geologist, "You're assuming a constant rate of sedimentary deposition!" Hence, I say this video is ironic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm sorry, but this video does a poor job in refuting the arguments. Does anyone know of a better video on YouTube that explains this? If so, please link...or is this really the best rebuttal old-earth scientists can come up with?
You think you know so much of the world, yet you know so little. Shrink your ego and be a little open minded here. Have you even considered any religion as a possibility? Don't be ignorant of the spiritual world, science is coming up with a theory of everything binding physics with the spiritual truths. How can you be so certain of something after realizing that you know so little of the universe, as an evangelistic atheist you should understand that. Sorry but probability is in spiritual favor.
You heard me, atheism is the only world religion completely oblivious to the obviously existent spiritual and paranormal truths of this realm. Has it ever crossed your mind that not even the most intelligent and educated scientists don't understand all of the workings of physics, chemistry, biology or any science for that matter. So if they don't understand it all how can you put complete faith in them. You won't be able to disregard spiritual truths for long thanks to the measuring problem. : )
I speak of the ego you've displayed here, since I don't know you in person. All I have to go off of is what you have said, how you said it and the perspective you said it from(atheistic).
Science doesn't ignore everything outside of nature, atheists ignore everything outside of nature and anything spiritual in nature, that is you "religion" so to speak.
If that's the way you see it why not be eclectic of your beliefs and proceed to learn and grow instead of saying F that and being ignorant?
It doesn't mean I take anything back, it means you previously misinterpreted what I said and now you understand, but I doubt you do.
To make things clearer, when I said science i meant the laws of science. When I said spiritual I meant God, paranormal, ghosts, demons, etc. So after that you should now understand that what I was trying to say is that science does not discriminate or shed darkness on this stuff (it can't), our scientists do.
I hold no religion, but i have my idea of God. I don't know what to tell you. I'll let you imagine i hold some religion so you can dream about your epic win.
You try to clarify what you meant. But you still don't show me anything.
You said Science (whatever you mean by that) doesn't ignore what's outside of Natura (whatever you mean by that).
I have showed you so many times. It's not that I have failed to explain it to you but that you have failed to understand. You can figure it out by rereading my comments until you finally become enlightened of the simple principle i was trying to teach you. I'm done with you, nigga u's soft :)
Yeah, some creationists do say stuff like that as do atheists, good thing I'm neither. : )
And I'm sorry that I can never show you evidence for this, it's roots are in philosophy. It's an understanding. There are limits of understanding in this world that science will never be able to answer. Thus metaphysics is born connecting science(physics) & philosophy(spiritual). Think of science as objective reality and philosophy as subjective reality. We need both that's why we have 2 brain hemispheres
You talked about the power of god that defies physics, or something like that. And now you say you're not a creationist. Ok, whatever.
No, it's not an understanding. It's a lack of it. You said Science does NOT ignore what's outside of nature. Now you're saying something that looks like the opposite (the things that Science will never be able to answer).
Sience DOES ignore what's outside of nature. If you want to deny this FACT, do so by presenting FACTS.
Well by science I meant it in reference to all of existence physical and non physical. It just so happens that when people talk about science of the non physical you kind of cross over into philosophy and enter the realm of metaphysics, however they used to be one subject and if you think about it science, philosophy and metaphysics are all pieces of the same thing and are all needed in the formula to find the answers of life. So I would say science = philosophy = metaphysics
I'm sorry about that, I figured science was the study and logical analysis of something, I guess science falls under philosophy and metaphysics. But even so, I have to point out that I made a mistake earlier. I said science can prove what's outside of nature, what I should of said is science can prove things that are beyond the known physical nature.
Check out this video series I think you'll like it.
OK, so you don't know what Science is. That's clear.
Science isn't Logic, or vice versa (even though Science uses Logic).
Even with this new changed statement, you're still wrong. Science can't prove that, or anything else because it doesn't deal with 'proof' (another demonstration that you don't know what Science is).
Your bearded guy is cool. He gets it. He said he brought his 'Scientific attitude and scientific approach to my study of consciousness'.
"You can never explain the larger system in terms of the subsystem."
That's taken out of context, I can't imagine him saying that without the following.
- And so we must explore through the larger system
Plus, haven't you ever noticed that everything that is now in (understood nature) used to be in (unknown paranormal). That's what science is for, shifting understanding from the paranormal to nature. Being able to understand stuff.
Well I think the answer lies in several places, sort of spread throughout the corners of this realm. But I think that the closest we have come in terms of paranormal investigation would have to do with, out of body experiences, the measuring, and some hallucinogens said to bridge spiritual realms (which i now say are part of nature as well) like DMT. Also the penal gland atop of the head, DNA decoding. That's why I sent you that video. Do you really think the other guy Emoto is a fraud tho?
Well perhaps all of those things are indeed fake, however if they are so interesting and mysterious then why is there so little investigation on these particular fields? What of the geometrical pasterns formed under hallucinogens? why do we have dreams? Why is DMT released in huge amounts 40 min prior to conception? 40 min after death? What of the pyramids? The measuring problem? Dark matter? The astral plane all together? And what of aliens? How bout the forces of physics,why do we have forces?
Well, you're simply wrong. There has been more investigation than you know.
It's not quite public because, when all your results are negative, you don't get much publicity.
And yes, we have pretty good ideas about the geometrical patterns formed under hallucinogens. We even know the exact region of the brain where they originate.
Dreams are our interpretations of random signals from a brain trying to remain fit.
If there was already so much inquiry than the paranormal wouldn't be so mysterious, and we would stumble upon the solved answers in daily life if scientists have fount nothing.
"And yes, we have pretty good ideas about the geometrical patterns formed under hallucinogens. We even know the exact region of the brain where they originate."
And the paranormal isn't mysterious. It's just not there to be studied, probably. Scientists have found nothing, except for the times when they have been defrauded.
Different parts of the visual brain are activated as they're hallucinating. When people have this simple geometrical hallucinations the primary visual cortex is activated. This is the part of the brain which perceives edges and patterns. You don't form images with your primary visual cortex.
When images are formed a higher part of the visual cortex is involved in the temporal lobe.
I didn't say i didn't believe you, just curious, i like learning new things and never said ii wasn't open to your side of perception.... I like having many angles to work with. However there are still problems or questions which can never be objectively answered... what is science to do with these?
1. define "metaphysical spirit". Why should Science question itself about things that have had no manifestations? If it does have some manifestation, then you work out the definition starting there.
2. I don't know the relationship between other dimensions and guys with beards.
3. The atheist perspective? How should i know? We were talking about Science, not about atheism.
1 Something that parts from the body at death.... afterlife... etc.
2 -_- you called him my old bearded friend (first video i sent you)
3 well i figured the convo changed direction. Science began as philosophy, its purpose was to answer questions not already known about life. In modern day times you could now say the old science is now metaphysics. But the highest purpose of science is to answer the questions i have asked you, and usually from an atheistic prospective.
Also you didn't watch the video you just sent me did you? Cause it kind of proved my prior point a bit, he said nothing about other worldly hallucinations such as those seen on dmt/shrooms/dreams. If anything he provided quite valid evidence that most hallucinations are derived from past experience. Nothing like those seen in hallucinogens, and not explaining the effect of drugs on the brain or even going into the subject whatsoever.
I quoted the part you asked about. I guess i'll have to do it again.
"Different parts of the visual brain are activated as they're hallucinating. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE THIS SIMPLE GEOMETRICAL HALLUCINATIONS the primary visual cortex is activated. This is the part of the brain which perceives edges and patterns. You don't form images with your primary visual cortex.
When images are formed a higher part of the visual cortex is involved in the temporal lobe."
You just said "What of the geometrical pasterns formed under hallucinogens?"
I responded "we have pretty good ideas about the geometrical patterns formed under hallucinogens. We even know the exact region of the brain where they originate."
You asked me to show you, and i did.
I never said i'd explain the effect of those drugs, and you never asked me to.
No, man. I told you. I quoted it directly from the video.
"Different parts of the visual brain are activated as they're hallucinating. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE THIS SIMPLE GEOMETRICAL HALLUCINATIONS the primary visual cortex is activated. This is the part of the brain which perceives edges and patterns. You don't form images with your primary visual cortex.
When images are formed a higher part of the visual cortex is involved in the temporal lobe."
"So Science doesn't ignore what's outside of nature?" Science doesn't ignore the supernatural but cannot test evidence doesn't exist such, as the claims of religion. The burden of proof is on creationists, so far all they fail to provide any valid evidence for science to scrutinize, test, and observe. Its not a question if science is ignoring what is outside nature, but if science can be used. It seems everything can be explained naturally without the need of the supernatural.
Science doesn't bind spiritual truths with science, that comment is ridiculous. There is not such thing as an evangelistic atheist since atheism doesn't have a "gospel" or belief system. As for considering a religion as a possibility, sure anything is possible in a persons imagination, but lacks any plausibility. Not sure why you are in favor of spirituality when there is no evidence to back such claims. Creationists blind themselves to logic and tend to believe in nonsense.
You know i actually find it kind of offensive that the chinese were growing crops, making pottery, breeding dogs, composing music and using written language back in a time before young earth creationists think that they universe began.
You guys are even refuted not just by physics, biology, geology and astronomy but also things like HISTORY and anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, and others
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat ...and most think that the Bible is a historical document of a higher degree of accuracy than the Domesday Book when even Christian theologians know and publicly state that it is not.
"most people think the bible is accurate even when people who are also religious and study it all day think it is not"
In case you didn't know the United States public is really dumb.
Worldwide the average IQ is 100. the us is 98.
That means that half of the public is dumb as hell. Now biblical scholars study it all the time and not many of them can put up with the cognitive dissonance and they must admit the the bible is a near east mythological pastiche
First of all, so-called polystrate fossils is not a recognized geological term. The word is a YEC invention. Instead, fossil trees are called in situ fossils
The conditions of burial do vary from site to site, but in all cases they represent rapid burial caused by floods, volcanism, etc.
A prime example is Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone NP, which were buried by lahars and tephra from nearby volcanoes during the Eocene.
But no, in situ trees is not a problem for geologists.
"Old-earth scientists"... So you are one of those creationist ignorants, who are immune to any evidence and reasoning? Here are the problems: 1. Creationist don't have any clue of how science works! 2. Creationists in most cases lack a proper education (in science). 3. Creationist will reject any evidence or reasoning presented to them if it contradicts their beliefs. 4. Belief in the literacy is not proof for a creator 5. Creationist are not Christians but religious zealots...
No, I don't think so. There is no scientist that believe the earth is young, exept from the one that are creationist and can't accept that the earth is old because it contradict their religion.
Yes. Sociology, psychology, computer science, etc are generally counted as science. This means the people who studied them are scientists. These areas don't contain leads towards the age of the earth.
However, I don't know of young-earth biologists, physicists or geologists if that's what you meant.
In the field of chemistry, it should be possible in a country like the USA.
I agree that the moon dust is nonsense, but not the polystrate fossils. I know palaeontologists who have found one fossils of a dinosaur--the bottom half of the dinosaur extended through 50 million years, and the other half of the same fossil extended through another 60 million years. A pretty big difference.
DonExodus2 you missing the whole point, first off we do find trees going through multiple rock layers and even through coal and sediment. Also with your radiometric dating methods, you would date the rocks much older than the trees, probably millions of years old. Also you believe coal forms slowly, atleast taking 27,000 years, so how do you explain a tree going through it and sedimentary layers? You need to grow up and stop avoiding tough question and not responding.
I've seen a lot of things but I've never seen a tree in a hole in the ground like that illustration. Yes a tree can be below the surrounding terrain in a valley but how much mud would it take to submerge a tree in a valley?
Some of these trees are upside down, also I guaruntee if you would date the rocks that the trees are beside with any dating method, you would get outrageous numbers. Also many of these trees go through coal and sedimentary rock, but evolutionists claim it takes thousands of years to form coal. By the way, donexodus2, please respond to my refutation of your chromosome 2 video, I've emailed you twice and no response, you can't just ignore anything that goes against your claims.
It's quantums of energy. There's energy you see, and it wants to go towards maximum entropy. Or "run downhill"
matter is a somewhat stable form of energy locked up in one form just sort of humming. some atoms that have more neutrons than protons.
These extra protons are usually unstable. So the neutrons fly off randomly. Sometimes they fly off and take protons with them. This changes what element it is.
To reach the decay rates to meet the bishop usher date of 4004 bc radation would have had to have been increased by a factor about about a million sometime in the past.
that's a very rough estimate but you get the idea. 4.7 billion to 6000 is about that.
So yeah adam and eve would be glowing balls of ionized gases in a bath of flying particles that would probably have ripped apart everything. The only comparable thing would be like a neutron bomb with particle accelerator power.
VoteNixon, I'll have to look into this a bit. It's possible of course heat just simply reset them when molten, leaving a reduced rate of radioactivity.
NO heat can't reset the clock! stupid youtube rejected my comment where I explained this so ill do it again.
Radiometric dating is done by measuring the proportion of father isotopes to daughter isotopes(the decay products) and then relating these based on the half life.
Heat cannot say, turn nitrogen 14 back into carbon 14 or argon into potassium or anything like that. That would be alchemy! : )
Heat does reset them because it jostles the radioactive atoms and makes them move through the rocks. Water also makes them percolate. We're talking periods of billions of years sometimes! There would be alot of this going on.
Don't forget the earth was molten back in the past. A speed rate of decay would extend that time of being molten.
Also, we don't know for sure if other phenomena nullify radioactivity. We've alot to learn about this universe :)
Heat does cause diffusion but this only rearranges the atoms. With the exception of radon(heavy and small atom) and helium, small light atom) It is not typical to change the ratios of one to another.
If helium escaped though, that would only make it look younger or inconclusive, not ever make things look older.
This is why radon and helium aren't used.Other than that heat and other processes only change structure, not percent composition
So if heat rearranges them, why can't it rearrange them out of the sample?
I always puzzled over radioactivity and how a little block could be so hot for thousands of years. I know the theory but there doesn't seem to be enough particles to keep it going all that time.
I say there's more to it than we know. I can't go into it here, but I've had an insight into what the power source could be for radioactivity.
Because diffusion is random movement. It's basically extremely slow brownian motion. Their configuration and structure changes but all in all the matter doesn't go any where. With the exception of He and Rn
Put some milk in hot coffee and you'll see it swirl around on it's own.
you have some great stuff here
simysimss 5 days ago
some really good stuff here
sprattysy 6 days ago
This is a great video
rodswebdesign 1 week ago
i enjoyed this vid
bribribri56 1 week ago
@cctman
The constancy of atomic decay rates is based on observed evidence.
The analogy you are attempting to draw is false, but if decay rates had been thousands of times faster in the past, which would be required for a young earth to jibe with the data, the Garden of Eden would have been molten and more radioactive than Chernobyl.
Entertaining fanciful ideas without thinking them through to their logical conclusion is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.
SpaceOdyssey56 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have enough transittional fossils to replace every brick in vatican city. We have more fossils older than 6000 years than there are sentences in the bible.
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
Did I seriously just here an evolutionists use the argument of variable deposition rates? How completely and utterly hypocritical. They are going to claim we don't know that the rates have always been the same for moon dust but when it comes to parent to daughter isotopes in decay rates with Rubidium Strontium, Uranium, various Lead methods and Carbon dating when dating fossils they won't dare allow for that. But I guess really why should I be surprised?
cctman 4 months ago
On polystrat trees, the 7 or so deposits surrounding the tree, are not necessarily from one flood deposit containing different stone. Trees can sometimes stay stood up right for 1000s of years depending on environment and varios other factors. There could be 7 flood deposits, and each deposit containing one layer of that which is surrounding the tree, a tree would have no problem withstanding a dozen catastrophic events. Good video, what you said was allso accurate
SkepticMajor 4 months ago
Yet another example of don exodus propaganda. Polystrate fossils are a very good example of an evolutionary assumption coming undone. They have been found extending up through many sedimentary layers and through multiple separated coal seams.
detectingdesign[DOT]com/fossilrecord.html#Polystrate
ferrel81 4 months ago
How does this explain polystrate fossils of trees found completely upside down?
And you're wrong, there are tons of examples showing that these trees go though numerous layers supposedly with millions of years difference in age..
grandmastersmith 5 months ago
NO, look at the layers of mud/rock that is beteen the tree, up close..
It is just like the layers of mud/rock at the Grand Cannon
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@adrianmolm715
Superficial appearance means nothing.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew How, this video talks about Superficial appearance(what he thinks), and what about the Bible, it has artifacts that are widely known, for instance the money coin of the leader Caesar and many more, just read the book of Matt and manY More
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adrianmolm715
"what about the Bible, it has artifacts that are widely known"
Harry Potter contains real places. Meaningless argument.
"this video talks about Superficial appearance(what he thinks),"
You twit. DonExodus' opinion plays no part in this video. He is merely showing what is indisputably true about "polystrate" fossils. Scientists don't just make shit up. If they did, they'd be called creationists.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
Funny. This video doesn't mention the creation of polystrate tree fossils in Spirit lake, near Mount St. Helen. Good science should be observable, and we can observe the creation of polystrate trees in Spirit lake.
sixchuter 5 months ago
Beautifully done! Keep up the good work, smart person.
anvita99 5 months ago
You could also draw a dog leaf on the tree and claim they exist.
RubixWizz199109 7 months ago
It's funny how this guy avoid the use of real pictures of polystrata fossils.
This guy is more dishonest than the creationists he tries to debunk lol
btw, this "explanation" does not fit with observations in joggins, were polystrata logs simply appear without the special DonExodus surrounding, but a geological formation hundreds of meters long (or tall, it's tilted anyway), it is obvious that joggins formation was made in a short period of time.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
creationliberty(dot)org/images/gf17.jpg
replace the (dot) with . and see for yourself that it is they pass through different layers of strata.
IndianaJesusfreak 10 months ago
@IndianaJesusfreak You mean like a pyroclastic flow covered by a mud flow, something like that? How unheard of...
Misterb0z 8 months ago
If "all the mud was the same date" it is not a polystrate fossil. You shouldn't even make a video if you can't make one with some semblance of intelligence.
IndianaJesusfreak 10 months ago
...We see huge trees...bark and roots ripped off as the result of tumbling, all over the world, buried deep in the earth. We saw the same thing at Mt. St. Helens, huge trees transported then bobbing upright in Sprit Lake, thier bark and roots ripped completely off. DON EXODUS....who do you you think your kidding? lol
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
Stupid YEC.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata .....The evidence for a global flood is all the place,time to wake up you sleazy alchemists. lol
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
Uh huh. Take your meds, gramps. Sorry your opinions never managed to replace actual facts.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata ...My friend Dr. Walter Veith de-bunked the nonsense in this video 20 years ago, you people don't care about facts, what you do care about is drawing people into your naturalist philosophy. The alchemists have been at this for centuries seeing themselves as some sort of illuminated new world man, aka cannabis addicts hooked on the occult. That is all this stuff really is...Aaron Ra is another one, "walking like an Egyptian". The Egyptians were using DMT.
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
Dr. Walter Veith is a Seventh Day Adventist NUTJOB whose assertions have been debunked OVER and OVER an OVER again.
That's why HIS opinions aren't taught instead of ACTUAL SCIENCE.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata ...Walter has been doing this for a long time.....long before Don Exodus finished elementry school. Naturalist philosophy is centuries old....google it's history, Darwin, his dad as well as guys like Francis Bacon were all subscibers, and people think drug use is something new.
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
And yet NONE of Vieth's ideas have made it into the Universities, and all of DonExodus proofs are found in the real science of the real world.
It would seem that anyone that doesn't share your personal religious opinions (and that would be 99.8% of the rest of the planets population) are to be demonized and ridiculed by you.
Oh well. When you wake up tomorrow, science is what will be taught in every university on Earth, and not your mystical mumbo jumbo.
Sorry!
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata ...Suit yourself buddy.
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
See ya in the funny papers...YEC.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata ...Ya never know...lol None of this is going away anytime soon.
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
None of your YEC is going anywhere soon.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata ...It's big....and getting bigger by the day....truth always works it's way to the surface.
vachief 11 months ago
@vachief
Truth is the Earth ain't 6000 years old.
Guess you are right about the truth.
odinata 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata ...If you say so.
vachief 11 months ago
Good to know that a mini-flood made the layers of the polystrate trees and the rate of moon dust acumulation was high only this millenia
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
Don, the trees do go through several strata, it is just that the layers were laid down rapidly or like the creationist say, 'the tree would have rotted'' The rapid covering is the only part they got right. "... layers that evolutionists say took millions of years'' IS A LIE. Those bastards.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Nice..... in an attempt to disprove creationist claims, this video actually makes the case that a 'flood' would be responsible for creating this phenomenom- ironic.
123rani321 1 year ago
@123rani321
Flooding has always been one phenomenon responsible for sedimentation and is a part of sedimentology. It's only ironic if the basis of the science which ended up building evidence towards an old earth using common phenomena, over the catastrophic and unseen phenomenon of global flooding, is ironic. The unrealistically large flooding is the contention, not flooding itself. Dry and wet sedimentation also bury modern trees vertically.
scienceminded 1 year ago
@123rani321 Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating showed it was Billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Nice video. As a geologist can tell you the word Polystrate is not a geological term. We use the term in-situ which means in place. I actually watched a video by Carl Baugh who made the claim that he could has never found the term Polystrate in any geological text and that this was evidence of science trying to hide the evidence. I wrote him to explain that geologist use the word in-situ and that on his next show he should make this correction. Of coarse I never got a response.
momentofsciencetx 1 year ago 4
@momentofsciencetx Polystrate simply means multiple layers. And it's not our fault if they refuse to use the term, or use a different one. It is a simple to understand term, and is mostly used by creationists because evolutionists rarely discuss this common observation. Terminology aside, the fact is that this occurs around the globe and is observable, your point is moot. Would people quit believing what they watch on the tube and actually go out and look for themselves please
AdonaiYHWH 6 months ago
@AdonaiYHWH the term in-situ is used. This is the term used by scientist, geologist like myself. Just because creationist use a word and not find it in science text doesn't mean science is ignoring this "common observation" . You can find the discussion of this observation in science text that date back to the 1800's. As for myself I am a geologist I have worked in the field and have observed this. We know how it occurs. rapid deposition. You can observe this happening today!!!
momentofsciencetx 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would like everyone to notice that's he's showing you his ILLUSTRATION. Not the real pictures. This is a common tactic by evolutionists.
I've got real pictures here, and on my website, of petrified trees running through multiple rock layers. I also have one running through two different coal seams. If you want to BELIEVE those trees don't run through multiple layers you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it part of science just because you want to believe it.
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Yes, a simplified illustration so that everyone would be able to comprehend it. Well, almost everyone.
I would give the rebuttal, but its obvious to anyone having watched the video.
Anywho, keep doing what you;re doing- atheists sincerely appreciate the embarrassment you bring to Christianity and religion. Keep up the good work!
DonExodus2 1 year ago 22
@DonExodus2 "I would give the rebuttal, but its obvious to anyone having watched the video." You aren't fooling me, let's hear it. What a 'sneaky' avoidance tactic. Everyone can understand from looking at photographs too, well, almost everyone.
AdonaiYHWH 6 months ago
@AdonaiYHWH oh no please provide a rebuttal. We enjoy hearing the alternative to evidence and facts.
momentofsciencetx 6 months ago
@momentofsciencetx - it was DonExodus who didn't want to give a rebuttal, not me. But I will anyway, of course it happened rapidly, All organisms have to be buried rapidly in order to become fossils, anything that dies naturally above ground will decompose quickly, that is fact using evidence, which supports the flood. (not all fossils come from the great flood, fossilization still happens). Don't twist reality by saying this is an alternative when it uses the same evidence.
AdonaiYHWH 6 months ago
@AdonaiYHWH you must think all fossils are soft bodied. The vast majority are not. What is the rate of decomposition for a sea shell? What is the rate of decomposition of a bone? What about petrified wood? The vast majority of fossils found do not decompose quickly at all. Take a geology class. You have been educated.
momentofsciencetx 6 months ago
@DonExodus2 Your imagination is just out of this world.
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@DonExodus2 You are a liar. /watch?v=CyaJptW1GUw&feature=related go to 8:44 stop deceiving. YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@gianboy2001 For someone who is trying to prove Don wrong, you're doing a damn good job of making yourself look like an asshole.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu Another doctrinated cult member. Yes, if you have nothing to say call them asshole instead of proving them wrong.. Who is don? I bet you'd suck his cock for a used lollipop..
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@gianboy2001 Don Exodus. And I didn't call you a moron, I was warning you against looking or making yourself into an asshole. And since you didn't bring anything, there was nothing to disprove. And why the personal insult? Is that really the best you can do?
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu
Creationism, homophobia, paranoia, and generally low IQ seem to go hand-in-hand. Wonder why that is?
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew They like to be historically accurate?
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu I guess thats not personal insult.. after all atheist doesnt have a moral foundation... my point is that not all petrified trees are what explained in the video.. you didn't warn me you said "you are doing" if you know what it means you wouldn't say you are warning me.. thats already assuming that I am an asshole. how old are you??? And how calling someone a liar an asshole when in fact what your lead don said is not all true?
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@HimesInu and I forgot.. fcuk you and your mom!
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@gianboy2001 Nice to know you're into necrophilia.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu wow, so you call someone asshole and when that person talks back you get irate? well, wake up and try going out sometimes..
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@gianboy2001 I didn't call you an asshole. I said you're making yourself look like an asshole. If you can't see the difference, then that's your problem.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu well you are making yourself look like a fcuking douchebag for even mentioning that to em...
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@DonExodus2
Mood slide all over the world? hmmm, suspicious, isn´t it?
realhomosapiens 4 months ago
@creationliberty Kindly refer to potholer54debunks video on this topic for how your two coal seams for the tree do not represent a problem.
/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
Coal is formed from large accumulations of plant matter under pressure, which easily form in swamps. Two coal seams simply means an older deposit of swamp vegetation and then another shortly there after, nothing more.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@creationliberty
Yes, I've seen the real pictures. In fact, I've seen the real trees. Now, here's the funny thing: a lot of those trees have their fine rootlet systems intact. That would be impossible for an uprooted tree; these trees grew in place. The problem for Creationists is that those rootlets extend through many layers of "Flood sediment." If the Flood model is correct, that means they took root and grew to full size during the Flood, which is just a BIT hard to swallow.
brpierce 1 year ago
@creationliberty BELIEVE those trees don't run through multiple layers''
They are multiple layers, but only creationists say millions of years.
The tree would have rotted. Mostly ask layers.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@creationliberty youre an idiot
bman16407 11 months ago
@creationliberty Absolutely, they know that if they used actually evidence that everyone would see how bogus it is. They choose to believe only what they want, and not what is there, an illustration proves absolutely nothing, and pay attention when watching any evolution program, that's the majority of their evidence, even in the textbooks. Let me go draw up a few of my own to use as evidence. This video is a major FAIL. Look up the Petrified Forest National Park for 1
AdonaiYHWH 6 months ago
i really like DonExodus2's intro :D
fat beat
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 year ago
you really don't know your science very well.
phatbundles 1 year ago
This is too rich. Creationists object to uniformitarianism by claiming there may have been catastrophic events that altered the speed by which geological structures were formed.
Now the situation is reversed. With moon dust, the current rate of deposition supports creationists' dates; and here we have an evolutionist saying, "No fair, no fair! You don't know what happened in the past that may have altered the rate that the moon dust was layed down!"
Irony...
CaptainCrunchOwns 1 year ago
@CaptainCrunchOwns your analogy is a false one. The moon undergoes a completely different system for deposition. For one it doesnt have an atmosphere. Impacts from meteorites etc (MUCH more common) alter the rate of particulate matter when they impact. So on the moon it is not a steady process. Further, large impacts can actually strip dust off the moon. The point is, creationist arguments make unjustified assumptions, so thus are their conclusions.
boorens18 1 year ago
@CaptainCrunchOwns
Do you know, the first time I heard this argument re moon dust, it took me a few minutes to work out that without an atmosphere, a radiocactive core, sod all gravity and high exposure to meteor assault- that the moon is somewhat different to the Earth. In fact, I note that even AiG has recommended creationists ditch this argument cos it can't hold water.
ozowen 1 year ago
@ozowen I don't doubt the creationists' argument is completely bunk with the moon dust. However, the way Don answers it is ridiculous and extremely reminiscent of creationist answers to modern geological dating methods.
I.e., the creationist might say to the modern geologist, "You're assuming a constant rate of sedimentary deposition!" Hence, I say this video is ironic.
CaptainCrunchOwns 1 year ago
@CaptainCrunchOwns
Don't see the problem. You seem to demand that the same rules apply to both spheres even though they are hardly subject to the same conditions.
I think your interpretation is simpliste.
ozowen 1 year ago
2:25 rofl
xapemanx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm sorry, but this video does a poor job in refuting the arguments. Does anyone know of a better video on YouTube that explains this? If so, please link...or is this really the best rebuttal old-earth scientists can come up with?
RodneyVoelker 2 years ago
Stars more than 6000 light years from earth.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Through the laws of physics this is a valid point, but the statement is ignorant of the power of God.
lFlash4 2 years ago
I am ignorant of the power of "God" however you define em because i've yet to see it demonstrated
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@lFlash4
Your god is so powerful that he chose to make it look as if he did nothing at all.
lardhat 2 years ago
You think you know so much of the world, yet you know so little. Shrink your ego and be a little open minded here. Have you even considered any religion as a possibility? Don't be ignorant of the spiritual world, science is coming up with a theory of everything binding physics with the spiritual truths. How can you be so certain of something after realizing that you know so little of the universe, as an evangelistic atheist you should understand that. Sorry but probability is in spiritual favor.
lFlash4 2 years ago
@lFlash4
Huh?
lardhat 1 year ago
You heard me, atheism is the only world religion completely oblivious to the obviously existent spiritual and paranormal truths of this realm. Has it ever crossed your mind that not even the most intelligent and educated scientists don't understand all of the workings of physics, chemistry, biology or any science for that matter. So if they don't understand it all how can you put complete faith in them. You won't be able to disregard spiritual truths for long thanks to the measuring problem. : )
lFlash4 1 year ago
@lFlash4
I read you talk about my ego (something about which you don't know much).
And yes, Science ignores everything outside of nature.
And i don't put my faith on Scientists.
Spiritual "truths" are crap, because there are no way to test them. One religion says "this is spiritual truth", another says "no! this is it!".
Fuck all that.
lardhat 1 year ago
I speak of the ego you've displayed here, since I don't know you in person. All I have to go off of is what you have said, how you said it and the perspective you said it from(atheistic).
Science doesn't ignore everything outside of nature, atheists ignore everything outside of nature and anything spiritual in nature, that is you "religion" so to speak.
If that's the way you see it why not be eclectic of your beliefs and proceed to learn and grow instead of saying F that and being ignorant?
lFlash4 1 year ago
@lFlash4
I'm not an atheist. You lose.
So Science doesn't ignore what's outside of nature?
Show me.
lardhat 1 year ago
Really you didn't catch that. Science doesn't hold bias, people do. So your an agnostic?
lFlash4 1 year ago
You didn't show me. I'll ask again: So Science doesn't ignore what's outside of nature?
SHOW ME.
And no, i'm not an agnostic. Anything but that. Screw agnosticism.
lardhat 1 year ago
I meant it metaphorically, as in truth is out there and the laws of science are not bias, however some scientists are.
So, what religion are you then?
lFlash4 1 year ago
Oh... Metaphorically, not actually...
So basically you take it back. Ok.
I hold no religion.
lardhat 1 year ago
It doesn't mean I take anything back, it means you previously misinterpreted what I said and now you understand, but I doubt you do.
To make things clearer, when I said science i meant the laws of science. When I said spiritual I meant God, paranormal, ghosts, demons, etc. So after that you should now understand that what I was trying to say is that science does not discriminate or shed darkness on this stuff (it can't), our scientists do.
oh and..
no religion=atheist=i was right=epic win :)
lFlash4 1 year ago
Your epic wins look a lot like losing.
I hold no religion, but i have my idea of God. I don't know what to tell you. I'll let you imagine i hold some religion so you can dream about your epic win.
You try to clarify what you meant. But you still don't show me anything.
You said Science (whatever you mean by that) doesn't ignore what's outside of Natura (whatever you mean by that).
Show me.
Whatever you meant, show me. Go ahead.
lardhat 1 year ago
I have showed you so many times. It's not that I have failed to explain it to you but that you have failed to understand. You can figure it out by rereading my comments until you finally become enlightened of the simple principle i was trying to teach you. I'm done with you, nigga u's soft :)
lFlash4 1 year ago
That's what creationists say when confronted with their own claims.
"I have showed you so many times".
You showed me nothing.
Show me an instance when Science doesn't ignore what's outside of Nature. Show me a video, a scientific paper, an article, SOMETHING!
Don't teach me principles. SHOW me.
You made a claim and you're not able to defend it by presenting a case.
lardhat 1 year ago
Yeah, some creationists do say stuff like that as do atheists, good thing I'm neither. : )
And I'm sorry that I can never show you evidence for this, it's roots are in philosophy. It's an understanding. There are limits of understanding in this world that science will never be able to answer. Thus metaphysics is born connecting science(physics) & philosophy(spiritual). Think of science as objective reality and philosophy as subjective reality. We need both that's why we have 2 brain hemispheres
lFlash4 1 year ago
You talked about the power of god that defies physics, or something like that. And now you say you're not a creationist. Ok, whatever.
No, it's not an understanding. It's a lack of it. You said Science does NOT ignore what's outside of nature. Now you're saying something that looks like the opposite (the things that Science will never be able to answer).
Sience DOES ignore what's outside of nature. If you want to deny this FACT, do so by presenting FACTS.
lardhat 1 year ago
I didn't deny philosophy or metaphysics. You're creating a diversion. We were talking about SCIENCE.
Science says nothing about what's outside of nature. You sort of acknowledged it in your last post. So i don't know what you're discussing now.
lardhat 1 year ago
Ok, now i understand why you're so confused.
"Sience DOES ignore what's outside of nature"
In your own words tell me what this means. Simply what the phrase means, not your take on it.
lFlash4 1 year ago
In order to explain it to you i would need to know your doubts first.
Do you know what "nature" means?
It's the "natural" physical world. No imagination, myth or supernatural entities.
Science deals with the physical world. With things that can be tested.
I say that it does NOT.
You say that it DOES.
You made the positive claim. Please, show me.
lardhat 1 year ago
Well by science I meant it in reference to all of existence physical and non physical. It just so happens that when people talk about science of the non physical you kind of cross over into philosophy and enter the realm of metaphysics, however they used to be one subject and if you think about it science, philosophy and metaphysics are all pieces of the same thing and are all needed in the formula to find the answers of life. So I would say science = philosophy = metaphysics
lFlash4 1 year ago
Oh, so you weren't even talking about Science!
Science = a process guided by the Scientific Method.
No Scientific Method: no Science.
lardhat 1 year ago
I'm sorry about that, I figured science was the study and logical analysis of something, I guess science falls under philosophy and metaphysics. But even so, I have to point out that I made a mistake earlier. I said science can prove what's outside of nature, what I should of said is science can prove things that are beyond the known physical nature.
Check out this video series I think you'll like it.
theory:
/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ
experiment:
/watch?v=xO25wNYohtw
enjoy : )
lFlash4 1 year ago
OK, so you don't know what Science is. That's clear.
Science isn't Logic, or vice versa (even though Science uses Logic).
Even with this new changed statement, you're still wrong. Science can't prove that, or anything else because it doesn't deal with 'proof' (another demonstration that you don't know what Science is).
Your bearded guy is cool. He gets it. He said he brought his 'Scientific attitude and scientific approach to my study of consciousness'.
To be continued...
lardhat 1 year ago
You think we know everything about nature and don't agree that perhaps the paranormal is also a part of a bigger nature system?
-------> ((known nature)paranormal)
lFlash4 1 year ago
You CAN bring a scientific disposition to explore what's outside of Nature. It would be a good thing.
Nevertheless, no, IFlash4. Science can't explore that.
Read about Masaru Emoto on wikipedia.
He instructs his artists (no scientists, just artists) to choose the best pics.
He's a fraud, IFlash. Really.
lardhat 1 year ago
He also said:
"You can never explain the larger system in terms of the subsystem."
There. Your guy refuted you. Science ignores what's outside of Nature.
I told you.
lardhat 1 year ago
And if you now say that Nature means more, and that Science can deal with it, then you're debunking yourself.
If you extend Nature, and Science deals with that, Science STILL deals with Nature. Not with what's outside of it.
lardhat 1 year ago
I have meant that paranormal is part of nature. JUST THAT WE LIKE TO PERCEIVE IT OUTSIDE OF NATURE.
lFlash4 1 year ago
If you're saying that the paranormal is part of Nature (whatever that means, i don't care) then you're contradicting yourself YET AGAIN!
Science only deals with the natural, as you're implying yourself now.
lardhat 1 year ago
"You can never explain the larger system in terms of the subsystem."
That's taken out of context, I can't imagine him saying that without the following.
- And so we must explore through the larger system
Plus, haven't you ever noticed that everything that is now in (understood nature) used to be in (unknown paranormal). That's what science is for, shifting understanding from the paranormal to nature. Being able to understand stuff.
lFlash4 1 year ago
I have no problems with that context (i don't even know why you bring it up, as if it changed anything).
Yes, we must explore through the larger system. And that's not Science.
So can you take it back, please? You said Science didn't ignore what's outside of Nature. And it clearly does.
lardhat 1 year ago
Ok I take it back. Science doesn't ignore what's outside of nature... because nothing exists outside of nature.
However scientists usually ignore the paranormal, spiritual worlds and other dimensions as part of nature.
lFlash4 1 year ago
OK, you took it back, and you have my respect.
Yes, i agree. Nothing exists outside of Nature.
If something "outside of Nature" happens to "exist", then our previous concept of "Nature" was limited by our ignorance and needs some updating.
I don't think we ever had any evidence of what you're mentioning. The paranormal or the spiritual worlds. I might be wrong though.
The moment i'm shown, i'll take it back. No buts.
We need some testable stuff to make Science.
Can you think of anything?
lardhat 1 year ago
By the way (kinda sorry to disagree again), but Science does investigate claims of the paranormal. I know of several scientific investigators.
James Randi, for instance... Benjamin Radford too...
They have found nothing so far. Randi used to offer U$S 1.000.000 to anyone who demonstrated any paranormal claim.
Serious studies have been made. Lots of them. Many of them by the FBI.
Magicians (like Uri Geller) fooled scientists. Now we know better, and scientists are not so easy to fool anymore.
lardhat 1 year ago
Well I think the answer lies in several places, sort of spread throughout the corners of this realm. But I think that the closest we have come in terms of paranormal investigation would have to do with, out of body experiences, the measuring, and some hallucinogens said to bridge spiritual realms (which i now say are part of nature as well) like DMT. Also the penal gland atop of the head, DNA decoding. That's why I sent you that video. Do you really think the other guy Emoto is a fraud tho?
lFlash4 1 year ago
Things that people experience but, nevertheless, keep hiding from Science in corners, tend to be tricks our minds play us.
The human brain is very susceptible to hallucination.
"Out of body experiences" is a misnomer. Nothing gets out of your body. You're just dreaming/hallucinating.
I think you mean PINEAL gland. And nothing paranormal has come out of any serious Scientific investigation (by "serious" i mean "passing peer review).
And yes, he's a fraud. Too bad! How interesting would it be?
lardhat 1 year ago
Well perhaps all of those things are indeed fake, however if they are so interesting and mysterious then why is there so little investigation on these particular fields? What of the geometrical pasterns formed under hallucinogens? why do we have dreams? Why is DMT released in huge amounts 40 min prior to conception? 40 min after death? What of the pyramids? The measuring problem? Dark matter? The astral plane all together? And what of aliens? How bout the forces of physics,why do we have forces?
lFlash4 1 year ago
Why is there so little investigation?
Well, you're simply wrong. There has been more investigation than you know.
It's not quite public because, when all your results are negative, you don't get much publicity.
And yes, we have pretty good ideas about the geometrical patterns formed under hallucinogens. We even know the exact region of the brain where they originate.
Dreams are our interpretations of random signals from a brain trying to remain fit.
No space to answer to everyth...
lardhat 1 year ago
If there was already so much inquiry than the paranormal wouldn't be so mysterious, and we would stumble upon the solved answers in daily life if scientists have fount nothing.
"And yes, we have pretty good ideas about the geometrical patterns formed under hallucinogens. We even know the exact region of the brain where they originate."
-show me
lFlash4 1 year ago
tinyurl dotcom slash ks9z8s
What, did you think i was bluffing? Haha!
And the paranormal isn't mysterious. It's just not there to be studied, probably. Scientists have found nothing, except for the times when they have been defrauded.
lardhat 1 year ago
Different parts of the visual brain are activated as they're hallucinating. When people have this simple geometrical hallucinations the primary visual cortex is activated. This is the part of the brain which perceives edges and patterns. You don't form images with your primary visual cortex.
When images are formed a higher part of the visual cortex is involved in the temporal lobe.
lardhat 1 year ago
I didn't say i didn't believe you, just curious, i like learning new things and never said ii wasn't open to your side of perception.... I like having many angles to work with. However there are still problems or questions which can never be objectively answered... what is science to do with these?
lFlash4 1 year ago
I was just kidding.
By the way, i don't actually know what you're talking about when you say "problems or questions which can never be objectively answered".
If you can give me an example perhaps i can give you an answer.
lardhat 1 year ago
Existence of the soul, God, other dimensions, meaning of life.
lFlash4 1 year ago
1. Define "soul".
2. Other dimensions are part of mathematical models.
3. That's for you to figure out.
To Science it's not even a valid question.
Can you translate it into scientific terms? 'Cause nobody ever could... Not that i'm aware of.
lardhat 1 year ago
1 metaphysical spirit
2 the old guy with the beard is the only one i've heard speak on the topic
3 from an atheists perspective why is the universe here? What is it's purpose? all causes have an effect, so what is the reason?
lFlash4 1 year ago
1. define "metaphysical spirit". Why should Science question itself about things that have had no manifestations? If it does have some manifestation, then you work out the definition starting there.
2. I don't know the relationship between other dimensions and guys with beards.
3. The atheist perspective? How should i know? We were talking about Science, not about atheism.
lardhat 1 year ago
1 Something that parts from the body at death.... afterlife... etc.
2 -_- you called him my old bearded friend (first video i sent you)
3 well i figured the convo changed direction. Science began as philosophy, its purpose was to answer questions not already known about life. In modern day times you could now say the old science is now metaphysics. But the highest purpose of science is to answer the questions i have asked you, and usually from an atheistic prospective.
lFlash4 1 year ago
1 You're assuming that there IS such a thing. The phenomenon comes first, and then Science tries to explain it. Not the other way around.
2 I know. And i still don't know what that has to do with other dimensions.
3 Who says that the "highest purpose of Science" is to answer stuff about nonexistent phenomena and dimensions with beards?
lardhat 1 year ago
Also you didn't watch the video you just sent me did you? Cause it kind of proved my prior point a bit, he said nothing about other worldly hallucinations such as those seen on dmt/shrooms/dreams. If anything he provided quite valid evidence that most hallucinations are derived from past experience. Nothing like those seen in hallucinogens, and not explaining the effect of drugs on the brain or even going into the subject whatsoever.
lFlash4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I did watch it.
Did YOU?
I quoted the part you asked about. I guess i'll have to do it again.
"Different parts of the visual brain are activated as they're hallucinating. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE THIS SIMPLE GEOMETRICAL HALLUCINATIONS the primary visual cortex is activated. This is the part of the brain which perceives edges and patterns. You don't form images with your primary visual cortex.
When images are formed a higher part of the visual cortex is involved in the temporal lobe."
lardhat 1 year ago
And you're shifting the goalpost.
You just said "What of the geometrical pasterns formed under hallucinogens?"
I responded "we have pretty good ideas about the geometrical patterns formed under hallucinogens. We even know the exact region of the brain where they originate."
You asked me to show you, and i did.
I never said i'd explain the effect of those drugs, and you never asked me to.
lardhat 1 year ago
He is speaking of completely different hallucinations than the ones i refer to. I can't make it more simple than that. Come on man.
lFlash4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, man. I told you. I quoted it directly from the video.
"Different parts of the visual brain are activated as they're hallucinating. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE THIS SIMPLE GEOMETRICAL HALLUCINATIONS the primary visual cortex is activated. This is the part of the brain which perceives edges and patterns. You don't form images with your primary visual cortex.
When images are formed a higher part of the visual cortex is involved in the temporal lobe."
Those are your geometrical hallucinations.
lardhat 1 year ago
"So Science doesn't ignore what's outside of nature?" Science doesn't ignore the supernatural but cannot test evidence doesn't exist such, as the claims of religion. The burden of proof is on creationists, so far all they fail to provide any valid evidence for science to scrutinize, test, and observe. Its not a question if science is ignoring what is outside nature, but if science can be used. It seems everything can be explained naturally without the need of the supernatural.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
Science doesn't bind spiritual truths with science, that comment is ridiculous. There is not such thing as an evangelistic atheist since atheism doesn't have a "gospel" or belief system. As for considering a religion as a possibility, sure anything is possible in a persons imagination, but lacks any plausibility. Not sure why you are in favor of spirituality when there is no evidence to back such claims. Creationists blind themselves to logic and tend to believe in nonsense.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
You know i actually find it kind of offensive that the chinese were growing crops, making pottery, breeding dogs, composing music and using written language back in a time before young earth creationists think that they universe began.
You guys are even refuted not just by physics, biology, geology and astronomy but also things like HISTORY and anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, and others
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago 12
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat ...and most think that the Bible is a historical document of a higher degree of accuracy than the Domesday Book when even Christian theologians know and publicly state that it is not.
leet3lite 2 years ago
"most people think the bible is accurate even when people who are also religious and study it all day think it is not"
In case you didn't know the United States public is really dumb.
Worldwide the average IQ is 100. the us is 98.
That means that half of the public is dumb as hell. Now biblical scholars study it all the time and not many of them can put up with the cognitive dissonance and they must admit the the bible is a near east mythological pastiche
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Yeww, go LeopardFrog
kayjames888 1 year ago
RodneyVoelker
First of all, so-called polystrate fossils is not a recognized geological term. The word is a YEC invention. Instead, fossil trees are called in situ fossils
The conditions of burial do vary from site to site, but in all cases they represent rapid burial caused by floods, volcanism, etc.
A prime example is Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone NP, which were buried by lahars and tephra from nearby volcanoes during the Eocene.
But no, in situ trees is not a problem for geologists.
lawilson200 2 years ago
by "old-earth scientists" do you mean "ALL scientists?"
Daruqe 2 years ago
"Old-earth scientists"... So you are one of those creationist ignorants, who are immune to any evidence and reasoning? Here are the problems: 1. Creationist don't have any clue of how science works! 2. Creationists in most cases lack a proper education (in science). 3. Creationist will reject any evidence or reasoning presented to them if it contradicts their beliefs. 4. Belief in the literacy is not proof for a creator 5. Creationist are not Christians but religious zealots...
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
Are there any young-earth scientists?
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
well "self proclaimed" scientists only. In the US, there are a lot of scam universities delivering unrecognized degrees.
VincentPhil 2 years ago
@Englishdosser86
No, I don't think so. There is no scientist that believe the earth is young, exept from the one that are creationist and can't accept that the earth is old because it contradict their religion.
vava54own 2 years ago
Yes. Sociology, psychology, computer science, etc are generally counted as science. This means the people who studied them are scientists. These areas don't contain leads towards the age of the earth.
However, I don't know of young-earth biologists, physicists or geologists if that's what you meant.
In the field of chemistry, it should be possible in a country like the USA.
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
I agree that the moon dust is nonsense, but not the polystrate fossils. I know palaeontologists who have found one fossils of a dinosaur--the bottom half of the dinosaur extended through 50 million years, and the other half of the same fossil extended through another 60 million years. A pretty big difference.
thejesusfreak919 2 years ago
name some names, otherwise it's just a made up story
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago 2
" know palaeontologists who have blah blah blah"
This is anecdotal evidence. It won't be taken seriously because your little story here is not something I can verify independently.
I could tell you that I found fossils of alien lizard people and you couldn't debate it either.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
DonExodus2 you missing the whole point, first off we do find trees going through multiple rock layers and even through coal and sediment. Also with your radiometric dating methods, you would date the rocks much older than the trees, probably millions of years old. Also you believe coal forms slowly, atleast taking 27,000 years, so how do you explain a tree going through it and sedimentary layers? You need to grow up and stop avoiding tough question and not responding.
micah1116 2 years ago
I've seen a lot of things but I've never seen a tree in a hole in the ground like that illustration. Yes a tree can be below the surrounding terrain in a valley but how much mud would it take to submerge a tree in a valley?
jeffreyontheway 2 years ago
Some of these trees are upside down, also I guaruntee if you would date the rocks that the trees are beside with any dating method, you would get outrageous numbers. Also many of these trees go through coal and sedimentary rock, but evolutionists claim it takes thousands of years to form coal. By the way, donexodus2, please respond to my refutation of your chromosome 2 video, I've emailed you twice and no response, you can't just ignore anything that goes against your claims.
micah1116 2 years ago
haha, nice ending .I wanna..
kim09x2 2 years ago
Anyway-trees found vertically through a coal seam blows apart the theory it took millions of years to buid up :)
Pulsar205 2 years ago
say you have a swimming pool of red marbles and blue marbles randomly mixed.
Now any backhoe scoop you take will have the same ratio(since it's mixed)
now if you were to stir them up or go swimming them or dive into them, none of that movement would disturb the ratios.
All the atoms are still there. They just moved around. They didn't go away.
And this is done with measurements on the order of moles of atoms or 6.022x10^23 so sampling error isn't a factor.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
"power source could be for radioactivity."
It's quantums of energy. There's energy you see, and it wants to go towards maximum entropy. Or "run downhill"
matter is a somewhat stable form of energy locked up in one form just sort of humming. some atoms that have more neutrons than protons.
These extra protons are usually unstable. So the neutrons fly off randomly. Sometimes they fly off and take protons with them. This changes what element it is.
That is what radioactive decay is.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
You'd think losing all those neutrons for millions of years would deplete its radioactivity alot faster-say over hundreds of years.
Scientists don't know it all.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
"... losing all those neutrons for millions of years would deplete its radioactivity a lot faster"
Could you rephrase this? I don't even understand what you're trying to say because of this syntax
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
".. how a little block could be so hot for thousands of year"
The heat in the earth is insulated by the silicates ion the earth's crust so even little amounts of heat stay put.
Consider the fact that 12 grams of carbon (about three brickettes) has 60,220,000,000,000,000,000,000
carbon atoms.
There's plenty of atoms of break apart
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
rocks near the surface stay hot too
Pulsar205 2 years ago
To reach the decay rates to meet the bishop usher date of 4004 bc radation would have had to have been increased by a factor about about a million sometime in the past.
that's a very rough estimate but you get the idea. 4.7 billion to 6000 is about that.
So yeah adam and eve would be glowing balls of ionized gases in a bath of flying particles that would probably have ripped apart everything. The only comparable thing would be like a neutron bomb with particle accelerator power.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
VoteNixon, I'll have to look into this a bit. It's possible of course heat just simply reset them when molten, leaving a reduced rate of radioactivity.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
NO heat can't reset the clock! stupid youtube rejected my comment where I explained this so ill do it again.
Radiometric dating is done by measuring the proportion of father isotopes to daughter isotopes(the decay products) and then relating these based on the half life.
Heat cannot say, turn nitrogen 14 back into carbon 14 or argon into potassium or anything like that. That would be alchemy! : )
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Heat does reset them because it jostles the radioactive atoms and makes them move through the rocks. Water also makes them percolate. We're talking periods of billions of years sometimes! There would be alot of this going on.
Don't forget the earth was molten back in the past. A speed rate of decay would extend that time of being molten.
Also, we don't know for sure if other phenomena nullify radioactivity. We've alot to learn about this universe :)
Pulsar205 2 years ago
Heat does cause diffusion but this only rearranges the atoms. With the exception of radon(heavy and small atom) and helium, small light atom) It is not typical to change the ratios of one to another.
If helium escaped though, that would only make it look younger or inconclusive, not ever make things look older.
This is why radon and helium aren't used.Other than that heat and other processes only change structure, not percent composition
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
So if heat rearranges them, why can't it rearrange them out of the sample?
I always puzzled over radioactivity and how a little block could be so hot for thousands of years. I know the theory but there doesn't seem to be enough particles to keep it going all that time.
I say there's more to it than we know. I can't go into it here, but I've had an insight into what the power source could be for radioactivity.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
Because diffusion is random movement. It's basically extremely slow brownian motion. Their configuration and structure changes but all in all the matter doesn't go any where. With the exception of He and Rn
Put some milk in hot coffee and you'll see it swirl around on it's own.