One of their stated principles is that the Bible is completely accurate. IOW, if the Bible and observation don't match, what is observed is wrong and the Bible is right.
So, uh... if you are presenting.. uh.. just science here, regarding the earth's age, why all the reference to made-up and totally irrelevant bullshit like jesus, bible, "god", huh?
All that made-up garbage wouldn't happen to be the REAL reason and influence on your conclusions about science, carbon dating, age of the earth, WOULD IT?
but who says the earth is young? that's based on a concept that the 6 days God and gods made the earth is a scale of 1 day = 1000 years, which is an interpretation to lead ppl astray potentially. Whether biblically God did make the earth in 6 days, that has no basis to discredit science, nor science to discredit the bible.
Wait a minute. Who in their right mind uses Carbon-14 to date the Earth?
Carbon-14 is only good for dating materials up to about 60,000 years ago, because anything beyond that point has too much of the Carbon-14 having decayed away for it to be useful. Scientists use Potassium-Argon decay to date the oldest rocks.
Next time, if you are going to attack some particular point, it might help to know what you are talking about.
-So were the results published in a scientific journal for other geologists to examine and critique?
-Seeing as how the Rate group is a creationist research group, what safeguards were used to prevent fabricated data and outright fraud to produce a pre-determined result?
-Since the rate group is the one doing the research, they are the ones who have to prove that there was no fungus/bacterial contamination. You can't expect critics to prove that there was fungus after the research is done.
First off, creation and science should never, EVER, under any circumstance be used in the same sentence. Secondly, if C-14 does work back to 100,000 years (or 60,000) it is still 94,000 years older than your holy book says it is (or 54,000).
Fail! It is well known that coal seams and diamond deposits in the proximity of uranium ores creates C-14 when the uranium releases a beta particle when it decays. Another creationist failure who doesn't understand science
You can't date fossils with carbon dating. The carbon has been replaced with minerals. You'd think carbon would be a minimum requirement to date an object using a technique that uses carbon. And diamonds are dated using U-Pb techniques, not C14. Minor point, apparently. Nice try, though.
What I don't get.. and I NEVER will accept carbon dating is this: Without actual evidence, a dated document from the time frame or a time machine, they can never know if something dated ten million years ago is from ten million years ago until they have something to compare it too, it will always be a theory: always. ITS impossible to prove carbon dating this is logic. Dangerous.
Think about someone says this thing is a million years old, impossible unless you have something to compare it to.
@HppdCure Well do you need some educating. If a tap is dripping I can measure the rate. I can then go away for 6 months and calculate how much water will be there. I don't have to be standing there watching it. If you disagree you really are dumb.
(pt.2) And to do these kinds of things, you need to have some understanding of how different isotopes work. You are correct in that C-14 is not accurate after around 100,000 (or more like 60,000) years. But you don't use that isotope. You use isotopes from elements that you know have half-life that overlap, and you examine many different elements.
As as we have it, those with a slow enough half-life all appear to have been formed 4.54 billion years ago, ± 1%. Fancy that.
(pt.1) Have you ever used say mass spectroscopy to analyse stuff? I assume you have not, because I have, and if you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about you would know that;
a) You never ever analyse something using only one single method.
b) Different spectroscopy methods work for different things. Like, you can't use IR spectroscopy on dimolecular molecules, since their spinning would yield no variation in the radiation emitted (because they are equally heavy at both ends).
devourerofbabies, I attached extra speakers and managed to follow it for about three minutes then gave up. You haven't missed anything as all I heard was complete drivel. Easy to find refutations via Google.
Yea.. VaderSpeaks, you need to know a little bit about the equipment you use. For example using the AMS or Accelerator Mass Spectrometer it is nescessary to know the degree to which the electrical currents and background radiation levels affect the measurements.. THAT is why natural diamonds are used, to test the background of the measurements.
Regardless, dendrochronology alone proves the earth to be at least more than 50.000 years old, disprove that please, YEC-nut :)
even if you pick on certain cases when carbon dating dosent work may it be from close by uranium or aquatic environment it does not change the fact that it CAN be cross tested with things such as tree rings more then 10 000 years back without any gap (just to say something that does not relay on the same technique)
Wow, this is so great - so when are you going to disprove physics? You know, like that kooky astronomy stuff that says some of the stars we can see are so far away that it took thousands & thousands & THOUSANDS of years for their light to reach Earth, so Creation can't be any younger than that - so disproving physics has to be next. Oh, and all knowledge about DNA has to be wrong too, for YEC to work. And plate tectonics.
And medicine's wrong. Like flu jabs - they only make sense with evolution.
Anyone who watched this video should also watch lucretius1's response (posted in the comments). You (VaderSpeaks) are a spin doctor, but your creepy voice thing doesn't scare me! I know it means you're simply a teenager trying to conceal your age, knowing no one would believe the "scientific claims" if a 14-year-old with limited education. Or perhaps your're right, and the scientific community has been wrong for 400 years (back when the church killed you for saying the earth orbits the sun) hmm
...My question is how much carbon 14 was really found in these carbon deposits (radioactive isotopes are everywhere). The world is a lot more beautiful when its not 6000 years old. GOD PUT FOSSILS ON THE EARTH TO TEST US!! OMG... lololololollol
..here are a few: Potassium-argon dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Uranium-thorium dating , Samarium-neodymium dating, Uranium-lead dating, Fission track dating, Chlorine-36 dating, Optically stimulated luminescence dating, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, rhenium-osmium, uranium-lead-helium, and uranium-uranium. Many of these dating methods overlap, so you can see a relation.
What!? Seriously how old do you think the earth is Vaderspeaks...these creatoinalist pseudo-scientists go out in the field with a clear objective in mind (to disprove something because it contradicts their personal beliefs), while real scientists do not work this way. Carbon-14 dating is usually meant for measuring human artifacts, and is not the only radiometric dating method....
Carbon 14 works well, but it has a short half life. Still it proves the earth is at least 50,000 years old, a little more than the 6000 the bible says.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I "observe" (im doing some science) how youtube video creationists usually presents their evidence for their theories, they tend to stick to presenting their "evidence" while trying to debunk or refute evolution theory. Whilst evolutionists tend to attack personal character while giving reasons and defending their own theories. I'm no scientist, but, Character assassination isnt science.
True scientist always doubt their raw data out of single observations and out of single methods respectiely. If they cannot confirm their results by several independent observations and independent methods, resoectively, then they tell so or they are very fast told so by other scientists.
So, your biggest point can be debunked by pointing out sample contamination.
Carbon-14 is also created during radioactive decay near a carbon deposit. If a uranium deposit is decaying near a diamond deposit, the diamonds are contaminated with carbon-14.
Coal or diamonds are not dated using this method, you moron. This is freely available knowledge. Typical creationist crap, its all been addressed numerous times before, and yet you choose to repeat it! Please, no wonder no one takes you seriously.
Seriously? Prove science wrong? That statement is axiomatically incorrect as science is merely observation. What this man is doing is communicating observations. What he does is perfectly valid, according to the definition of science. Showing facts, not leaping to a biased conclusion.
@ForgottenFirearm What are you talking about? He's not presenting facts. There's no carbon in fossils to date fossils using carbon. They've been replaced with minerals. THAT's a fact!
The posts by Uaz31 below make me wonder how he (assumption) functions in a modern day society.
The tortured logic below in an attempt to validate myths written 2000 yrs ago by people who did not know the earth went round the sun is, simply insane.
Less than 100,000 yrs old? Bzzzzt Wrong asshole. If you can't get that right then it shows you don't even have the basics understood about c14 dating. Try half that you IDiot.
Evolutionists claim plants came before animals,but where did all the billions of dead things come from that make up soil on this sterile planet?God created the Earth fully formed and functioning,just like the animals and people.If you saw the Earth a day after it's creation you would have no idea that it was just created a few hours before you saw it.God doesn't try to fool anyone ,He told us how he did it,He can't help it if people refuse to believe Him.
Evolutionary biologists (and geologists, who are the ones actually unearthing the fossils that all this is based on) claim that single-celled organisms- some of which were photosynthetic and some of which were chemosynthetic- came before both animals and plants. How about you actually do your homework before you spout off about what "evolutionists" supposedly claim?
Speaking of doing your homework, have you actually read Genesis? Are you aware of the fact that chapter 2 (the Adam+Eve story) makes absolutely no mention of the 7 days story in chapter 1? That Chapter 1 makes no mention of the Garden of Eden, and that it states that man and woman were created together, not Eve out of Adam's rib? In fact, chapter 1 (as I said) doesn't even mention Adam and Eve!
These contradictions are obvious evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis were written by two human sources at two different times, and then fused together at a later date. In addition, neither mentions Leviathan, whom the book of Job clearly states God had to defeat in order to begin creation.
In short, if you simply allowed yourself to question whether the bible actually is the word of God, rather than assuming it is from the start, you would instantly see that it was written by men.
There are no contradictions in the Bible, your ignorance on the matter and preconcieved ideas about the Bible influence your bias opinions beforehand.
Careful study of the Bible does give answers for all your so called contradictions, you just fail to research the subject.
"There are no contradictions in the Bible, your ignorance on the the matter and preconcieved [sic] ideas about the Bible influence your bias opinions [sic] beforehand."
Preconceived ideas? You mean like the idea that the Bible was written by God?
And about this "careful study of the Bible" you have supposedly been doing: How much of it have you actually read? Which translation was it? Have you read other Near Eastern and Hellenistic myths as comparison material?
"Preconceived ideas? You mean like the idea that the Bible was written by God?"
Not written, but authored by God. Written by men of God as the Holy Spirit moved them.
"And about this "careful study of the Bible" you have supposedly been doing: How much of it have you actually read? "
It's a neverending story really cause the treasures are endless. I read it all, but theres always something more to find. Comparing scripture with scripture its really facinating in what God has to say.
King James Bible is the best translation from the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
"Have you read other Near Eastern and Hellenistic myths as comparison material?"
No sorry, I don't read myths about God. God's word stands alone there is no comparison. Altho I have read into other religions and beliefs it really only strengthens my faith in the Bible, seeing how much anything else pales in comparison. But now it would just be a complete waste of time to study anything else.
Not sure what you meant by that but if your confused on what I meant it was that now that I know for a fact that the Bible is God's word it is thus a waste of time to look anywhere else for truth outside of the Bible because the Bible is THE TRUTH.
And Yes, I do worship the Bible because it IS the very word of the LORD from His mouth. Every time we read the Bible it is God speaking to us.
"Word of God??? Numbers 35, or 31, Judges 11, 18 or 19."
Yes, word of God. What was your point in posting these verses?
"Can a man *really* live in a fish for 3 days?"
Well first of all the Bibical text there has been shown to not mean 24 hour periods. And there have been many reported cases of sailors being swallowed only to be spit out many hours later by whales, also the creature that swalled Jonah could of been a much bigger whale or cridder that is now extinct.
"And there have been many reported cases of sailors being swallowed only to be spit out many hours later by whales, also the creature that swalled Jonah could of been a much bigger whale or cridder that is now extinct."
You are insane. Provide 1 credible source for a human being swallowed by a fish for longer the 10 minutes and living. You are insane.
In March 1863 near Cape Cod, a whaling boat was struck by a whale sending a crewman overboard into the creatures open mouth. His legs caught in between the teeth of the whale and after it died, due to injuries from exploding harpoons, he was rescued and revived.
In February of 1891, James Bartley, a sailor aboard the whaling ship "Star of the East," was swallowed by a whale in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. He was within the whale for more than forty-eight hours later found alive.
"In February of 1891, James Bartley, a sailor aboard the whaling ship "Star of the East," was swallowed by a whale in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. He was within the whale for more than forty-eight hours later found alive."
1891.... Credible!!!
ROFLOL.
"The ship usually metioned is The Star of the East, and while there was an actual ship of that name, they do not have any record of a James Bartley sailing on her. Also, it was not a whaling ship."
Longboats that were sent from the whaling boat and Sir Francis Fox who was a civil engineer and well respected mentions the man as being there, so there is a log.
In addition, sperm whales get up to 60 feet long or longer and way many tons. That means that they have a mouth, esophagus, and stomach more than large enough to swallow, force down, and hold a man whole. And no, sperm whales are regular eaters, not baleen filter - feeders.
Sperm whales swallow their food whole.
If a sperm whales stomach can hold a 1 ton 43 foot long squid, there would be plenty of room for a 6 foot tall 200 lb. man! Finding those squids in stomach is quite routine.
The digestive process for animals that swallow other large animals whole is very slow, not only for whales but also for large constrictor snakes.
Fish and other higher underwater animals are not water bags, they are water - tight! So no, Jonah would not have drowned. What about oxygen? Thats the best part. Whales are not fish! They are MAMMALS! They breathe AIR! A whale, dolphin, manatee, or what have you comes up for air, and then DIVES, HOLDING ITS BREATH!
So Jonah was in a watertight chamber filled with air! And not only that, there is no real evidence that Jonah was being suffocated, crushed, and pressed by flesh! Again, He would be like a wallet in a womans purse! Or more like a sailor in his barracks (sleeping quarters) of his submarine!
So, the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, living for three days, and then being vomited up is entirely plausible according to science.
Yes. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, thats God Himself and so was Jesus, get it? Probably not.
"Did Mary not have a husband?"
Yes she did, she was betrothed to Joseph. But before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18). Joseph was not God so Him inpregnating Mary would not have created God Himself, common sense really.
Not sure what your trying to say here, don't think its in the Bible.
"Nothing but myths written by goat herders. "
Not true. Paul who wrote a majority of the Bible was a well educated man, a Roman citizen. And as far as it being a myth, well thats very much been disproven as well. There are over 1000 documents of the Bible that have been found all confirming and verifying each other and thats how you wittnessed back then and even today..you have many accounts and eyewtns
"They don't use carbon dating for the age of the earth"
Never made any such claim, The claim is that c-14 dating contradicts all claims that the Earth is billions of years old because it shows that supposedly hundreds of million syears old deposits are less than 100,000 years old.
Try thinking before you speak. It will do wonders for you.
"You know as well as I do that what you're saying is bullshit"
If you believe this, then kindly explain exactly how a dating method that says deposits that gradualism claims are hundreds of millions of millions of years old are really less than 100,000 years old doe not contradict dating methods that say the Earthis billions of years old. Go on. Show how there is no contradiction if its bullshit.
Come on now. Don;t be shy. Substantiate your claim.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth is around 6000 years old (4004 BCE) Even if the materials were less thatn 100000 years old, wouldn't that leave room for an older eath?
Yes it would and does. The majority of YECs are incorrect in the timeline. The man who originally arrived at 6,000 was way off base.
A careful and recent Bibical timeline puts Creation at 11,013 B.C., approximately 13,000 years ago. The 6,000 years they dwell on is closer to the year of Noah's flood which we now know was in the year 4,990 B.C. and also happens to be exactly 7,000 years to the very day on May 21, 2011, the day of the rapture.
"A careful and recent Bibical timeline puts Creation at 11,013 B.C., approximately 13,000 years ago. The 6,000 years they dwell on is closer to the year of Noah's flood which we now know was in the year 4,990 B.C. and also happens to be exactly 7,000 years to the very day on May 21, 2011, the day of the rapture."
lol. You can look up this work at familyradio dott comm under online literature "were almost there" booklet. It all comes directly from the Bible.
Another interesting fact is 13,000 years from creation was 1988 which was the end of the church age and the beginning of the 23 year tribulation ending in 2011.
13,000 + 23 years is 2011. 13 in the Bible signifies The end of the world, Satan, corruption and 23 signifies judgement.
"Another interesting fact is 13,000 years from creation was 1988 which was the end of the church age and the beginning of the 23 year tribulation ending in 2011.
13,000 + 23 years is 2011. 13 in the Bible signifies The end of the world, Satan, corruption and 23 signifies judgement. "
I really don't know who is worse. The Muslim extremist or you? You are one highly delusional human being.
"The claim is that c-14 dating contradicts all claims that the Earth is billions of years old because it shows that supposedly hundreds of million syears old deposits are less than 100,000 years old."
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
You are SUCH a fucking moron!!
Nice try, dipshit, but thats called an epic fail right there.
Why are idiots like you so sure you have the answers? You obviously dont have a fucking clue.
-"Never made any such claim, The claim is that c-14 dating contradicts all claims that the Earth is billions of years old because it shows that supposedly hundreds of million syears old deposits are less than 100,000 years old."-
The same deposits which are exposed to radioactive materials that produce C-14 like U-Th deposits? The same materials that are exposed to sulphur bacteria?
Maybe you mentioned it in the video and I missed it, but could you please post a link to your sources?
I would like to see any and all peer-reviewed articles that support your claim of Carbon-14 having been found in millions of year old materials, if those articles actually exist.
You can look up the rates work online its all peer reviewed just not by the secular universities because they don't allow any other view than evolution. See Ben Stiens movie, "Expelled" for a better understanding.
You forgot to mention the possibility that the C-14 detected in the old carbon deposits was introduced by nearby radioactive decay of unstable elements, such as uranium. It's not contamination *per se* and no amount of careful preperation will remove it.
RATE? Too easy to make a pun on their name, I must resist. But the fact that they're from the Institute of Creation Research doesn't EXACTLY make them any more independent than the completely politically driven scientists in the rest of the community, as you'd like to think. And science ISN'T about all ideas having equal merit - new ideas must be challenged properly in a scientific court before becoming anything close to fact or even theory. Don't look in science to explain your ancient stories.
And evoltuionaryscience isn't about ideas having equal merit either. If it were then evolutionary scientists would actually repeat the RATE group's experiments.
Too muc science is decided before the experiments are even run. I could cite numerous examples of instances where the results were given to the scientists before they tested anything and they were told that if they wanted more funding their tests would match the predetermined outcome.
"Too muc science is decided before the experiments are even run. I could cite numerous examples of instances where the results were given to the scientists before they tested anything and they were told that if they wanted more funding their tests would match the predetermined outcome."
Okay, let's see them, along with sources from good sites.
I take it you missed the fact that I cited the RATE group for this video, showed a picture of the latest book based on their research in the video, and have discussed it at length in the comments already?
I don;t want to adjust anything. I just want science to be unfettered by hostility and bias. IT's not science's fault, it the scientists who are. My new video explains how and why . . . scientifically.
I find your inability to consider Creation to be closed-minded. I at least have evaluated both sides. You are nothing more than the product of unquestioning loyalty.
I do have to ask Vader: do you have any formal training in biology, or even in physics, to be discussing radiometric dating, or it's applicability in these scenarios? The only reason I ask is because you are challenging basic facts well-established by well-trained men and women who have studied these phenomena for the better part of a century. Science isn't as easy as "peruse wikipedia, make point, contradict trained scientists and be right"
Could you be a bit more precise. Do you have a bachelor's degree in biology or physics, or any other natural science? Or are we talking the undergraduate requirement science classes that every college student takes, or .... or what?
I can, but I will not because, as you may have noticed, I am doing this channel anonymously. I have no desire for crtain of my peers to know this is me.
This is certainly your right, but I also have a great doubt you accomplished even an undergraduate degree in any relevant field of science. Science, unlike other realms of knowledge, is not one where everyone's opinion has equal merit. The training of countless scientific individuals who accept the very scientific tenets you, an untrained layman, rejects — speaks volumes.
Science is SUPPOSEd to be a ream where all ideas have equal merit . . . if there is evidence of some sort to provide that merit. However, pure science is no longer practiced. There is too much money and ideology wrapped up in it, and people let their personal biases interfere far too much.
Back when science was the hobby of the rich it was pure, drive solely by the desire to explain God's creation, but that time has passed forever. Now it is an industry withall the politcs that go with it.
Not really. I know practicing scientists. Hell, in a year I'll have my Bachelor's degree in Physics. This is not at all what science is about.
You forget that much fame is science is brought about by CHANGING the mainstream view. Why do you think people like Copernicus and Einstein went down in history as some of the most famous scientists of all time? Because they produced evidence that altered the realm of science entirely — not because they kept the "mainstream" view.
@VaderSpeaks "Science is SUPPOSEd to be a ream (sic) where all ideas have equal merit. . . if there is evidence of some sort to provide that merit."
Right. Like flat earth theory, alchemy, leaching, astrology - and all have SOME evidence to it, albeit non-scientific. They ALL have equal merit to current accepted science.
Um...no. Science is about the search for truth. Not all ideas are created equal. Sorry.
That's what the captions are for. HOwever, Since intelligibilty is a common complaint, I have posted a video where I use my real human voice to see how it works out.
i dont understand it. i try to, but i cant. i mean if you are christian, thats one thing, but reading the bible literally? you believe the earth was created in 6 days? you believe noah gathered couples of every single specie around the earth and put them on one boat?
if u try to carbon date something without any carbon, of course u are going to get erroneous results. i would be interested in their results if they used a radioactive dating method with a much larger half life and see if they get the same result.
also, could u cite ur sources pls? i googled the rate group and the only thing i got was an answersingenesis article.
If something has never been alive and has carbon-14, it's also liable to give a false positive, which is why carbon-14 is not used by any credible scientist for dating non-organic material.
Unless it was formed from a carbon deposit that had C-14 resulting from neutron capture underground. Or if it was simply put there at the moment of Creation in order to clue us in. Both scenarios work, and both disprove your assertion.
if you want to use words I doubt you understand you really should substantiate your claims. I think you're just repeating somethign you heard someone else say elsewhere and have no idea what your statement actually means. If you did you wouldn't have misused it here.
The RATE Team suffered from many flaws, the most significant of which was the lack of having an experienced geochronologists on their team, who could have help them navigate around their many errors.
As a geologist, I am always baffeled by YECers attempt to dispute RM dating by turning to apparent flaws in RC dating. We do not use RC dating to date rocks, because RC dating requires organic carbon to be present.
What YEC do, is exploit known problems with RC, which were resolved long ago.
Geologist my ass. I have seen you claim to be no less than 3 different kinds of scientist in the comments of variou schannels.
I think you pretend to be whatever is most convenient on any given video to attempt to get people to believe you.
Besides, you utterly fail to acknowledge that undergraduates in geology can do exactly this same experiment. Carbon dating is a common aspect of upper level geology classes.
Of coure, you would know that if you were a geologist.
I am also a veteran of the United States Navy. Are you going to insult that also, or are you going to behave like an adult?
And what does this little tantrum have to do with the issue at hand?
RATE was wrong from the onset. It is the classical BS in, you get BS out.
The person who needs an education is you.
(PS - Sorry buddy, but upper level geology courses do not include labs for C14 testing. Its covered in geophysics, but most colleges do not have facilities for the test)
Actually, my sexual orientation was none of the Navy's business and you will find quite a few of gays and lesbians serving honorably in our armed forces.
What this truly demonstrate, you are a hateful moron who despises his bull shit being called out and hauled across the carpet. For a person who claims to be a Christian, this is quite boorish behavior.
You hate truth. And when your lies are exposed, you behave like a brat.
If you are not prepare to play in the big leagues, go home.
BTW - Is this Daniel? If this is the case, I can see why you are such a pissed and pathetic loser, especially when I was one of the people who was instrumental with getting you banned from you tube.
I am normally a sticks and stones, turn the other cheek guy, but I do take exception to being insulted. If this were another time ...
You know nothing. You are nothing except a puppet mouthing the words of someone else. You know nothing of geology and by your behavior you likely are still in high school. At least I have my degree in geology you moron!
You are a hateful bigot and nothng more. I pity you.
Find the love of Christ in your heart before its to late.
i would be interested in seeing the peer reviewed evidence about the carbon 14 showing up in millions of years old fossils. Thank you and have a nice day :)
You can look up the rates work online its all peer reviewed just not by the secular universities because they don't allow any other view than evolution. See Ben Stiens movie, "Expelled" for a better understanding.
expelled exsmelled ya i said it. Although going to watch it this weekend. I need a good laugh. Like i said in a recent post i made just before this. Carbon 14 dating if it has holes they will be filled. Creationist go not do god any service what so ever! Can you give me a few other predominatly run christian countries that would even consider this other then the USA? I looked it up and NONE other then radical Muslem countries teach it or even entertain the idea. God is for inspiring. Not Science
"What about when science fails or the theory fails? Is that just god playing a practical joke?"
I don't think science fails but people do, theories are educated guesses, in the end only truth will stand all else will pass away.
I don't think God plays jokes, His ways are higher than our ways and so are His thoughts higher than ours. We so much want to bring God down to our level when He's not.
"its all peer reviewed just not by the secular universities"
Are you serious? The reason why "secular universities" (actually, the universities aren't the ones doing the peer review, but I'll let that slide) are actually qualified to do peer review is because they don't decide their conclusions in advance!
There's a reason government (which is run by Christians!) gives money to real universities: Because they produce real results! Christian "scientists" do not.
You'll let that slide, lol. Universities do peer reviews, thats where scientists do science you ignorant putz.
Any group of people who are PEERS, why its called PEER review.
It's also the reason the Darwinian's are the only ones who PEER review in your suggested PEER reviews, because their all PEERS of the religion of DARWINISM.
Government is not run by Christians, if it were abortion wouldn't be pushed to be legalized nor stem cell research on embryos, nor would they be taking our guns away from us, and the list goes on.
Just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't mean they are. I can claim to be a brain surgeon, that doesn't make me one. Read the Bible you IGNORANT PEOPLE, it tells you what a Christian ought to be.
"There's a reason government (which is run by Christians!) gives money to real universities: Because they produce real results! Christian "scientists" do not."
Government gives money to all universities you smuck not just secular. All universities produce results, science is science and it doesn't matter where you do it. Evolution on the other hand is in no way a science its a laughing stock and embarrasment of the science community, nothing more than a religion in disguise as a science.
You failed as soon as you used the RATE group.
One of their stated principles is that the Bible is completely accurate. IOW, if the Bible and observation don't match, what is observed is wrong and the Bible is right.
MrFungus420 2 months ago
My imaginary friend is better than yours!
AdamLemireEC 4 months ago
that is rubbish please check your facts god bless you
MrChristainchris 6 months ago
So, uh... if you are presenting.. uh.. just science here, regarding the earth's age, why all the reference to made-up and totally irrelevant bullshit like jesus, bible, "god", huh?
All that made-up garbage wouldn't happen to be the REAL reason and influence on your conclusions about science, carbon dating, age of the earth, WOULD IT?
mphello 6 months ago
but who says the earth is young? that's based on a concept that the 6 days God and gods made the earth is a scale of 1 day = 1000 years, which is an interpretation to lead ppl astray potentially. Whether biblically God did make the earth in 6 days, that has no basis to discredit science, nor science to discredit the bible.
finlongin 1 year ago
Wait a minute. Who in their right mind uses Carbon-14 to date the Earth?
Carbon-14 is only good for dating materials up to about 60,000 years ago, because anything beyond that point has too much of the Carbon-14 having decayed away for it to be useful. Scientists use Potassium-Argon decay to date the oldest rocks.
Next time, if you are going to attack some particular point, it might help to know what you are talking about.
balanceseeker 1 year ago
-So were the results published in a scientific journal for other geologists to examine and critique?
-Seeing as how the Rate group is a creationist research group, what safeguards were used to prevent fabricated data and outright fraud to produce a pre-determined result?
-Since the rate group is the one doing the research, they are the ones who have to prove that there was no fungus/bacterial contamination. You can't expect critics to prove that there was fungus after the research is done.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
First off, creation and science should never, EVER, under any circumstance be used in the same sentence. Secondly, if C-14 does work back to 100,000 years (or 60,000) it is still 94,000 years older than your holy book says it is (or 54,000).
bvwatcher 1 year ago
More creatard bull.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
Fail as darth and in science. What a dufess..
stevjen1 1 year ago 2
Fail! It is well known that coal seams and diamond deposits in the proximity of uranium ores creates C-14 when the uranium releases a beta particle when it decays. Another creationist failure who doesn't understand science
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
You can't date fossils with carbon dating. The carbon has been replaced with minerals. You'd think carbon would be a minimum requirement to date an object using a technique that uses carbon. And diamonds are dated using U-Pb techniques, not C14. Minor point, apparently. Nice try, though.
Ripley747 1 year ago
Watch the "Rebuttal" response... Vader gets pwnd.
SensibleSkeptic 1 year ago
What I don't get.. and I NEVER will accept carbon dating is this: Without actual evidence, a dated document from the time frame or a time machine, they can never know if something dated ten million years ago is from ten million years ago until they have something to compare it too, it will always be a theory: always. ITS impossible to prove carbon dating this is logic. Dangerous.
Think about someone says this thing is a million years old, impossible unless you have something to compare it to.
HppdCure 1 year ago
@HppdCure Well do you need some educating. If a tap is dripping I can measure the rate. I can then go away for 6 months and calculate how much water will be there. I don't have to be standing there watching it. If you disagree you really are dumb.
stevjen1 1 year ago
(pt.2) And to do these kinds of things, you need to have some understanding of how different isotopes work. You are correct in that C-14 is not accurate after around 100,000 (or more like 60,000) years. But you don't use that isotope. You use isotopes from elements that you know have half-life that overlap, and you examine many different elements.
As as we have it, those with a slow enough half-life all appear to have been formed 4.54 billion years ago, ± 1%. Fancy that.
Superslemmet 1 year ago
(pt.1) Have you ever used say mass spectroscopy to analyse stuff? I assume you have not, because I have, and if you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about you would know that;
a) You never ever analyse something using only one single method.
b) Different spectroscopy methods work for different things. Like, you can't use IR spectroscopy on dimolecular molecules, since their spinning would yield no variation in the radiation emitted (because they are equally heavy at both ends).
Superslemmet 1 year ago
Keep spreading the truth its so funny that evolutionists thumb down your video because they hate the truth.
coolvideo28 1 year ago
Bull shit, god fucking dam you and your jesus fucking shit make me sick. Use your real voice instead of a voice adaptor. Loser.
edteach2u 1 year ago
@edteach2u Yah! I'll vote this up. lol
stevjen1 1 year ago
devourerofbabies, I attached extra speakers and managed to follow it for about three minutes then gave up. You haven't missed anything as all I heard was complete drivel. Easy to find refutations via Google.
cnocspeireag 1 year ago
creation science is an oxymoron
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
Yea.. VaderSpeaks, you need to know a little bit about the equipment you use. For example using the AMS or Accelerator Mass Spectrometer it is nescessary to know the degree to which the electrical currents and background radiation levels affect the measurements.. THAT is why natural diamonds are used, to test the background of the measurements.
Regardless, dendrochronology alone proves the earth to be at least more than 50.000 years old, disprove that please, YEC-nut :)
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
Can't hear it
9pt9 1 year ago
I was going to listen to this but I can't understand the voice.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
you will note that no figures are presented. small errors due to machine contamination and noise in detector circuits are expected.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
even if you pick on certain cases when carbon dating dosent work may it be from close by uranium or aquatic environment it does not change the fact that it CAN be cross tested with things such as tree rings more then 10 000 years back without any gap (just to say something that does not relay on the same technique)
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
Wow, this is so great - so when are you going to disprove physics? You know, like that kooky astronomy stuff that says some of the stars we can see are so far away that it took thousands & thousands & THOUSANDS of years for their light to reach Earth, so Creation can't be any younger than that - so disproving physics has to be next. Oh, and all knowledge about DNA has to be wrong too, for YEC to work. And plate tectonics.
And medicine's wrong. Like flu jabs - they only make sense with evolution.
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
Actually... Creationism doesn't solely hold to young earth theories...
madturki 1 year ago
Anyone who watched this video should also watch lucretius1's response (posted in the comments). You (VaderSpeaks) are a spin doctor, but your creepy voice thing doesn't scare me! I know it means you're simply a teenager trying to conceal your age, knowing no one would believe the "scientific claims" if a 14-year-old with limited education. Or perhaps your're right, and the scientific community has been wrong for 400 years (back when the church killed you for saying the earth orbits the sun) hmm
oo1cookie 1 year ago
...My question is how much carbon 14 was really found in these carbon deposits (radioactive isotopes are everywhere). The world is a lot more beautiful when its not 6000 years old. GOD PUT FOSSILS ON THE EARTH TO TEST US!! OMG... lololololollol
purewilderness 1 year ago
..here are a few: Potassium-argon dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Uranium-thorium dating , Samarium-neodymium dating, Uranium-lead dating, Fission track dating, Chlorine-36 dating, Optically stimulated luminescence dating, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, rhenium-osmium, uranium-lead-helium, and uranium-uranium. Many of these dating methods overlap, so you can see a relation.
purewilderness 1 year ago
@purewilderness
I know, right? As if C-14 is the only method for dating out there.
Seriously, YECs. They look at only what proves them right and ignore what proves them wrong.
thrashkwan 1 year ago
What!? Seriously how old do you think the earth is Vaderspeaks...these creatoinalist pseudo-scientists go out in the field with a clear objective in mind (to disprove something because it contradicts their personal beliefs), while real scientists do not work this way. Carbon-14 dating is usually meant for measuring human artifacts, and is not the only radiometric dating method....
purewilderness 1 year ago
Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old
before
Nuclear Scientists told them it is Billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Carbon-14 dating is not the only method of dating you know... there are hundreds more and they all add up to pretty much the same thing,
happyhappy85 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Things to consider about Carbon Dating:
Samples of Known Ages are tested → It Doesn't Work
Unknown Ages are tested → It's Assumed to Work
...That's...not...Science.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
Creationists just don't understand Logic.
gregrutz 1 year ago 5
Creationists also don't understand science.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 9
Evolution was accepted 150 years ago.
Geologist showed the earth was millions of years old about 200 years ago.
Both before C14 dating was invented.
Fail !
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
You mask your voice like a coward.
MrEricthebilliken 2 years ago 5
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before dating methods were prefected. Fail. what every you said.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Carbon 14 works well, but it has a short half life. Still it proves the earth is at least 50,000 years old, a little more than the 6000 the bible says.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Not!!!
thechessstick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I "observe" (im doing some science) how youtube video creationists usually presents their evidence for their theories, they tend to stick to presenting their "evidence" while trying to debunk or refute evolution theory. Whilst evolutionists tend to attack personal character while giving reasons and defending their own theories. I'm no scientist, but, Character assassination isnt science.
dudafty 2 years ago
@dudafty
Why Do people laugh a Creationist?
gregrutz 1 year ago 2
True scientist always doubt their raw data out of single observations and out of single methods respectiely. If they cannot confirm their results by several independent observations and independent methods, resoectively, then they tell so or they are very fast told so by other scientists.
kleenex3000 2 years ago 13
"I dare you to engage me on the science I present here."
Great, I'm sure someone will when you present some science!
FordPrefect23 2 years ago 26
Respect, man.
ForgottenFirearm 2 years ago
Have you relented that your argument is bogus yet? It seems as though all your crap is pretty well covered by now
ProcInc 2 years ago
So, your biggest point can be debunked by pointing out sample contamination.
Carbon-14 is also created during radioactive decay near a carbon deposit. If a uranium deposit is decaying near a diamond deposit, the diamonds are contaminated with carbon-14.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Coal or diamonds are not dated using this method, you moron. This is freely available knowledge. Typical creationist crap, its all been addressed numerous times before, and yet you choose to repeat it! Please, no wonder no one takes you seriously.
glassbrain 2 years ago
Comment removed
audhi5000 2 years ago
Maybe rather then captions you could not use a stupid voice or use a stupid understandable voice.
You try so hard to prove science wrong you have a long long way to go. How about giving just one piece of evidence to support your idea?
izaakkt 2 years ago
Seriously? Prove science wrong? That statement is axiomatically incorrect as science is merely observation. What this man is doing is communicating observations. What he does is perfectly valid, according to the definition of science. Showing facts, not leaping to a biased conclusion.
ForgottenFirearm 2 years ago
@ForgottenFirearm What are you talking about? He's not presenting facts. There's no carbon in fossils to date fossils using carbon. They've been replaced with minerals. THAT's a fact!
Ripley747 1 year ago
Why do you use that stupid voice machine....!??
It's impossible to work out what you are saying...!
Cointet 2 years ago 3
I agree. Why use the dramatic BS? Oh yeah, real science is boring so you gotta use theatrics to get the numbskulls to pay attention.
epok205 2 years ago
Plus he speaks so damn fast... I really wanna bloody listen!
D3adGoon 2 years ago
Because it's...Vader speaking...? I thought that was pretty obvious.
ForgottenFirearm 2 years ago
Groan! Facepalm!
If God actually existed, I'm sure he would be seriously embarrassed by the sheer idiocy and deceitfulness of the people who claim to support him.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago 3
The posts by Uaz31 below make me wonder how he (assumption) functions in a modern day society.
The tortured logic below in an attempt to validate myths written 2000 yrs ago by people who did not know the earth went round the sun is, simply insane.
Truly a "God Delusion".
csadler 2 years ago
Fact remains that its not impossible.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"Fact remains that its not impossible. '
No, the fact is you should be in an institution if you truly believe this 'fish tale'.
csadler 2 years ago
Ha...Bible doesn't say it was a fish and whales are mammals not fish which is the most likely candidate.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"Ha...Bible doesn't say it was a fish and whales are mammals not fish which is the most likely candidate. "
Like that actually makes *any* difference.
My god man, wake up. You *terrify* me in that you could actually believe this stuff. Un-real.
csadler 2 years ago
Less than 100,000 yrs old? Bzzzzt Wrong asshole. If you can't get that right then it shows you don't even have the basics understood about c14 dating. Try half that you IDiot.
csadler 2 years ago
Evolutionists claim plants came before animals,but where did all the billions of dead things come from that make up soil on this sterile planet?God created the Earth fully formed and functioning,just like the animals and people.If you saw the Earth a day after it's creation you would have no idea that it was just created a few hours before you saw it.God doesn't try to fool anyone ,He told us how he did it,He can't help it if people refuse to believe Him.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
"evolutionists"? Who the hell are they?
Evolutionary biologists (and geologists, who are the ones actually unearthing the fossils that all this is based on) claim that single-celled organisms- some of which were photosynthetic and some of which were chemosynthetic- came before both animals and plants. How about you actually do your homework before you spout off about what "evolutionists" supposedly claim?
Arfalarf 2 years ago
Speaking of doing your homework, have you actually read Genesis? Are you aware of the fact that chapter 2 (the Adam+Eve story) makes absolutely no mention of the 7 days story in chapter 1? That Chapter 1 makes no mention of the Garden of Eden, and that it states that man and woman were created together, not Eve out of Adam's rib? In fact, chapter 1 (as I said) doesn't even mention Adam and Eve!
Arfalarf 2 years ago
These contradictions are obvious evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis were written by two human sources at two different times, and then fused together at a later date. In addition, neither mentions Leviathan, whom the book of Job clearly states God had to defeat in order to begin creation.
In short, if you simply allowed yourself to question whether the bible actually is the word of God, rather than assuming it is from the start, you would instantly see that it was written by men.
Arfalarf 2 years ago
There are no contradictions in the Bible, your ignorance on the matter and preconcieved ideas about the Bible influence your bias opinions beforehand.
Careful study of the Bible does give answers for all your so called contradictions, you just fail to research the subject.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"There are no contradictions in the Bible, your ignorance on the the matter and preconcieved [sic] ideas about the Bible influence your bias opinions [sic] beforehand."
Preconceived ideas? You mean like the idea that the Bible was written by God?
And about this "careful study of the Bible" you have supposedly been doing: How much of it have you actually read? Which translation was it? Have you read other Near Eastern and Hellenistic myths as comparison material?
Probably not.
Arfalarf 2 years ago
"Preconceived ideas? You mean like the idea that the Bible was written by God?"
Not written, but authored by God. Written by men of God as the Holy Spirit moved them.
"And about this "careful study of the Bible" you have supposedly been doing: How much of it have you actually read? "
It's a neverending story really cause the treasures are endless. I read it all, but theres always something more to find. Comparing scripture with scripture its really facinating in what God has to say.
Uaz31 2 years ago
King James Bible is the best translation from the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
"Have you read other Near Eastern and Hellenistic myths as comparison material?"
No sorry, I don't read myths about God. God's word stands alone there is no comparison. Altho I have read into other religions and beliefs it really only strengthens my faith in the Bible, seeing how much anything else pales in comparison. But now it would just be a complete waste of time to study anything else.
Uaz31 2 years ago
-"But now it would just be a complete waste of time to study anything else."-
Spoken like a true creationist.
CreationistRevil 2 years ago
Not sure what you meant by that but if your confused on what I meant it was that now that I know for a fact that the Bible is God's word it is thus a waste of time to look anywhere else for truth outside of the Bible because the Bible is THE TRUTH.
And Yes, I do worship the Bible because it IS the very word of the LORD from His mouth. Every time we read the Bible it is God speaking to us.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"And Yes, I do worship the Bible because it IS the very word of the LORD from His mouth. Every time we read the Bible it is God speaking to us."
Stone anyone lately?
Word of God??? Numbers 35, or 31, Judges 11, 18 or 19.
Can a man *really* live in a fish for 3 days? Virgin birth? Did Mary not have a husband?
Just how did Noah get the penguins to the Ark?
Is Pi really 3.0?
Nothing but myths written by goat herders.
csadler 2 years ago
"Word of God??? Numbers 35, or 31, Judges 11, 18 or 19."
Yes, word of God. What was your point in posting these verses?
"Can a man *really* live in a fish for 3 days?"
Well first of all the Bibical text there has been shown to not mean 24 hour periods. And there have been many reported cases of sailors being swallowed only to be spit out many hours later by whales, also the creature that swalled Jonah could of been a much bigger whale or cridder that is now extinct.
Uaz31 2 years ago
""Word of God??? Numbers 35, or 31, Judges 11, 18 or 19."
Yes, word of God. What was your point in posting these verses?"
The absolute absurdity of these passages. Not only wicked, but absurd. Numbers 35 especially.
csadler 2 years ago
No absurdity in numbers 35 just some people that have a misunderstanding of the text.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"And there have been many reported cases of sailors being swallowed only to be spit out many hours later by whales, also the creature that swalled Jonah could of been a much bigger whale or cridder that is now extinct."
You are insane. Provide 1 credible source for a human being swallowed by a fish for longer the 10 minutes and living. You are insane.
csadler 2 years ago
In March 1863 near Cape Cod, a whaling boat was struck by a whale sending a crewman overboard into the creatures open mouth. His legs caught in between the teeth of the whale and after it died, due to injuries from exploding harpoons, he was rescued and revived.
In February of 1891, James Bartley, a sailor aboard the whaling ship "Star of the East," was swallowed by a whale in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. He was within the whale for more than forty-eight hours later found alive.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"In February of 1891, James Bartley, a sailor aboard the whaling ship "Star of the East," was swallowed by a whale in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. He was within the whale for more than forty-eight hours later found alive."
1891.... Credible!!!
ROFLOL.
"The ship usually metioned is The Star of the East, and while there was an actual ship of that name, they do not have any record of a James Bartley sailing on her. Also, it was not a whaling ship."
LOL
csadler 2 years ago
Longboats that were sent from the whaling boat and Sir Francis Fox who was a civil engineer and well respected mentions the man as being there, so there is a log.
Also are many accounts of sharks swallowing men.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"Also are many accounts of sharks swallowing men. "
Ya.... in chunks....
csadler 2 years ago
In addition, sperm whales get up to 60 feet long or longer and way many tons. That means that they have a mouth, esophagus, and stomach more than large enough to swallow, force down, and hold a man whole. And no, sperm whales are regular eaters, not baleen filter - feeders.
Sperm whales swallow their food whole.
If a sperm whales stomach can hold a 1 ton 43 foot long squid, there would be plenty of room for a 6 foot tall 200 lb. man! Finding those squids in stomach is quite routine.
Uaz31 2 years ago
The digestive process for animals that swallow other large animals whole is very slow, not only for whales but also for large constrictor snakes.
Fish and other higher underwater animals are not water bags, they are water - tight! So no, Jonah would not have drowned. What about oxygen? Thats the best part. Whales are not fish! They are MAMMALS! They breathe AIR! A whale, dolphin, manatee, or what have you comes up for air, and then DIVES, HOLDING ITS BREATH!
Uaz31 2 years ago
Comment removed
WeedOfCrime 2 years ago
So Jonah was in a watertight chamber filled with air! And not only that, there is no real evidence that Jonah was being suffocated, crushed, and pressed by flesh! Again, He would be like a wallet in a womans purse! Or more like a sailor in his barracks (sleeping quarters) of his submarine!
So, the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, living for three days, and then being vomited up is entirely plausible according to science.
Uaz31 2 years ago
except that all the air that was breathed in by the whale when straight to fueling the blood, so most of the stuff left was carbon dioxide.
RaustBD 2 years ago
Comment removed
glassbrain 2 years ago
"Stone anyone lately?"
No. Why would I?
"Virgin birth?"
Yes. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, thats God Himself and so was Jesus, get it? Probably not.
"Did Mary not have a husband?"
Yes she did, she was betrothed to Joseph. But before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18). Joseph was not God so Him inpregnating Mary would not have created God Himself, common sense really.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"Is Pi really 3.0?"
Not sure what your trying to say here, don't think its in the Bible.
"Nothing but myths written by goat herders. "
Not true. Paul who wrote a majority of the Bible was a well educated man, a Roman citizen. And as far as it being a myth, well thats very much been disproven as well. There are over 1000 documents of the Bible that have been found all confirming and verifying each other and thats how you wittnessed back then and even today..you have many accounts and eyewtns
Uaz31 2 years ago
""Is Pi really 3.0?"
Not sure what your trying to say here, don't think its in the Bible."
You need a Bible refresher.
csadler 2 years ago
Can't understand everything your saying in video its all muffled because of your voice changer.
Uaz31 2 years ago
They don't use carbon dating for the age of the earth. They use other means of dating to be accurate. Get your science straight.
Oh, wait,
You're a creationist, nvm, fuck science, and stick to you flat earth, sun revolves around earth, god made man as-is shit.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
"They don't use carbon dating for the age of the earth"
Never made any such claim, The claim is that c-14 dating contradicts all claims that the Earth is billions of years old because it shows that supposedly hundreds of million syears old deposits are less than 100,000 years old.
Try thinking before you speak. It will do wonders for you.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
You know as well as I do that what you're saying is bullshit, but good job trying to seem smart, but you fail.
Since you believe the world started 6,000 years ago with adam, eve, and a talking snake you will fail in every debate.
Why yes, that was clever wasn't it?
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
"You know as well as I do that what you're saying is bullshit"
If you believe this, then kindly explain exactly how a dating method that says deposits that gradualism claims are hundreds of millions of millions of years old are really less than 100,000 years old doe not contradict dating methods that say the Earthis billions of years old. Go on. Show how there is no contradiction if its bullshit.
Come on now. Don;t be shy. Substantiate your claim.
We're waiting.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth is around 6000 years old (4004 BCE) Even if the materials were less thatn 100000 years old, wouldn't that leave room for an older eath?
CreationistRevil 2 years ago
Yes it would and does. The majority of YECs are incorrect in the timeline. The man who originally arrived at 6,000 was way off base.
A careful and recent Bibical timeline puts Creation at 11,013 B.C., approximately 13,000 years ago. The 6,000 years they dwell on is closer to the year of Noah's flood which we now know was in the year 4,990 B.C. and also happens to be exactly 7,000 years to the very day on May 21, 2011, the day of the rapture.
Uaz31 2 years ago
-"... the very day on May 21, 2011, the day of the rapture."-
The rapture was thought to arrive in 1848, it didn't. I'm unconvinced.
CreationistRevil 2 years ago
It's the truth, of coarse if you don't believe the Bible is the word of God you won't believe anything that comes out of it.
You can check out the work done at familyradio dott comm under online literature "were almost there" book
Uaz31 2 years ago
-"It's the truth, of coarse if you don't believe the Bible is the word of God you won't believe anything that comes out of it."-
Of course I don't, why do contradictions exist in the first place?
CreationistRevil 2 years ago
wat about taking onto consideration that a day to god is a thousand years to us
Kaney 2 years ago
Thats not God's word, so its not worthy of considering. Read the Bible for the correct scripture.
Uaz31 2 years ago
2Pe 3:8)
Kaney 2 years ago
"A careful and recent Bibical timeline puts Creation at 11,013 B.C., approximately 13,000 years ago. The 6,000 years they dwell on is closer to the year of Noah's flood which we now know was in the year 4,990 B.C. and also happens to be exactly 7,000 years to the very day on May 21, 2011, the day of the rapture."
You are insane.
csadler 2 years ago
lol. You can look up this work at familyradio dott comm under online literature "were almost there" booklet. It all comes directly from the Bible.
Another interesting fact is 13,000 years from creation was 1988 which was the end of the church age and the beginning of the 23 year tribulation ending in 2011.
13,000 + 23 years is 2011. 13 in the Bible signifies The end of the world, Satan, corruption and 23 signifies judgement.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"Another interesting fact is 13,000 years from creation was 1988 which was the end of the church age and the beginning of the 23 year tribulation ending in 2011.
13,000 + 23 years is 2011. 13 in the Bible signifies The end of the world, Satan, corruption and 23 signifies judgement. "
I really don't know who is worse. The Muslim extremist or you? You are one highly delusional human being.
csadler 2 years ago
"The claim is that c-14 dating contradicts all claims that the Earth is billions of years old because it shows that supposedly hundreds of million syears old deposits are less than 100,000 years old."
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
You are SUCH a fucking moron!!
Nice try, dipshit, but thats called an epic fail right there.
Why are idiots like you so sure you have the answers? You obviously dont have a fucking clue.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
-"Never made any such claim, The claim is that c-14 dating contradicts all claims that the Earth is billions of years old because it shows that supposedly hundreds of million syears old deposits are less than 100,000 years old."-
The same deposits which are exposed to radioactive materials that produce C-14 like U-Th deposits? The same materials that are exposed to sulphur bacteria?
CreationistRevil 2 years ago
i turned the pitch up on my audio and i can hear ur normal voice.... NICE TRY
nonameneeded07 2 years ago
Maybe you mentioned it in the video and I missed it, but could you please post a link to your sources?
I would like to see any and all peer-reviewed articles that support your claim of Carbon-14 having been found in millions of year old materials, if those articles actually exist.
Arfalarf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can look up the rates work online its all peer reviewed just not by the secular universities because they don't allow any other view than evolution. See Ben Stiens movie, "Expelled" for a better understanding.
Uaz31 2 years ago
You forgot to mention the possibility that the C-14 detected in the old carbon deposits was introduced by nearby radioactive decay of unstable elements, such as uranium. It's not contamination *per se* and no amount of careful preperation will remove it.
BiggusRobbicus 2 years ago
RATE? Too easy to make a pun on their name, I must resist. But the fact that they're from the Institute of Creation Research doesn't EXACTLY make them any more independent than the completely politically driven scientists in the rest of the community, as you'd like to think. And science ISN'T about all ideas having equal merit - new ideas must be challenged properly in a scientific court before becoming anything close to fact or even theory. Don't look in science to explain your ancient stories.
mikem42 2 years ago
And evoltuionaryscience isn't about ideas having equal merit either. If it were then evolutionary scientists would actually repeat the RATE group's experiments.
Too muc science is decided before the experiments are even run. I could cite numerous examples of instances where the results were given to the scientists before they tested anything and they were told that if they wanted more funding their tests would match the predetermined outcome.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
"Too muc science is decided before the experiments are even run. I could cite numerous examples of instances where the results were given to the scientists before they tested anything and they were told that if they wanted more funding their tests would match the predetermined outcome."
Okay, let's see them, along with sources from good sites.
malcolmeat 2 years ago
How about citing your sources. You have made a number of assertions. Where can we verify them?
Largo64 2 years ago
I take it you missed the fact that I cited the RATE group for this video, showed a picture of the latest book based on their research in the video, and have discussed it at length in the comments already?
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
It is fascinating to observe how you use counterfactual thinking to adjust your schema to maintian your second primary psychological need.
In laymans terms, keep teling yourself that if it makes you feel better about yourself. It doesn't make it true.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
I don;t want to adjust anything. I just want science to be unfettered by hostility and bias. IT's not science's fault, it the scientists who are. My new video explains how and why . . . scientifically.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
I find your inability to consider Creation to be closed-minded. I at least have evaluated both sides. You are nothing more than the product of unquestioning loyalty.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
I need only say this to disprove this idiotic crap...
*clears my throat* you're stupid...
Anthrax4000 2 years ago
I do have to ask Vader: do you have any formal training in biology, or even in physics, to be discussing radiometric dating, or it's applicability in these scenarios? The only reason I ask is because you are challenging basic facts well-established by well-trained men and women who have studied these phenomena for the better part of a century. Science isn't as easy as "peruse wikipedia, make point, contradict trained scientists and be right"
lucretius1 2 years ago
yes.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Could you be a bit more precise. Do you have a bachelor's degree in biology or physics, or any other natural science? Or are we talking the undergraduate requirement science classes that every college student takes, or .... or what?
lucretius1 2 years ago
I can, but I will not because, as you may have noticed, I am doing this channel anonymously. I have no desire for crtain of my peers to know this is me.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
This is certainly your right, but I also have a great doubt you accomplished even an undergraduate degree in any relevant field of science. Science, unlike other realms of knowledge, is not one where everyone's opinion has equal merit. The training of countless scientific individuals who accept the very scientific tenets you, an untrained layman, rejects — speaks volumes.
lucretius1 2 years ago
Science is SUPPOSEd to be a ream where all ideas have equal merit . . . if there is evidence of some sort to provide that merit. However, pure science is no longer practiced. There is too much money and ideology wrapped up in it, and people let their personal biases interfere far too much.
Back when science was the hobby of the rich it was pure, drive solely by the desire to explain God's creation, but that time has passed forever. Now it is an industry withall the politcs that go with it.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Not really. I know practicing scientists. Hell, in a year I'll have my Bachelor's degree in Physics. This is not at all what science is about.
You forget that much fame is science is brought about by CHANGING the mainstream view. Why do you think people like Copernicus and Einstein went down in history as some of the most famous scientists of all time? Because they produced evidence that altered the realm of science entirely — not because they kept the "mainstream" view.
lucretius1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VaderSpeaks "Science is SUPPOSEd to be a ream (sic) where all ideas have equal merit. . . if there is evidence of some sort to provide that merit."
Right. Like flat earth theory, alchemy, leaching, astrology - and all have SOME evidence to it, albeit non-scientific. They ALL have equal merit to current accepted science.
Um...no. Science is about the search for truth. Not all ideas are created equal. Sorry.
Ripley747 1 year ago
hm. ok. maybe i`ll consider to watch it if you consider to use text or a human voice. i turned this video off after about 40 seconds :)
v1660 2 years ago
That's what the captions are for. HOwever, Since intelligibilty is a common complaint, I have posted a video where I use my real human voice to see how it works out.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Evolution is fanciful, not factual. But I understand your confusion. You need it to be factual in order to believe you are a rational being.
It's okay. It's a normal need, though it makes so man y eople do and believe such horribly irrational things.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Carbon Dating has always been inconsistent. Using the weakest science to reinforce the weakest theory is a bad argument to make from any standpoint.
UTubeBrowzer 2 years ago
i dont understand it. i try to, but i cant. i mean if you are christian, thats one thing, but reading the bible literally? you believe the earth was created in 6 days? you believe noah gathered couples of every single specie around the earth and put them on one boat?
v1660 2 years ago
Yes, yes, and that will be explained in this series.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
if u try to carbon date something without any carbon, of course u are going to get erroneous results. i would be interested in their results if they used a radioactive dating method with a much larger half life and see if they get the same result.
also, could u cite ur sources pls? i googled the rate group and the only thing i got was an answersingenesis article.
vagae056 2 years ago
If somerthign has no carbon then it will also have no carbon-14, meaning you will get extremely accurate results of "no detectable C-14".
Seriously man, have you no faith in science?
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
If something has never been alive and has carbon-14, it's also liable to give a false positive, which is why carbon-14 is not used by any credible scientist for dating non-organic material.
UTubeBrowzer 2 years ago
Unless it was formed from a carbon deposit that had C-14 resulting from neutron capture underground. Or if it was simply put there at the moment of Creation in order to clue us in. Both scenarios work, and both disprove your assertion.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
It's easy to build a strawman argument to support your case, but that's not science.
UTubeBrowzer 2 years ago
*YAWN*
if you want to use words I doubt you understand you really should substantiate your claims. I think you're just repeating somethign you heard someone else say elsewhere and have no idea what your statement actually means. If you did you wouldn't have misused it here.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
The RATE Team suffered from many flaws, the most significant of which was the lack of having an experienced geochronologists on their team, who could have help them navigate around their many errors.
As a geologist, I am always baffeled by YECers attempt to dispute RM dating by turning to apparent flaws in RC dating. We do not use RC dating to date rocks, because RC dating requires organic carbon to be present.
What YEC do, is exploit known problems with RC, which were resolved long ago.
lawilson200 2 years ago 4
Geologist my ass. I have seen you claim to be no less than 3 different kinds of scientist in the comments of variou schannels.
I think you pretend to be whatever is most convenient on any given video to attempt to get people to believe you.
Besides, you utterly fail to acknowledge that undergraduates in geology can do exactly this same experiment. Carbon dating is a common aspect of upper level geology classes.
Of coure, you would know that if you were a geologist.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Wow, I see you have some issues. The lease of whch, obeying your own rules.
However, this little rant of yours does nothing to undermine the original posting.
Now do you want to clear your head and try again.
lawilson200 2 years ago
I am also familiar with this tactic of yours as I have seen it in other people's videos.
Since you are a proven liar, everything you say is undermined by your character as a liar.
Oh, and since I also know you be a troll . . .
goodbye.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
I am also a veteran of the United States Navy. Are you going to insult that also, or are you going to behave like an adult?
And what does this little tantrum have to do with the issue at hand?
RATE was wrong from the onset. It is the classical BS in, you get BS out.
The person who needs an education is you.
(PS - Sorry buddy, but upper level geology courses do not include labs for C14 testing. Its covered in geophysics, but most colleges do not have facilities for the test)
lawilson201 2 years ago
The Navy, nor any other branch of military sewrvice allows openly homosexual people to serve. So I call bullshit on this claim too.
The lies keep stacking up.
And before you call me a liar, I have seen you admit to being one.
now how did you bypas being blocked . . .
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Oh. I See. A sock account.
More proof that you are a troll as well as a liar.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Actually, my sexual orientation was none of the Navy's business and you will find quite a few of gays and lesbians serving honorably in our armed forces.
What this truly demonstrate, you are a hateful moron who despises his bull shit being called out and hauled across the carpet. For a person who claims to be a Christian, this is quite boorish behavior.
You hate truth. And when your lies are exposed, you behave like a brat.
If you are not prepare to play in the big leagues, go home.
lawilson202 2 years ago
This coming from someone who is a proven liar, and an obsessive troll to boot. You have no credibilty. Goodbye.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
BTW - Is this Daniel? If this is the case, I can see why you are such a pissed and pathetic loser, especially when I was one of the people who was instrumental with getting you banned from you tube.
lawilson202 2 years ago
Another sock account? How many of these things do you have?
And who's Daniel?
Not that it matters. You won't be able to respond anyway, unless you have another sock troll.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
I am normally a sticks and stones, turn the other cheek guy, but I do take exception to being insulted. If this were another time ...
You know nothing. You are nothing except a puppet mouthing the words of someone else. You know nothing of geology and by your behavior you likely are still in high school. At least I have my degree in geology you moron!
You are a hateful bigot and nothng more. I pity you.
Find the love of Christ in your heart before its to late.
lawilson205 2 years ago
You're still trolling?
How many times do I have to ban you?
better yet, how about I just fire off a harassment note to the editors.
Oh, and yes, my CAMERAMAN is banned. The rest of us are not. Yes. I said us.
Now go away little liar.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
No sir. This is not trolling.
You sir have committed libel and slander, by saying false things about me and attacking my character.
I have every right to defend myself from such attacks.
There are consequences for such libelous behavior.
lawilson206 2 years ago
You would know all about lies, wouldn't you troll?
Bye-bye again.
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
Actually, I would not. I take pride being honest on all things.
This is the only reason why I am fighting back. I refuse to be bullied by the likes of you!
lawilson204 2 years ago
Ah yes. tis such bullying to block a troll.
Tis a sad, sad would you inhabit.
goodbye again dear troll, may your channels not live to lie again elsewhere!
VaderSpeaks 2 years ago
i would be interested in seeing the peer reviewed evidence about the carbon 14 showing up in millions of years old fossils. Thank you and have a nice day :)
ShellySummers 2 years ago
You can look up the rates work online its all peer reviewed just not by the secular universities because they don't allow any other view than evolution. See Ben Stiens movie, "Expelled" for a better understanding.
Uaz31 2 years ago 2
expelled exsmelled ya i said it. Although going to watch it this weekend. I need a good laugh. Like i said in a recent post i made just before this. Carbon 14 dating if it has holes they will be filled. Creationist go not do god any service what so ever! Can you give me a few other predominatly run christian countries that would even consider this other then the USA? I looked it up and NONE other then radical Muslem countries teach it or even entertain the idea. God is for inspiring. Not Science
ShellySummers 2 years ago
Hogwash, all science is, is the exploration of God's creation, nothing more.
Evolution, however is a religion, when you give God like properties to time, space and matter, ya thats called religion.
Uaz31 2 years ago 2
Hogwash, all science is, is the exploration of God's creation, nothing more
To a certain extent i agree with you. What about when science fails or the theory fails? Is that just god playing a practical joke?
Evolution, however is a religion, when you give God like properties to time, space and matter, ya thats called religion.
Have you even looked up the dictionary definition of evolution? By you definition i would say no. Start there please!
ShellySummers 2 years ago
"What about when science fails or the theory fails? Is that just god playing a practical joke?"
I don't think science fails but people do, theories are educated guesses, in the end only truth will stand all else will pass away.
I don't think God plays jokes, His ways are higher than our ways and so are His thoughts higher than ours. We so much want to bring God down to our level when He's not.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"its all peer reviewed just not by the secular universities"
Are you serious? The reason why "secular universities" (actually, the universities aren't the ones doing the peer review, but I'll let that slide) are actually qualified to do peer review is because they don't decide their conclusions in advance!
There's a reason government (which is run by Christians!) gives money to real universities: Because they produce real results! Christian "scientists" do not.
Arfalarf 2 years ago
You'll let that slide, lol. Universities do peer reviews, thats where scientists do science you ignorant putz.
Any group of people who are PEERS, why its called PEER review.
It's also the reason the Darwinian's are the only ones who PEER review in your suggested PEER reviews, because their all PEERS of the religion of DARWINISM.
Uaz31 2 years ago
Government is not run by Christians, if it were abortion wouldn't be pushed to be legalized nor stem cell research on embryos, nor would they be taking our guns away from us, and the list goes on.
Just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't mean they are. I can claim to be a brain surgeon, that doesn't make me one. Read the Bible you IGNORANT PEOPLE, it tells you what a Christian ought to be.
Uaz31 2 years ago
"There's a reason government (which is run by Christians!) gives money to real universities: Because they produce real results! Christian "scientists" do not."
Government gives money to all universities you smuck not just secular. All universities produce results, science is science and it doesn't matter where you do it. Evolution on the other hand is in no way a science its a laughing stock and embarrasment of the science community, nothing more than a religion in disguise as a science.
Uaz31 2 years ago