Earth Story: Video 1. The age of the earth (5of 6 )

[kkp5200]

lol

[dangitd]

My point is that Radio-Dating is based on assumptions. Wouldn't atomic fallout from a meteorite or a supernova in a nearby star system cause non-spontaneous decay? Do we assume that the Earth's atmosphere has been a constant?

Do we know for certain that the rate of decay has been constant throughout the life of the material?

None of these assumptions have been definitively proven, and there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

[DrMontague]

You're really a creationist crank. Non fool the Doc. It is blatantly obvious that you have not researched radio active decay of have no intensions of doing so.Now fuck off

[630633]

Methinks someone has been visiting AiG a little to often!

[drav1dan]

Which meteorite has caused an atomic fallout? As for atmospheric effects & rate of decay remaining constant, didn't u watch the previous segment?

But u are absolutely right. All of science is just assumptions built upon assumptions built upon... much like how some of the rocks in these videos were formed. If you want facts, there is only one source in this entire universe - the Holey Babble.

[DrMontague]

Assumption: something taken for granted

(Online dictionary.)

Science does take anything for granted. Science is a process of investigation that use observation and measurement to gain an understanding of the universe. It even tries to prove itself wrong.

[drav1dan]

Sarcasm: a derisive, ironic remark.

Couldn't you tell from my reference to the "Holey Babble".

[Daspien09]

@drav1dan like DrMontague science is a process of trial and error and observation and measurement, science today is much better than it was 100 years ago and as will be the science in another 100 years and so on

but lol to state the bible as fact is just delusional the bible is one big assumption and their is no proof or evidence just umm "faith" lol

this series said right at the get go the bible has it wrong and that it is only really a indication how long humans have had intelligence

[yzScott]

dangitd, perhaps you can enumerate the assumptions that Radiometic Dating rely on and point out which one(s) you think are unfounded.

[Frenchdayz]

Ice says yes the atmosphere has remained fairly constant since formation

[ThatOneQuestion]

You have a source for that, Frenchdayz?

[Frenchdayz]

Yes . . . the Ice

[Frenchdayz]

Since life has begun, it has been nice enough not to change drastically

[ThatOneQuestion]

Uh huh... yeah. Come on, I asked for a source, not for you to repeat what you said.

[DrMontague]

I thought you were a creationist. Sorry.

[ThatOneQuestion]

No problem, DrMontague. I hate it when my comments are misread like that.

I'll try to do a better job explaining myself next time.

[Frenchdayz]

Either accept it or dont, because tbh i have seen other "reliable" sources say the opposite !

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Either accept it or dont"

I dont accept anything without evidence.

How can reliable sources say the opposite without one of them being wrong or misinterpreting something?

That is why I asked for your source.

[kennydaluz]

@dangitd "Do we assume that the Earth's atmosphere has been a constant?"

No we don't, and if you were listening earlier on in the series, you would have heard them speaking of a time when evidence suggests the atmosphere was primarily made up of CO2.

[kennydaluz]

@dangitd "None of these assumptions have been definitively proven, and there is evidence to suggest otherwise."

No scientists assumes anything without sufficient evidence. Its not just the quality of evidence, but also the amount of evidence which is important... just saying there's evidence to suggest otherwise, is not enough, you need to measure that against all other evidence first before taking a position.

[JuryDutySummons]

@dangitd Only carbon-14 radio-dating uses material that would be impacted by atmospheric/solar input. All/almost all (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please) radio-dating methods are not impacted by atmospheric/solar conditions. Uranium/Lead decay, for example.

[dangitd]

This video looks fairly old. I wonder what kind of method they used exactly to date those rocks.

[DrMontague]

it's not old at all, however measuring radio active decay has been around since about 1930s

[dangitd]

How legit is radioactive decay? What is the margin of error and how many years does that turn out to be?

[DrMontague]

watch?v=t9-lyZEgqlI

Plus or minus 1 to 2 million years.

[dangitd]

So someone can take a stone arrowhead and date it back to the time when it was carved, not when the rock itself was created? How tha heck does that Work?

[drav1dan]

Radioactive decay tells how long ago the rock formed, not when the arrowhead was chipped off from it.

[Frenchdayz]

Id imagine its not too difficult to estimate the effects of weathering and erosion on a carved piece

[theseanze]

I like how the experts sort of temporarily become the host when explaining what they know. Humility on the Manning's part.

[DrMontague]

This is because Manningisa biologist who is learning about geology and how it affected life on earth.

[theseanze]

Yeah, but a lot of the time typical hosts ask questions and redundantly reiterate what the expert just said...as if we are only capable of understanding through their words.

[BravoSquirrel]

As a geologist myself, I have to say it's nice to have a full documentary on the history of Geology that explains the basic principles that often get bogged down in the technical language.

[mwholmes2006]

amazing footage of the underwater eruption. fantastic video.

[marklethanarkle]

great videos!! i hope that you continue to post more of them. thanks.

[Chaffinch4]

Interesting video! North of Greenland; the oldest rocks on Earth = 3.8 billion years. Clearly indications that it is coastal / shoreline rock, showing v clearly that there was water on the surface of the young Earth 3.8 billion years ago! It was a world of volcanoes and volcanic hailstones impacting with water and forming vast quantities of water vapour.

[marklethanarkle]

it is a beatiful state of mind, isn't it? i can't see why so many people are willing to ignore such an aesthetic antiquity of the earth, and replace it with the assertions of some ancient, biblical scholar.

[DrMontague]

marklethanarkle. Because of fear that there is no afterlife, if the bibles wrong then what it says about an afterlife must be wrong!

[marklethanarkle]

i agree. but i don't think that that's the only reason. it's a bit more complicated. the thing that's most perplexing to me, is their ability to completely ignore logical empiricism, while at the same time pressumably the most important "truth" ever, is to be accepted without any evidential support, and completely on faith. this is not virtuous, it's insane! thanks again, for the great videos!