Does Carbon Dating Prove Millions of Years?

[@thinking_about_beer]

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5568 years. This means it can only be accurate from 300 to about 50,000 years ago

[@redbeard5598]

Correct.

[@paulhargreaves9103]

@@thinking_about_beer that still assumes no change in atmosphere

[@thinking_about_beer]

@paulhargreaves9103 this is a great question! Do changes in atmosphere change the level of carbon decay. Have you ever looked to check this out at all?

[@Chazd1949]

@@thinking_about_beer The "level" - that is the rate of carbon-14 decay is a constant. However, the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere varies due to certain conditions. 1) Atmospheric atomic bomb testing has affected atmospheric C-14 levels currently measured. However, this does not affect the C-14 "locked" in to samples more than 75-80 years old. 2) Previous to 1945, some slight changes in the C-12/C-14 ratio are known to have occurred because of variable cosmic ray output from the sun. C-14 in the upper atmosphere is produced by a gamma ray striking a nitrogen atom's nucleus causing a nitrogen proton to change to a neutron, thus converting it to a carbon atom having 6 protons and 8 neutrons (6 + 8 =14, i.e., carbon-14). The variability of C-14 production is due to the variability of the sun's output of gamma rays. However, the variability in C-14 production can be seen in the slight changes of C-14 found across tree ring patterns using tress dating as far back as 8,000+ years. Thus a calibration tool has been devised to make C-14 quite accurate for obtaining ages of carbon-bearing materials dating back to about 25,000 - 30,000 years with increasing uncertainty beyond that range out to about 50,000 years.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*The take away on this video is that they referenced a faked AiG lava study, where AiG intensionally ordered the wrong type of Potassium dating for young lava contaminated with 420 Million year of gravel. The act like it's evidence against scientists. AiG was called out for it, yet repeated the dishonesty with Mt St Helens a few years later. NASA has had a new test out since 1982 & AiG ordered the old testing method on purpose, twice in a row, even after being publicly criticized*

[@Pay-It_Forward]

4:30 *This is why (Carbon14 Dating) is only used on things less than 200K years old. There's dozens of other types of Radiometric Dating for things millions of years old.*

[@commandercontraband]

Bullshit ..... it's the number one gotoo dating system..............so we have proof the satanic scientific community had a massive rush of SCAT to the brain..............millions of studies used carbon dating as proof to perpetuate the myth of evolution.......fake phony science media..........exposed. not to mention you missed the point.everything has carbon 14 in it pay it backwards

[@capnjs]

Yet all these dating methods are based on a presupposition of age-their methodology assumes the very thing they are claimed to prove!

[@Pay-It_Forward]

​@@capnjsNo it doesn't. Radiometric Dating is very accurate if the right test is done on the correct type of item. The only time it's off is when an uneducated person violates this rule or contaminates the sample. The video makes lots of false positive deductions & false claims.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

​@@capnjsAiG & other Intelligent design groups, purposely use the wrong tests, to test items they know have contamination, in order to get wrong results for their videos & artificials.

[@capnjs]

@@DocReasonable in no way does an atomic explosion rely on a calculation that needs to be correct over 1,000 years. If this were true, then carbon dating would not even give a range of dates, which it does. This position could only be held by a person who has never seen the results of carbon dating, has never studied the methods, and has never looked into the claim they are making.

[@nagaxplorer2022]

All very well explained. As a geologist I find it difficult to accept that ALL the sedimentary layers were laid down in a single catastrophic event! The sedimentary record is huge and varied and very very complex as I see it. How about the sediments laid down BEFORE the flood? How do creationists account for them?? Be grateful for answers

[@questionauthority-f6i]

The flood has never been claimed to be the beginning of time

[@petertheore668]

@@questionauthority-f6i there was no “flood “. Floods of the Nile and Euphrates and any river happen often. The story of the biblical flood is a myth - a parable - just a story and an important one . Why ruin it trying to pretend the myth is “real”?

[@billperez1141]

Thanks a million for this post. It's sad to know that many who practice the religion of evolution know this yet still willingly ignore the evidence before their eyes.

[@dean0903]

They see but do not perceive hear but do not understand

[@SlayerofFiction]

Wisdom teeth having to be removed is a part of our devolution so to speak. Since we chew foods which are softer our jaws no longer expand to allow wisdom teeth to come in. Science works, religion just makes shit up.

[@groovecouple4644]

@@SlayerofFiction Sounds you just made that up. Science , real observable science, informs us that order is not the default setting in nature.

[@SlayerofFiction]

@@groovecouple4644 Better let Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Daniel Lieberman know so he can correct his latest book "The Story of the Human Body" But hey, you watch Faux, expect little get less.

[@groovecouple4644]

@@SlayerofFiction Oh the classic appeal to authority. Nice. So you have no reasoning ability. Let me know when you see one life form evolving into another or abiogenesis taking place. But you’ll say” That takes millions of years!” Ok, so you have FAITH that macro-evolution caused the variety of life forms on earth and life spontaneously arose from fortunate random chemical reactions. I have faith that design implies a designer. And I have examples I see everyday that backs that reasoning up. You have , lol, faith in a process that you cannot see or replicate.

[@gatolf2]

Evolutionists move dates around all of the time. Upright humans have been dated further back then they were 10 years ago and they moved the evolution of grass date to accommodate for the fact that they found out that some dinosaurs ate it lol. They do these date changes quietly so you won’t notice until you start digging. Most people don’t pay attention to details. They hear the big news about something and basically take the headline as the full story.

[@SlayerofFiction]

Sure we notice, that is how we know science works as it is constantly evolving do to the information provided, vs the Bible that supposedly stands alone with gods word, which changes constantly of course in immense contradiction.

[@gatolf2]

@@SlayerofFiction the Bible doesn’t change. It’s said the same thing for thousands of years with “contradictions” meaning atheists reading out of context and having no understanding of biblical history. Evolution is based on speculation. Scientists only accept it because it’s a natural explanation that, if we’re true, doesn’t invoke a higher power or “magic” as they would like to call it. The fossil record doesn’t show near enough of the story to conclude such a thing happened. Even Richard Dawkins said that they appear as if they were just placed there with no evolutionary ancestors. Without the fossil record you have the comparisons of DNA which is choppy because it has the same problem the homogeneous structures have. You have to invoke the idea of evolution to believe that that’s why there are similar structures. It makes just as much sense that a creator would make the structures similar because they need to perform similar functions. Heckles drawings were based on false depictions of the different stages in embryos and yet the idea that those were meant to prove is still used as evidence for evolution. Goin back to my first comment now. If the dates for the grass was wrong then what makes the date for the dinosaur that it was found in right? If that date is based of radiocarbon dating, why is the amount of radiocarbon detectable in a 65 million year old animal? This is a huge issue that isn’t met with any serious answers. “Science is always self correcting” isn’t an answer that want to hold onto. This misdate was “corrected” in 2005. It probably went decades before being “corrected”. Just like soft tissue was never suppose to be found in dinosaur bones because they were suppose to be too old. 65 times older then the MAXIMUM shelf life of soft tissue. another belief that everyone believed for probably 50+ years.

[@SlayerofFiction]

@@gatolf2 You really know nothing at all about science, do you? the book "Science Matters; Achieving scientific literacy in the 21st century" would help you greatly. What fossils? We have fossile evidence to track humans for the six million years of their evolution, from the time we first started walking bi pedal (Not humans yet) to the modern human (200k) A book which I know you will never read as he is the boogyman is "Undeniable" by Bill Nye, super easy book which would be easily understood at your level. You could do better and read "Orgin of the species" by Charles Darwin, how a man of the cloth came to his scientific determination. the Bible was not written at the same time, the Old Testament or Torah was written over centuries dating to around 1200 BCE or about 2300 years after the first writing appeared. God you know, he just was not literate for the the first few centuries. The New Testament which completely contradicts the old was started in the first Century AD. It changed profoundly over time with the advent of the Luthern Religion and breakaway from the Catholics in the 16th century. You have never read the Bible and know nothing of the history, do you?

[@SlayerofFiction]

@@gatolf2 The bulk of our Dinosaur discovery has been made in the last 20 years, with new dating methods, new fossile finds we are constantly rewriting their history. The oldest known blades of grass were found in Amber from what we know as India today (continents were still together at this time, India has only been around since 1247 AD and dated to 100 million years. I think the funnest book for you to understand is "How to build a Dinosaur" from Horner, lead Paleontologist for the Jurassic Park Movies. Overall all this will change as thinking and finds change, welcome to science. There have been some brilliant scientists who are still religious with arguably the most famous being

[@gatolf2]

@@SlayerofFiction you’ve just repeated what I said to you lol. No there is 6 million years of human evolution found in the fossil record. That’s why old discoveries are still seen as the best evidence for our lineage. The many small changes to get ape/like creatures to humans would take much longer then the ape to human time frame suggested. None of Bill Nye’s work is impressive. He’s also not even qualified to talk on biology or even geology. He’s a spokesperson for the theory and that’s all he’ll ever be. The only way his work could be “the boogeyman” to me is if I was afraid of clowns. No one ever claimed that God himself wrote the Bible. At least not the majority of Christians. So calling god illiterate because of the dates that the different books of the Bible were written in is redundant. Very few people back then were educated in writing and it was also expensive. Yes welcome to the only branch of science that’s always wrong with predictions and has to hold on to old out dated data to support its theory. I’m sure bill nyes book is filled with rhetoric about how natural selection and mutations make evolution possible and that good examples of this are the way we don’t need our tonsils or our tail bones are left overs from our ancestors.

[@bobthebuilder9553]

Mainstream science will never come around to seeing the point that perhaps the world and things within it are not as old as they think.

[@beragis3]

The people who wrote the bible didn't understand the concept of forever. When the word day is said in the bible it is meant to be taken figuratively not literally. Jews, who the old testament was written for consider a day to be a step, not literally a single 24 hour day. Who is it for Christians to counter how they interpret our common testament? There is still talk to this day on how to interpret the Ancient Hebrew which was missing vowels, and verb tenses, and many other grammatical structures that exist in modern Hebrew. The Catholic Church, the Church through which all Christian Denominations can trace their roots, and are some of the most educated of all denominations do not enforce a literal interpretation of creation. Any talk on literal interpretation falls right into Satan's trap to discredit Christianity. Which implies that the people pushing such creationism nonsense are false prophets.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

False profits 😂😂😂 You take 'em down with religion, I'll take 'em down with atheism. As long as we take 'em down....

[@alantasman8273]

@@beragis3The vast majority of Hebrew scholars of the scriptures believe the exact opposite of what you stated. They believe the creation week was six literal 24 hrs days and that God did not rest for millions or billions of years on day seven when he gave man the sabbath day as a 24 hr day of rest.

[@alantasman8273]

@@beragis3 You are kidding are you not...From the the very beginning of Genesis...it was understood that eternal life was attainable....which represents forever. Even the Tree of Life attested to this fact. The old and new scriptures speak about living for ever with God. The scriptures certainly do talk about the concept of forever as part of mans restoration with God.

[@m0x910]

@@beragis3 “…And there was evening and there was morning, the first day…. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day….And there was evening and there was morning, the third day…. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day…. And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day… And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬, ‭8‬, ‭13‬, ‭19‬, ‭23‬, ‭31‬ ‭ESV.‬‬ Safe to say they were literally 24 hour days.

[@billdoell2930]

Post is 3 years ago, not even 1k views, pretty, sad. The topic, is very, important.

[@nargacuga4597]

It's because it is false and misleading. Carbon dating cannot measure the age of dinosaur fossils or fossils of ancient plants. It's false because the amount carbon-14 is negligible in more ancient fossils that dates back millions of years ago. If you could find a reputable source or study which points otherwise, then send me a link. Paleontologists don't use carbon to date dinosaur fossils. Instead, they use uranium-lead dating or potassium-argon dating, which can measure more ancient fossils because of their longer half-life. In short, this video is a poor attempt to disprove evolution. Carbon dating is only useful in archeological findings and not used in ancient fossils. 😂

[@luis-sophus-8227]

Zensoorship at its finest

[@manamanathegreat]

no, he's misrepresenting C14 dating. Scientists don't date dinosaur fossils that way. He knows that, but he also knows that YOU don't and are too lazy to fact check him. He got you, hook. line and sinker. In other words, he's a charlatan who convinced you that his strawman against science argument was proof that science is a conspiracy against god....... when it isn't. stop getting your science lessons from non scientists and charlatan apologists.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*They're referencing an AiG pseudo science Potassium test. NASA's new test has been out since 1982 & AiG requested the old type of testing to push a false narrative!*

[@appiehartman1864]

People are only busy with work . to earn money .

[@Strutingeagle]

Carbon dating is not supposed to be used much past a few thousand years. The half life does not support it. It can date things like the Shroud of Turin and relatively recent things like that but not millions of years.

[@deguilhemcorinne418]

The science of Earth Magnetic Field is very important for our future, given the potential implications of field changes on our lives. Paleomagnetism is the part that studies such changes in the past, and records of change and reverses come mostly from igneous rocks extruded as lava, which when cooled aligned on the magnetic field of the date of their expulsion. It is a science a little more precise and complex than the bathtube analogy. And it deals with millions and millions of years.

[@beestoe993]

Translation; Using scientific logic to date the Earth and other things to fit a Millions of years Mantra is fine, but we are not supposed to do the same thing to disprove our beloved ancient Earth hypothesis. Indeed, that would be counter productive to the Darwinian Cult.

[@Strutingeagle]

If you can find something you want to date from the beginning of creation you can use carbon the14 dating method which would go to a little over 6000 years if the Bible is literal with the days of creation and noted generations. Now you would have to have a known and provable item that existed from the start at creation that was living. That is not provable that something was created at the beginning, so if you find living things older than that it proves the creation false. It can be used up to 50000 years, but the accuracy is bad, If you find that life is 15,000 years old the accuracy is going down but good enough to say life is over 6000 years old. So, it isn't so much a logic but the method that becomes useless for anything that is very old. Something like the shroud of Turin works out great because it hasn't even reached 1 half-life yet and is very accurate. There are other methods that work for old rock and such. We have living trees today that out date Noah's flood and go back just a thousand years or so after creation. I don't know if the carbon dating of the center of the tree can be compared to the outer portion for its age. They go by ring counts I know. Much of the scientific community really doesn't care if someone wants to believe the Earth is young or not. It is not like hey we gotta prove the religious guys wrong so get that data in pronto. It is more personal for the Religious ones and they take the data with great emotional hatred and attack anyone that suggests the world doesn't jive with the literal bible. I myself don't believe the bible is literal in many of the stories but I do believe God created everything. @@beestoe993

[@alantasman8273]

Carbon 14 has been found in diamonds ...meaning that the diamonds are not billions of year old as evolutionist geologists insist.

[@m0x910]

@@StrutingeagleWho are you to cherry pick which parts of Gods word you believe/take literally?

[@BobThebuilder-o1e]

That’s a heck of a claim that all fossils dug up and tested had the same amount of carbon 14… if there’s documentation of that I would love to see it

[@charlesstrader3005]

It's been a while since I watched the video, but If I remember the claim was about the age of the earth rather than fossils.

[@stevemills1481]

Always remember an article being carbon tested to approx 4 yrs...in the Blue John caves in Derbyshire....it was a plastic cavers safety helmet!

[@stephenbell-booth2648]

Really interesting watching

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*Like the magician who tricks you into believing in magic.*

[@certifiedhomophobe1]

@@Pay-It_Forwardthat applies on both sides

[@Pay-It_Forward]

@@certifiedhomophobe1 *Carbon14 dating of collagen is accurate. Carbon14 dating of Calcium Carbonate or Calcite, is unpredictable. Carbon14 dating of plant material in soil can be affected by carbon fixing microbes. Carbon14 dating has a limit of 50K years. (Potassium/Argon) &(Uranium/Lead) can prove Millions of years*

[@Pay-It_Forward]

@@certifiedhomophobe1 *Science isn't the one intentionally miss representing with intent to deceive. AiG often intentionally miss represents things. Radiometric Dating is accurate, when done correctly*

[@certifiedhomophobe1]

@@Pay-It_Forward when done correctly? you can't be serious. how do we know when it is done correctly or not?

[@geoffbrittain2763]

A VERY INTERESTING TOPIC I HAVE QUESTIONED FOR A LONG TIME; YOU CONFIRM MY REASON TO QUESTION THIS SCIENCE 🙏

[@Ryanhelpmeunderstand]

The other interesting thing that many scientists throw out is how earthquakes and other natural occurrences can produce massive amounts of pressure and heat which can fossilize anything very rapidly. This can make it appear older than it is.

[@stevepierce6467]

Looks like only the amount of minerals in the soil and the size of the organism have an impact on speed of fossilization.

[@okantanmk]

This content is really enlightening!

[@kevinjohnson3521]

They said they found a dinosaur fossil with DNA, meaning that it was NOT that old… they forgot to mention that in any article!!

[@joeltay3471]

@@kevinjohnson3521 This talk focused on Carbon dating, not dino DNA, but there are at least three papers that cover dinosaur DNA. Refer to this database: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BSM-oQJXxhYBlsLE3gGl3bz8GXgtoLy-oLOsSNF_Lhw/edit#gid=0

[@kevinjohnson3521]

@@joeltay3471you think assumptions (guesses) and unprovable math equations prove anything?

[@robjohnston1433]

​@@kevinjohnson3521Oh Kevin! You just embarrass yourself when you write something so DUMB! WHAT has finding DNA got to do with age?

[@kevinjohnson3521]

@@robjohnston1433 you too dumb to know!!

[@James-mc5hc]

The truth of carbon dating should be exposed.

[@keithcampbell7820]

The truth is there. Carbon dating has ALWAYS had the limitation of 50,000 years. Creation ministries has no business talking science if they want to misrepresent the truth.

[@76brandan]

I am taking the same meaning but even it it is true doesn't this still contradict the biblical timeline of about 6000 years of age of the Earth? If what Mr Tay and Mr Gillis are stating is correct, their belief is closer to the biblical timeline narrative yet still off especially when you jump over into the New Testament in Luke's Gospel where he traces Jesus's genealogy in Luke 3:23 all the way back to Adam? If Adam was created on the sixth day, then the biblical scholars that take Genesis literally date the Earth around 6000 years when they calculate the precise life spans given about the Old Testament figures. Any insight on this I would appreciate it.

[@keithcampbell7820]

@@James-mc5hc Ask any respectable Earth Sciences scientist and they will all give the same answer. Carbon dating is only considered accurate up to ~ 50,000 years. AIG has been obfuscating this since the beginning.

[@keithcampbell7820]

@@76brandan , That’s if, and that is a big if, you only see scripture as literal. Some of the names in the genealogy may very well be interpreted as nations.

[@alantasman8273]

@@76brandan Not necessarily...it pushes deep time back much closer to the biblical baseline of some 6,000 years much the same way as dinosaur soft tissue finds across the globe prove that dinosaurs lived much more recently than 65+ million years ago. Even Mitochondrial DNA which has been used to confirm that there was a real Eve who lived less than 200,000 years ago. However, assumptions about how often mutations occur could put her within the Biblical time line. By the way a study released in 2018 by Rockefeller University of the mitochondrial DNA of 100,000 species determined that 90+% of them came into being less than 200,000 years ago.

[@FrancesMarionz]

Joel Thank You for your intelligent and thoughtful comments. I find it incredible that scientists and geologists are willing to ignore this information to bolster up a ridiculous theory.

[@Oldtinear]

The information is garbage. The vid is a total dishonest strawman. See comments above.

[@giannisttakka2780]

I would like to add that the term ''half time'' is also used in medicine

[@philipfontaine8964]

Canon dating is a measurement, an approximation. But assertions on the age of the earth based upon theories is unknown as well. What human KNOWS?

[@danielwilliams7161]

I still don't quite understand how radioisotopes like K-Ar form and what sets their decay "clocks" ticking and how that's used to date the rocks in which they're found. Surely you could only dates the isotopes themselves which can apparently move through rock when transported by water or lava so how would you know if it correlated to that rock at all? It all just seems like a big unknowable mess to me.

[@JusBidniss]

What they claim is that K decays into Ar at a given rate, so if they measure both, they know how old the sample is. However, unlike C-14 which permeates the tissues of a living organism while it's alive, and stops the influx after death, K-Ar is not in a formerly-living tissue, it's in either the surrounding rock, or in the minerals that replaced the organic tissue in the fossil. The question then becomes, what are the borders of the sample? What do you test? Only the fossil? Some amount of material around it? If so, how much material? Do you assume a uniformity of K-Ar ratio in each potential sample? Do you assume the minerals introduced into the fossil or the site was initially all K when the fossil was laid down? Or could the site have had a mixture of K and Ar when the fossil was laid down? If so, how much of each? There are so many variables, as you say, any use of K-Ar as a clock would be hopelessly dependent on a whole raft of unprovable assumptions as to be functionally useless.

[@randallhansen9166]

Yes all young therefore evolution of life biggest lie ever told@

[@mtnjak]

Scientists will preach about ages of things as if it's their gospel yet never do you hear them questioning anything. We are just supposed to nod in agreement with whatever they say. They really are following their own religion and it's a religion that's based on faulty information at that!

[@alantasman8273]

The dating of dinosaur soft tissues to 65+ million years attests to their assumptions guiding their science ...not the facts.

[@anthonyleavey7514]

Carbon dating is not typically used for mineralized dinosaur fossils since it's effective for relatively recent materials. For older fossils, radioactive isotopes like uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating are more suitable. These methods rely on the decay of isotopes over long time periods and are crucial for dating rocks and fossils that extend back millions of years.

[@questionauthority-f6i]

So, these guys in the video are claiming that there are Carbon-14 atoms in Dinosaur bones that shouldn't be there because they would've all decayed. So, while I understand there are other mechanisms being used to date the bones too, the question remains, how did these Carbon-14 atoms get into the bones?

[@anthonyleavey7514]

@@questionauthority-f6i every living thing builds itself with carbon, some of these carbon atoms are naturally occurring radioactive carbon-14.

[@beestoe993]

"Carbon dating is not typically used for mineralized dinosaur fossils". Thanks for stating the obvious, but what you have failed to acknowledge is the fact that finding the remains of dinosaurs that still contain proteins (NOT mineralized) is real, which flys in the face of the Millions of years mantra.

[@anthonyleavey7514]

@@beestoe993 it’s only real in your head

[@beestoe993]

@@anthonyleavey7514Tell that to Mary Schweitzer. Whats real in your head is denial.

[@bsrodeo7s]

I still don’t understand why some people don’t believe that God could create everything in 6 days. It’s almost like people don’t believe God is all powerful and all knowing. For some reason people want to choose to believe that God went around planting seeds and had to wait for things to grow. Jesus created everything full grown! Anything is possible with God. And through God anything is possible. Stop changing Gods word to fit what others theorize about.

[@David-mo2rg]

Thank you for effort I get asked these things all the time . I wasn't to far off but the truth is way more interesting ❤

[@blackhawk7r221]

If you aren’t familiar with the Potassium-Argon method, the Uranium 234-Thorium 230 method, Fission Track Method, Uranium-Lead Method, Electron Spin Resonance Method, Luminescense Method, Cosmogenic Nuclides Method, Magnetostratigraphy, or Tephrochronology and you have only heard of Carbon 14, you should probably not comment.

[@huckwild1]

HOW DOES THIS ONLY HAVE 35K VIEWS!!!!!!! lets go algo get this one on the up

[@jonathanrussell1140]

How does this only have 35k viewers??? How does it have as many as that???? It's balderdash.

[@Maffy-h]

Yes so we can point out its ignorance and pseudo science

[@mgoogyi]

The title is a lie already. Carbon dating is not intended to date anything that old, it is for a few tens of thousand years.

[@Ylemonade]

Because it's bullshit!

[@rolandgerard6064]

Thanks.

[@stevekerp1]

ASSUMING: the trillion-to-one ratio always existed, and the half-life has remained constant. These factors are unknown and unknowable.

[@jeanhendrickx5928]

Carbon dating is used up to 60.000 years, not more. Other elements are used for millions of years. Everybody knows that.

[@keithcampbell7820]

No, not everyone. 😂

[@beestoe993]

Actually it becomes unreliable long before that. Anything 60,000 years + old should be carbon dead! Thats the whole point, many things that should be carbon dead are NOT! THAT is why they cannot be millions of years old.

[@stevenwhite8937]

Question, if carbon 12 is stable and it is also taken in that can we run a baseline or something with known age and how much carbon 12 it has?

[@user-cw9xy3hn6r]

Everyone should watch "Is Genesis History."

[@xKiLLzZx1]

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it also an assumption how many Carbon-12/14 elements initially were within a Dinosaur since we can't compare it to a living one?

[@CrisFrreira]

I’m relatively new to this topic, so please bear with me if my question is basic. I’m trying to understand the reliability of carbon dating and would appreciate some clarification. Specifically, how can we be sure that carbon dating is accurate? For example, since carbon dating is commonly used to determine the age of organisms, is there any way to directly test its accuracy on living beings (such as humans or animals)? If so, could we compare the results of carbon dating to their known, actual age? Alternatively, if carbon dating can only be applied to deceased organisms, is there a method for validating its accuracy using recent remains-where the age can be cross-checked against historical records (e.g., a confirmed birth date)? Any insights or practical examples would be greatly appreciated!

[@blackhawk7r221]

C14 levels fluctuate over time, they rise they fall. Luckily, there is a place where a fresh layer is created annually where we can measure that year’s nuclear levels. Ice cores. And we can core sample back tens of thousands of years. We then plot those annual levels on a graph. When we C14 a sample, we take several readings to get an accurate date. Wouldn’t want a false reading because somebody got campfire soot on an ancient axe handle, right? We then overlay the test sample’s graph over our timeline graph and shift it until it lines up. So we get a printout date from the sample itself, then a comparative verification from the ice cores. We also get baselines from ancient tree rings if we know the general timeline of when the growing tree ceased growing and fell, or was felled. For instance, if we know that a particular temple was built in 847BC using wood timbers, we can use the wood core samples to get a C14 fingerprint. Let’s say the timber had 90 rings, reflecting 90 years of growth. Cool. 90 C14 levels. Now add 90 to 847 and we get a baseline for the 937BC-847BC time frame. Now we compile hundreds of global samples like that. We do that for accuracy because peer review of one’s findings can be brutal.

[@theriveroffaith852]

Amazing research, thank you!!!

[@curtistolman5830]

At Mt St Hellen, they dated 10 year old lava and the test results came back to say the lava was 400 million years old. Our dating theories have been proven to be a lie, it's 99% guess and 1% fact.

[@alantasman8273]

The fact part is that it does not work.

[@damelas2]

Your comment is like saying that a car, that was built a year ago, using all parts from the 1930's, is only a year old. Do you see the problem in your "logic?"

[@richardknaup6]

@@damelas2 Great point, but I see a little problem with your analogy. The K-40 will leak out of the Lava almost fully, therefore the K-Ar dating method can partly be faulty. What the problem with that 10 year old lava was, could have probably been some trapped gas (noble gas in this case). This is on of the biggest problems that come with that specific method.

[@wolfmk9]

What is the thickest known strata, of rock, that has fossils embedded in it, and at what depth? Do you simply deny that? How about petrified wood too?

[@blackhawk7r221]

Geology doesn’t happen that way. You can travel to Northwest Colorado and see fossils right on the surface in exposed Morrison Formation outcrops.

[@wolfmk9]

@blackhawk7r221 and you discount erosion as exposing them? The Sahara desert has sea shells lying on the surface etc etc. Your ehm argument is silly.

[@blackhawk7r221]

@@wolfmk9 I’ll just stare at the two geoscience degrees on my office wall and ponder the errors of my ways. Seriously, let’s answer your questions. You mentioned shells in the Sahara. We can look back at 1100 year old maps of Northern Africa and they show the six large lakes when the Sahara had different monsoon patterns. Along those lakes are listed dozens of named coastline towns. The only body of water remaining is Lake Chad, and it’s tiny in comparison to what it used to be. The “Eye of the Sahara” is one of these now-dry lakes. So what that means is, you can walk those areas and dig down past the wind blown sands to reveal freshwater mollusks. Did down much farther (going back tens of millions of years in geologic time) and you will find fossils of marine animals from when the continental land masses were quite different, in different locations, and at different elevations. Ever been to Capital Reef National Park in Utah? It’s an ancient reef now sitting on top of low “mountains”. It was formed by the Great Western Seaway that cut North America in half, then underwent geologic uplift that drained the seaway and lifted the seafloor. You mentioned erosion. Erosion can be especially beneficial because it weathers away softer sedimentary rock formations leading to easier discovery. I mentioned the Morrison Formation for finding dinosaur fossils. At Dinosaur National Monument, the Morrison has been uplifted to an angle of about 60 degrees. If it weren’t for that raw edge being eroded, we may have never discovered the greatest fossil bed in North America.

[@suzannejoyk]

The second law of thermodynamics law of entropy where everything goes toward disorder I suspect that everything is slowing down and this makes carbon dating more inaccurate the further back in time you go

[@AdamMeaney-zs6zw]

How old are the rocks of tonga? What did the leading dating analysis reveal? Day old rock, or 190000000000000000000000999999years old?

[@cfm6229]

Im on your side but! Being a volcano rescue team person from mount st helens i love that you used this mountain. however the way you explained carbon dating has a different loophole you didnt explain! the material that make up the magma which then is the lava didnt not just happen from nothing . the minerals deep in the earth are what the magma consists of. Those minerals are from an earlier time frame , so its not the clearest analogy for carbon dating unless you decided that when that old material melted it became new material and isnt made of old material. and if that is the case then how old is the material just short of the magma flow. analogy for a loaf of bread i make today. if you use flour to make a loaf of bread the flour you found was from egypt and around 1000 yrs old, but you add it to the rest of new ingredient does that mean the flour is young again!

[@captaincurd2681]

I have watched the arguments about the dating game back and forth for over a decade, and I have come to the conclusion that carbon dating is the biggest scam in modern science.

[@nargacuga4597]

It's because it is false and misleading. Carbon dating cannot measure the age of dinosaur fossils or fossils of ancient plants. It's false because the amount carbon-14 is negligible in more ancient fossils that dates back millions of years ago. If you could find a reputable source or study which points otherwise, then send me a link. Paleontologists don't use carbon to date dinosaur fossils. Instead, they use uranium-lead dating or potassium-argon dating, which can measure more ancient fossils because of their longer half-life. In short, this video is a poor attempt to disprove evolution. Carbon dating is only useful in archeological findings and not in fossil dating 😂 Don't just watch arguments. Read more science journals.

[@catman8965]

I'd like to hear your arguments about why you think it's a scam.

[@catman8965]

@Packhorse-bh8qn Yes, I know a little bit about how this works. My college degree is in Nuclear Engineering so I understand the principles of nuclear decay. You got a few things wrong here. It's NOT the "amount" of carbon14 at the start of the clock that is assumed. It's the ratio of carbon14 to carbon12. Scientists monitor this value and adjust accordingly. They also work with other dating techniques such as dendrochronology to verify their accuracy. ALL measurements have some sort of error. YOU cannot make a measurement without error. That doesn't mean the measurement is wrong or inaccurate.

[@catman8965]

@Packhorse-bh8qn Also, you wrote about decay rate constants. You wrote; "Experimental data has shown that this assumption is false." REALLY? I think you need to report this because scientists have tried very hard to change these rates but have NOT been successful. That's why they're "CONSTANTS".

[@catman8965]

@Packhorse-bh8qn Okay, which scientific journal and which issue, so I can read it for myself.

[@nookymonster1]

No one in the science world ever said carbon dating is good beyond about 50,000 years.

[@nargacuga4597]

Lol that's what I'm also saying. Maybe late pleistocene (10,000 -50,000 years ago) fossils do contain trace amount of carbon 14, but past that, fossils have negligible amount of carbon-14, hence why paleontologists resort to non-carbon radioisotope dating.

[@cooperc4060]

Religous people only believe what they want to. You are right. Nobody in science has ever said that.

[@lastchance8142]

Truth. No informed person, much less scientists would claim "millions of years" for carbon dating. Radioisotopes should be the topic.

[@user-cw9xy3hn6r]

The presence of carbon-14 in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old challenges the reliability of radiometric dating methods. If fossils were indeed millions of years old, they should contain no detectable carbon-14, given its relatively short half-life. The fact that carbon-14 is found suggests that these fossils cannot be that old, indicating potential flaws in other dating methods that produce conflicting results. Additionally, the assumption that present geological and environmental processes have always been consistent is questioned by evidence of past catastrophic events in Earth's geology, suggesting that these dating methods may not be fully reliable for accurately determining the age of rocks and fossils. Additionally, the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, particularly collagen and other proteins, has surprised scientists because these materials were thought to degrade completely over millions of years. Blindly believing in scientific opinions, especially those that cannot be conclusively proven using the scientific method, can resemble a form of religion. This approach disregards the need for empirical evidence and critical analysis, treating certain scientific perspectives as unquestionable truths. Additionally, the human factor of bias, even among scientists, can influence interpretations and conclusions, leading to a potential distortion of facts. This uncritical acceptance of scientific claims without verification or acknowledgment of possible biases mirrors the dogmatic adherence found in religious faith.

[@nookymonster1]

@@user-cw9xy3hn6r , False, you don't actually understand the subject. It is clear in your reply that you don't. I could point it out, but it is more fun letting you figure it out on your own, which you obviously are unlikely to do.

[@tundeshittu1982]

Thank you for this explanation. Please may I ask you a few questions? I would prefer sending you an email if you would please oblige me.

[@closertohome-b7m]

Very interesting stuff

[@karinesmith2551]

thank you so much for that amazing video and brilliant knowledge.....

[@criticalthinker8007]

It is a straw man fallacy to claim that scientist use carbon dating to date something million of year old. It is either naïve or dishonest to make such a claim. There are many other aging process that are used. There are also condition where the decay can be slowed by being locked into certain material and substratists which block the empathetic delay. It is also so a hasty generalisation fallacy to claim that all evolution requires millions of years.

[@mike300rum]

Now who's being dishonest? Of course evolution requires millions of years. Newest estimates show even assuming 1 mutation per generation would not lead to meaningful evolution in a million generations. Millions of years isn't even close to enough time

[@criticalthinker8007]

@@mike300rum why assume 1 mutation per generation.

[@mike300rum]

@criticalthinker8007 easy math. We know it's way, way, less than that, which is why even millions of years is no where near enough time.

[@criticalthinker8007]

@@mike300rum How do you know it is less than that. What mathematics

[@mike300rum]

@@criticalthinker8007 science has been studying how evolution might have worked for a 100 years now. They calculate things. I dunno. What do you mean? You think I did some secret calculations of my own? I'm just using the numbers scientists have given us.

[@ErikSvansbo]

Thank you so much for your work!

[@ericely3544]

I've been watching Klavan ever since the Covid lock downs, and I thoroughly enjoy every show. However: I find his veneration of Lincoln a bit creepy. When the Framers decided on how certain powers would be delegated, and it's important to point out that the ratification of the Constitution was not a harmonious agreement, one of tge most important aspects was how war could be declared. The President would be given a great deal of power once war was declared, but the power to declare war was exclusively given to Congress...for good reason. When Lincoln declared war upon the SEVEN seceded States, he completely undermined the Constitution. In doing so Lincoln killed more Americans than Adolf Hitler. Like Hitler, Lincoln had severe mental issues, including suicidal tendency, outbursts of anger which resulted in physicalconfrontations, and he was under the influence of a substance called Blue Mass, the active ingredient being mercury. Lincoln basically destroyed the Republic created by great men such as Thomas Jefferson. We live in a fallen world, we are all flawed, I don't fault Klavan for his misguided view of Lincoln. But it would be a good idea to listen to his opponents' viewpoint regarding Lincoln and his war on America. I know Klavan has a fan named Philip Leigh that would love to have an open discussion on Lincoln.

[@JAMR0716]

I can accept that many of these dating methods are flawed, but what about distant star light? This seems to be the most perplexing to me.

[@torokun]

This might sound silly but hear me out. When God created trees, do you think it already had tree rings or not? When God created Adam and Eve, do you think they had belly buttons? Meaning… he created them in a complete form. They didn’t have to grow from zero ring to however old state they were supposed to be. Like wise, if God can create something out of nothing, setting them to a state where the earth is already receiving the light from stars far away is not a difficult thing to do.

[@JAMR0716]

@@torokun that actually makes sense to me.

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@torokunDo you think that could apply to rocks as well? Maybe rocks appear old because they were created in a mature state, with little radioactive material. But why would God create rocks with any radioactive material at all? Maybe he put just enough in the ground so we could study and use radioactive energy.

[@beestoe993]

Its simple. Read the account of the Creation in Genesis carefully. If you do, it is easy to extrapolate that it describes the creation of our Earth and our solar system in regards to the 6 days described. There is one verse that states "And he made the stars". That is NOT a description of the entire universe! The Creation account makes references to the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, so why then could the verse about "the stars" not be reference to the other planets in our Solar system? They are stars to us and they are integral to the function of our world. It makes perfect sense that Mercury, Venus, Mars Jupiter etc would have been created at the same time that the Earth, Moon and Sun were, does it not? And they ARE stars to us! Young Earth and solar system, Ancient Universe, Eternal God. Problem solved.

[@alantasman8273]

@@Pyr0Ben God created all the laws of nature that he gave man the desire to investigate and study. Many founders of the fields of scientific inquiry were men and women of faith seeking to know the creator better.

[@richardpatrono8185]

I have a question to anyone who is knowledgeable in this matter. I am a devoted Christian I do not believe in evolution but I do have questions. Let's talk about tectonic plates. The evolutionalists say there used to be one continent called panga and it existed millions of year's ago then split apart to the 7 continents we have today. Did this process happen during the 6000 years the earth has been around? They say that MT everest was formed from the Indian plate hitting the Asian plate and this process is still pushing the Himalayan mountains higher. On top of MT Everest they have found old sea shells from long ago. How long?

[@kingskid935]

@@richardpatrono8185 Noah's flood is used to explain all the events you mentioned. It was an extremely catastrophic global event: killing everything on land, changing the climate, moving mountains (literally), and shortening the lifespan of humans (compare the biblical account of lifespans before and after the flood).

[@bbl5499]

The book of 2 Esdras says the earth was once 15% water and 75% earth, and then the flood happened and turned this repartion around. Does this fit the flood narrative, i think yes. What we call continents today are actually huge islands apearing as water receded. Another extra biblical book , Jubilles, gives worldwide geological locations of earth before the flood, and uses the rivers out of Eden as references, letting us understand that there was actually only a system of 5 huge rivers flowing around the whole earth, constituting the main 15% of water from 2 Esdras. Meaning no ocean in the beginning. This system was sourced from one main river, that which came out of Eden and became four. No post diluvian river fits the original rivers attributes as they're independent and accumulate through snow, lakes, rain and little streams. How would a river keep its original bed with the force involved in a cataclysmic worldwide flood? I this light, those other sources, the extra biblical books, make sense. In any case it's worth researching in this direction and see if it fits the picture we have today.

[@alantasman8273]

Look up the works of Dr John Baumgardner or Dr Kurt Wise talking about Dr. Baumgardner's work. Also look up Hydroplate theory by Dr. Walt Brown. They explain the catastrophism that occurred during the global flood and how the continents moved to their current locations extremely fast. Dr Baumgardner has computer modeled the continent movements and the results put the continents where they are.

[@7R4dicalized]

No no this is completely wrong. There are many radioactive isotopes and each one has a different half life. Carbon 14 has a half life of ~5700 years, making it the ideal isotope for dating archaeological remains as they are mostly within this range. But no, radioactive carbon has nothing at all to do with millions of years.

[@shannaconda3434]

Radio carbon can't date non organic material.

[@johnsmith-iv6sc]

Thank you. Very informative. However, i have a question. And i am a believer. I dont necessarily believe in 5 billion year old earth. But to think the earth is only 6000 years old seems really young. Is the number 6000 solely based on genealogy?

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

You can read how the 6,000 year age is reached here: How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? - creation.com/6000-years

[@Alex_src]

great video! :)

[@joannfuhrer3114]

Denial is more than just a river. When you don't want to know the truth, you'll believe any foolishness.

[@curtistolman5830]

There are microbes that eat carbon 14 and others that eat carbon 12 so using these elements is a waste of time.

[@DRAKED411]

Would not the Earth be gone by now isn’t the Earth made of carbon just a question I really don’t know

[@loricalass4068]

Great video as usual from this channel.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*They're referencing an AiG pseudo science Potassium test. NASA's new test has been out since 1982 & AiG requested the old type of testing to push a false narrative!*

[@henryanona1640]

Anyone with a knowledge of radioisotopic dating knows it's other isotopes that that date millions of years. great strawman.

[@opossumlvr1023]

It is true that carbon dating doesn't prove millions of years and it isn't used to prove millions of years. Methods used for radiometric dating are uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, and radiocarbon dating. Uranium-Lead can be used to date rocks that formed and crystallized from about 1 million year to over 4.5 billion years ago

[@alantasman8273]

Carbon 14 should not be in animals that supposed died 65+ million years ago....yet it is. Please explain how that is possible.

[@stuartbroadhurst7523]

We look for diamonds so we look for Kimberlite rocks typically 2-3 billion years old. We don’t date diamonds we date the rocks they are found in. We use u-pb and other methods then get these verified by independent labs. Very expensive so we have to get it right, if not we don’t get paid. I now work with ceramics so the rocks that formed the clay through erosion must be older than the clay and my youngest clays are 600 million years old. Some are over a billion, we then get them formed and fired in a kiln at 1300 degrees c to turn them back to stone. Hence stoneware. Again if I get it wrong I don’t get paid. You draw your own conclusions.?

[@randallhansen9166]

Your old dating methods fong work all dinos have softbtissue so not old! Mark armitage

[@stuartbroadhurst7523]

@@randallhansen9166 sorry don’t understand. Think you are trying to explain dating methods?

[@shannaconda3434]

Barry Setterfield and his team are well on their way to explaining the discrepancy between the actual age of the earth and the apparent age of the earth. I would suggest going to the GSR youtube channel and watching some of his videos.

[@mrb.8389]

On the Vaticans own website you can find declarations from the different Popes, the last 3 Popes admitting evolution and an over 4.2 billion year old earth… Not creation as described in the bible. A lot of other things in their website also, including about the earth and universe (now agreeing with modern scientific discovery). They are slow to accept discovery/reality and admit it, but faster than people who still believe the bible is gods true word

[@mrb.8389]

@@nathanielalderson9111 In the bible, Jesus said he would return before all of the first disciples died (Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1). That didn’t happen. Several times in Revelations, Jesus said he will “return quickly”, including when referring to other people who also died with no second coming. Every prediction of his return since has passed uneventfully… Some sects making new (also failed) guesses of his return when their previous didn’t occur. You can guess how popular those sects are now hehe. What date (or even year, decade, century etc) does your sect claim for Jesus to return? Do we have to wait another 2,000 years for Jesus to fulfil his own failed claim??? Why would you wish armageddon on the world as described with the return of Jesus? Even god said in the bible that he wouldn’t destroy the world again after Noah’s flood. I assume daddy (god) told son (Jesus) he is not allowed to return hahaha. I’m confident Jesus (like all dead people) is not coming back

[@mrb.8389]

@@nathanielalderson9111 It’s plain and simple: Jesus said he would “return quickly”, and before all of the first disciples died (Revelations, Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1). He didn’t. God said that he will never again destroy the earth or mankind (Genesis 8:21). So there will be no Armageddon. Many believers are doomsday sceptics. Others disgracefully want it to happen. I have learnt and heard enough, and I applaud churches that admit scientific discovery and fact over bible claims

[@christophernaujok425]

I was impressed, the first seven minutes contains a vastly overly simplified but a relatively reasonably correct description of carbon dating as would be appropriate for an elementary school science class. Unfortunately, after the seven minute mark the video goes completely off into ludicrously bad claims that are so utterly erroneous as to be beyond comprehension and that can be completely refuted by any level of actual study of the subject.

[@alantasman8273]

Please give examples of their "ludicrous claims" you deem to be false...don't just say they are.

[@shiammi907]

*Shared!!*

[@AustinCDavis]

How can we even claim to know the half-life of C14 if nobody has been studying it for thousands of years to rule out all the assumptions?

[@tequestaorangejuice6673]

Woah woah woah woah they got it ALL mixed up. Carbon 40 having a half life of 5730 years means that for any given amount of Carbon 40, half will be left after that time. So if something begins with a lot of Carbon 40, it will likewise require a long time for all of it to decay back into nitrogen. Fossils contain Carbon 40 not because they were created very recently, but because they originally had a lot of Carbon 40. They overlook this fact and then just continue without a second to make sure they are correct. They are misleading us viewers. Be wary! The bathtub analogy is very clever, I will admit. It is true many assumptions are being used. He gives the examples of we assume it started with zero water, that nobody added any water, nobody took any water, that the drain wasn't being fiddled with, that the rate of water pouring stayed the same." These are indeed assumptions you make if you claim the water has been running for 15 minutes. However, the crux is that are these assumptions valid? I will give an analogy myself: You are in your living room, the couch faces away from the front door. You hear the door open then close, and then footsteps going upstairs. You turn around and see your brothers jacket on the rack, his car keys on the table, and his shoes on the floor. Seconds later, you hear from upstairs music being played, the type of music your brother likes. Is it safe to assume your brother is home? Certainly! Though you did not see him, hear him, touch him, etc. you see clues that point to the fact that he is home. In fact, not only is it rational to think you're brother is home, itd be ludicrous to think otherwise. Similarly, there is no reason to believe our assumptions on the age of the universe are unwarranted. There is no reason to believe the rate of Carbon 14 decay is not always the same, so analogizing it to us assuming the water from the faucet has been flowing constantly is unwarranted because it's possible it was fiddled with. It doesn't violate the laws of physics for the rate of water flowing to have changed. But it does violate the laws of physics for the rate of Carbon 40 decay to have changed. See what I'm getting at here? His bathtub analogy seems plausible applicable, but upon closer inspection it is not. There is no proof our assumptions could be wrong, just as it is safe to assume your brother is home, and in fact it's physically impossible for these assumptions to be wrong unless the very laws of physics are wrong. To disprove that, you'd need a wide body of evidence I can't help but think these two amateur wannabe scientists could discover. Don't be muddled by dogma. Do your own research, nothing is being hidden. It is people like these who are trying to do the hiding. Keep your eyes peeled for deceivers.

[@creationministriesintl]

Woah woah woah woah. You got it all wrong. It's carbon 14, not carbon 40. Even if the initial fossil contained a lot more carbon 14, it would not help your case. First of all, if this is true then C14 would be unreliable as a method for evolutionists to use. You just shot yourself in the foot. Secondly, a 5,730 half life mean that even if the entire Earth was one solid piece of C14, it would all decay away in less than a million years. Having a bit more C14 in your sample at the beginning doesn't explain the fact that these things cannot be millions of years old. It might be good for you to actually know something about Carbon 14 before trying to correct us, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[@SlayerofFiction]

@@creationministriesintl The earth would decay in a million years based on what math? Carbon 14 is used to around 50k years. The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years. Moreover your own Bible by the word your god confirms evolution. First there was nothing, then he created the Heavens and the earth, Then he created light, ok well he got that backwards but for the sake of your own Religion let's stay on track. Then Water (Land came first, but it's sort of right) Land Vegetation Moon, ok well this is a bit odd since we know the moon came first and itself does not emit any light, but rather is a reflection, it also had to be there for Tidal currents, but hold on, staying on track. Then came Animals Then Humans You really never even read the first chapter? So by using that logic and not believing that man simply popped up from the earth in the Iron age, the Bible itself confirms evolution. Nevertheless for a best guess that was not too bad. The Vatican does not even dispute Evolution and does indeed recognize science having one of it's own Pastor's create the Big Bang Theory "No a bang just an FYI" created in 1929. In fact the current Pope studied Chemistry before entering the Seminary. So religion can go hand in hand with Science if you let it. Your problem is your own faith is fallible which is why you feel the need to challenge Science.

[@creationministriesintl]

I said, "even if the entire earth was one solid piece of C14, it would all decay away in less than a million years." Based on what? Based on a half-life of 5,730 years. Do the maths. The fact that we find C-14 in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old (including diamonds, whose bonds are so tight that contamination cannot occur) is problematic to those who believe the earth is millions of years old. The Diablo iron meteorite has been addressed long ago. creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tj_v14n2_crinum.pdf creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_157-160.pdf And indeed the first chapter of Genesis tells us that it is impossible to reconcile the big bang and evolutionary order with the biblical account of creation. The order of creation contradicts the supposed big bang and evolution over 24 times. creation.com/evolution-v-genesis-order Iron Age? Dr Robert Carter addresses this very topic in the latest issue of Creation Magazine. These are all more recent than the evolutionary supposed 'ages'. The bronze age corresponds with the Israelite's departure from Egypt, and King David lived in the Iron Age ~1,000 BC (1 Sam 13:19-23) even while bronze was still widely used (1 Chronicles 22, 1 Kings 7). This means that these 'ages' are compacted to just a few centuries. Archaeologists know this. It is only the general public who seems to be confused. Another issue is that these 'ages' are different in their timing in different locations. These are all post-Flood civilizations. Yet the Bible tells us that people were also using iron and bronze before the Flood (Tubal Cain in Gen 4:22) creation.com/creation-magazine-441-contents What has the Pope's position got to do with CMI, an evangelical Christian organization? We demonstrate the folly in the current Pope's compromise on biblical creation. creation.com/perils-of-scientific-illiteracy creation.com/francis You speak confidently about thesis evolution, yet you do not seem familiar with the reason why evolution cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures, nor do you seem familiar with creationist literature.

[@DuelingNetsJadenyuki]

Do you have a response to their refutation?

[@karinesmith2551]

@@creationministriesintl wellll,the struggle is real ,you clearly don t get any point..........

[@iam7712]

See thoes beautiful stars above in the heavens, some of them millions of light years away. So pretty. Well folks, if a star is a million light years away and light travels at the speed of light then the light took a million years to get here. Obviously. SO YOU TELL LIES.... BUSTED BAD! We no longer need carbon dating to prove you wrong. Stop lying, your losing followers.

[@inquisitive_stranger]

Yes, yes it does... No need for further discussion... Again, 2024 and you are still pushing this "there's a god" narrative... Might be time to find other books

[@remuspotra3851]

This is 3.234.543 years, 2 months 3 weeks and 2 days old! I know exactly i've been there when was born!

[@georg7120]

It can't, every scientist knows that.

[@vladimirlalicprotivlazinainter]

In the antediluvian world, the protective electromagnetic field of the planet Earth was much stronger than the current one, which according to some available data, decreases by 1/2 every 1400 years. Also, the air pressure was about 200% of the current one and the air contained 35% oxygen O2, not like today's 20.9465% over the Great Pacific Ocean near the island of Hawaii. Around the Earth in ancient times was a much stronger and thicker protective layer of heavy oxygen o3, which we call ozone, and it also filters the radiation of our Sun and other stars. In that atmosphere at that time, there were many more negative ions that help the absorption of oxygen into the tissues of beings, which raise the defense power of organisms, which we call immunity. Negative ions in the air kill pathogenic microorganisms similar to the phytoncides of evergreen coniferous forests. The biological clock in beings before the flood ran at a speed of about 1/8, and that is why people lived up to 969 years according to the Holy Scriptures, and according to some sources even up to 1000 years. Those 969 years of Methuselah are possible the same as today's 121 years and 45 days? A strong protective electromagnetic field of the planet Earth in the past, but not too strong because it stops the work of the autonomic nervous system and the breathing and pulse rhythm of the heart muscle plus really burns the entire nervous system and every living cell, unlocks the entire genetic material of living beings and our deoxyribonucleic acid. German scientists, although they did not understand what they discovered and how it works, managed to wake up those genes and get plants and animals from the fossil record, which you can see and hear on my KZbin channel. For 3 days, they kept the fertilized fish roe in a field of weak static electricity, and the same imitates the effects of the strong electromagnetic field of the Earth before the great flood, they also kept the seeds of plants, which should actually abolish the GMO industry. They got corn with 5 spikes on one tree, tea plants incomparably larger from the fossil record, brook trout fish much larger with progeny of the lower part of the jaw and yellowish color also from the fossil record. From the above we can see that a large number of so-called extinct species are not, these now living species are really weakened descendants of their ancestors, exactly in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Allegedly, in the secret temples of Lamaism and Buddhism in Tibet, the Himalayan mountains, some extremely rare teachers of theirs who are up to 1000 years old live right now?! Smajo=Smayo Serhatlić, a great teacher of traditional Tibetan and Chinese medicine, but also a teacher of the martial art of wu-shu, speaks beforehand. He is a Muslim, and he has some beliefs from these pagan religions such as reincarnation, which of course is not true. The sun's radiation does not come from below the ground, and if negative ions are artificially produced, various acupuncture techniques are applied, exercises called wu-shu, unfortunately also the help of the fallen angels who possess them, such people may live extremely long, but their very existence is eternal damnation. . I used google translate, if something is wrong, you will understand.

[@midgetydeath]

Much more land, too.

[@EugeneVincentOutdoors]

And now we have a rainbow...

[@shannaconda3434]

What is your youtube channel?

[@johnsteichen5239]

Carbon dating does not prove millions of years. Other radiometric dating does prove millions of years however. I believe this as a Bible believing Christian. Go figure that out on your own.

[@beestoe993]

Another one who doesn't get it. Carbon dating DIS-proves millions of years. Because anything over about 50,000 years old should be carbon dead! Testing proves otherwise. Other radiometric dating is flawed at the core, because it is based on assumptions. Assumptions that are not verifiable.

[@tims5268]

@@beestoe993wrong. Carbon dating has an error range of 1% for a reason, contamination. You can carbon date something completely free of C14 and still get traces of c14 show up. If you understood the first thing about carbon dating you would know this tired old lie spread by creationists. Carbon dating doesn’t debunk ‘millions of years’ not even close.

[@tacyak198]

I don’t think that a 4.5 billion year old Earth automatically excludes Genesis. Time is relative. God’s days don’t have to last one Earth day. Eons of crafting, to me, only add to the wonder of God’s creation.

[@sorennilsson9742]

This is pure madnes. Most fosiles contain small amount of carbon, this in no way prof that carbon dating is wrong since the process of becoming a fosile includes bacterias entering the focile from water, those bacterias will keep small amounts of carbon geting in over time

[@wms72]

This video deserves at least a MILLION likes.

[@scottsutoob]

Nobody who knows what they are talking about says carbon dating proves millions of years. Carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years, so any material that took up carbon will have an immeasurably small amount of carbon 14 in it after about 50-60,000 years. If you want to date things that are millions of years there are other ways, such as the potassium 40 to argon ratio can date things on this on this time scale very well.

[@alantasman8273]

Actually even that method requires the original state of what is being tested to be known...which we can't since no one was around to see it. Actually soft dinosaur tissue which now been found at dig sites on five continents is a much better indicator of age...as their blood vessels, blood cells, pliable collagen and even partial DNA attest to the tissues being much younger than 65+ million years old.

[@scottsutoob]

@@alantasman8273 K-Ar dating does not require knowledge of the original amount of K-40 The ratio is being measured. The soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils is still being debated. Some data suggests it was modern contamination. The researcher who published her findings does not believe these data suggest T Rex is anything other than about 65 million years old.

[@kuyanatnatdkrx7]

It should be called Carbon counting, instead of dating, there are no dates in counting atoms just a bunch of assumptions

[@randallhansen9166]

Yes lIke I like to say GOD IS! HUCKY D AINT!

[@marccleroux4020]

Dinosaurs did not exist pre-flood Noah, because, two of each creature came into and off the ark. But they were destroyed pre-creation, flood Genesis 1 verse 2.

[@charlesstrader3005]

I only listened to about the first three minutes of this, but the fact is that the age of the earth isn't based on carbon dating. Carbon dating is only used for things that used to be alive. A geologist wouldn't use carbon dating to date a rock or meteorite. The Uranium to lead parent to daughter method would be used. There are about 28 different tests that geologists have developed through experimentation with observable results that have been well-documented in science journals. The earth is about 4.7 billion years old. Biological evolution doesn't have anything to say about how life began. Its claim is that when life is present, it will change over time because offspring that are better suited to the environment will have a better chance of survival, at least to the point of also producing offspring, and the process goes on over time. You wouldn't use carbon dating on a rock because there's no carbon in it.

[@beestoe993]

And what about coal beds deposited from ancient trees? What excuse does the Darwinian cult conjure up for that one?

[@charlesstrader3005]

If coal is millions of years old all the C-14 should have decayed away, due to it having a half life of only 5700 years. Is this proof coal is actually very young? No. C-14 is only found in coal with high concentrations of Uranium.

[@TheProfitableServant]

awesome

[@Yahweh_is_my_God_01]

The truth coming to light. Once Yahweh bring his judgement people will be scared straight. May he forgive us.

[@philrichter3161]

No one is claiming carbon dating is accurate to millions of years, let alone billions. Carbon dating is only good up to about 40,000 years. With a half life of 5,730 years. You need to jump to radioactive potassium 40 to argon 40, or uranium 238 for older dates. There is a large gap though. We don't have any tools to measure things created between 40,000 and about 130,000 years.

[@beestoe993]

So if anything older than 50,000 years should be carbon dead, but it is NOT, what does that tell you?

[@philrichter3161]

​@@beestoe993 It's not carbon dead, it's just inaccurate. Again, there is a gap between roughly 50,000 and 130,000 years that we can't test for age. If it's older than 130,000 years, we can tell age with the 2 tests I mentioned. They have much longer half lives than carbon dating. I also want to mention, I'm not a proponent of humans evolving from animals. God created humans on the 6th day, and I interpret "days" as a period of time.​

[@johnplong3644]

There are other methods besides carbon dating .

[@AirSupp0rtMusic]

Yet 99% of evolutionists believe that carbon dating shows an old Earth. Either that, or they know they are wrong, and just hope nobody exposes their lies.

[@jonathonmyers1587]

True ... but the existence of C-14 in the fossilized bones puts an upper-limit on the age of the fossils. If the fossils were older, then there could be no detectible C-14 .

[@cooperc4060]

​@@jonathonmyers1587These guys are not laying the truth down. Nobody uses Carbon dating for old fossils for 2 reasons: Carbon dating is only good till about 50,000 years and you actually need the orgaism remains to do it and when you dig "fossils" up from the ground (not skeletal remains) the bone material is long gone and has been replaced by minerals so there is never actual remains of the animal left to carbon date anyways.These guys are either purposely not telling the truth or are actually really naive of the process. There is obviously a big lack of understanding the fossil process by most in his comment section.

[@jonathonmyers1587]

​@@cooperc4060 You are talking about permineralization ... these guys know of the process as well as the many other forms of radiometric dating. You clearly misunderstand their point. If permineralization had occurred, there could be no C14 found in fossils ... yet it is being found when it is tested for. That places an upper-limit to the age being something less than 50K years. Recently, red blood cells were found in TRex bones by Mary Schweitzer (daughter of the famous Albert Schweitzer). Because of her evolutionary worldview that insists these creatures existed millions of years ago, the conclusion reached was that we need to rethink what we know about how long organic matter can resist decay rather than accept the obvious answer that these bones are not that old.

[@cooperc4060]

@@jonathonmyers1587 This argument of finiding C14 in fossils proving them to be a much younger age is wrong. C14 dating is really an excellent meethod of dating to about 28,000 years. Not an excellent method beyond that. Here's why. C14 is mostly made in atmosphere then much of the carbon is incorporated into carbon dioxide molecules and thus used in organic processes etc. When animal dies these organic processes stop thus the radiometriic clock starts for C14 (in organic environments that ise carbon dioxide and C14 levels are higher). It is only really accurate to about 28,000 years because at that point the C14 levels reach natural C14 levels found everywhere...in rocks amd minerals that contain carbon. C14 is made constantly through background radiation so yes they will find small natural levels of C14 in fossils since it is always being made. So how does the detection of C14 prove younger ages of fossils? It doesn't. At all. C14 is always being made through background radiation, not to the amounts made in atmosohere obviously but to enough of a degree to be found in everything all the time.

[@redbeard5598]

c14 iis good for a few thousand. The environment contaminates the sample, though. So bones found in caves (lots of carbon--- OLD carbon---around) will measure older. than they are.

[@blackhawk7r221]

Only if the surface of the sample is contaminated. It’s not like C14 is emitting deep penetrating gamma rays.

[@mrazyone]

Mt St Helens rock scientist say was formed buy the material that is millions of years old. 😂😂 How do we dispute this idea?

[@Lcash218]

No credible geologist would tell you anything about carbon dating further than about 50k years. That is all it is good to. To get further dating we use argon gas dating and radioactive decay.

[@alantasman8273]

Please explain how carbon 14 is found in a 65+ million year old dinosaurs and diamonds if it should be gone after 100K years.

[@Lcash218]

@@alantasman8273 The question is not the presence of carbon 14 but the accuracy of carbon-14 dating. It is only reliable to 50K years, nothing beyond that. For greater dates there are other methods such as argon gas dating etc.

[@alantasman8273]

@@Lcash218 Dodging the question does not answer the question.

[@Lcash218]

@@alantasman8273 No reason to make this a personal issue Sparky, I was simply stating a fact of using carbon-14 dating methods!

[@stevepierce6467]

Carbon dating does not prove millions of years. It is good on things less than about 60,000 years old that have intact organic carbonaceous material. Several types of radiometric dating not involving carbon are what we use to prove ages of millions of years.

[@luis-sophus-8227]

Are used to "prove" you mean, because you need to make assumptions regarding how the Earth formed in order for those to work, good try. And this covers Xarbon dating regarding the fact that it works on *fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, so of course it does not favor your beloved scientism fiction.

[@stevepierce6467]

@@luis-sophus-8227 But we don't need to make assumptions about the half lives of elements. These are very well established constants which do not vary. Were there different conditions 5-6 billion years ago when elements would have decayed at different speeds than now? We do not know, so yes, there are unknowns that might alter the accuracy of radiometric dating. We operate on what we know and do our best to learn more. Carbon dating is not used on fossil bones, because they no longer contain carbon but rather other minerals. We have no samples of bones millions of years old, only fossils of bones.

[@luis-sophus-8227]

@@stevepierce6467 I never said anything regarding the halflives of elements, I'm talking about the formation of Earth

[@stevepierce6467]

@@luis-sophus-8227 We are able to estimate the age of the earth based on the ages of minerals we find and the half lives of the radioactive elements of which they are composed, 4,5 billion years is very accurate to within 1% margin of error.

[@luis-sophus-8227]

@@stevepierce6467 Yeah of course learn READING COMPREHENSION first, yeah of course you can if you assume their initial state, which is molten rock, please abandon your hype and listen to others, and also provide direct proof for abiogenesis and evo.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Does carbon dating prove millions of years? No, it doesn't. For a very good reason. The element that carbon dating uses to determine age (carbon 14) doesn't work after about 60,000 years. By that age almost all of the carbon 14 in an object has decayed, to nitrogen 14. No one has ever suggested that carbon 14 could be used for dates longer than about 60,000 years ago. However, the process led to the use of other elements, with much slower decay times for dating millions, or even billoins of years ago. It is referred to as radiometric dating. When dating something with that process, a number of different elements are used, to see whether they agree on the date of the object. When they do, that provides a pretty solid basis for the age of the object.

[@aceloth]

I believe the point is why is carbon 14 still present in dinosaur bones given that it becomes untraceable after 100k years

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@aceloth It never becomes "untraceable". As the devices use to measure it get better, smaller and smaller amounts become traceable. However, it is also possible for trace amouns to contaminate the object in question. What does happen is that after a certain amount of time, you can no longer use it to measure dates. That occurs after approximately 60,000 years. Fossilized dinosaur bones are millions of years old, so carbon-14 has never been used to date them. Carbon-14 is in the atmosphere and the oceans, so it's not out of the question that samples may be contaminated. There are a variety of other radiometric techniques that can be used to date fossils. If those methods arrive at more or less the same date, that is pretty strong evidence of the age of the sample.

[@aceloth]

I believe you misunderstood my comment…adding some clarity: The point is that carbon-14 dating tests were done on multiple dinosaur bone samples (not the same specimen) and results correlated to less than 100k years old. These were replicated by multiple scientists. The studies are posted online…

[@jcrodri3]

Radiometric testing is also unreliable when used against rocks of known age he variance from different studies is between 500K to 1.2 million years old

[@beestoe993]

@@throckmortensnivel2850 Funny how the science behind dating methods are unquestionable according to the Darwinian cult, until they are not! By the very science that is the foundation of radiometric dating anything over 50,000 years old should be carbon DEAD! However you are now suggesting that things that are supposed to be TENS OF MILLIONS of years old can still contain Carbon 14? Rubbish!! You cant make claims of dramatic accuracy in testing and then just blow off such a wild discrepancy. That hypocrisy doesn't flush.

[@waynebaker542]

An interesting topic for discussion would be to deal with the logic behind the limitation on God to have created the earth and universe less than ten thousand years ago. It is not that God could not have created the Earth say ten trillion years ago, but the Creation date is less than ten Thousand Years Ago. I accept the Young Creation date, but I believe the topic would high light the dependability of Young age. God Himse;f imposes the limit.

[@ed-jf3xh]

Don't you have to know how much was there in the first place?

[@beestoe993]

Exactly. He made it clear that is one of the assumptions, not knowing how much water was in the bath tub in the first place. I believe this is precisely why the garbage "dating methods" are not useful for anything young, because the testing models have been calibrated to the uniformitarian paradigm. It is circular logic and highly flawed.

[@chriskoivu9522]

Nope carbon dating is only accurate for 5000 years

[@michaelpaulholmes9667]

Now do the ice cores in greenland and Antarctica.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

They already have. Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets explained within biblical history - creation.com/antarctic-and-greenland-ice-sheets

[@michaelpaulholmes9667]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7i How does that work with the different co2 concentrations at each layer?

[@orbitingeyes2540]

I dated Carbon once, but she rubbed off on me. 😂 Seriously though, there are sooo many ways that Carbon isotope dating can be skewed. It's really a method of last resort.

[@rebeccapatterson8142]

😂😂😂😂

[@gweilospur5877]

Anyone who knows anything about Physics knows that carbon dating cannot go back millions of years, it’s half- life is much too short. Other isotopes with longer half- lives show that the Earth is billions of years old.

[@stuartfarrar2135]

This is a great example of Dunning - Kruger effect in action.

[@beestoe993]

If you cant handle the facts, attack the messenger.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@beestoe993 There were no facts offered except the obvious that no one should be using carbon dating to measure rocks believed to be millions of years old...and yes, fossils ARE rocks.

[@jdlyonsky]

@@beestoe993 It's their only mode of operation.

[@damelas2]

Exactly. And then you also have all the people making comments here, thinking that because they watched this video, they are now more informed on this subject than the scientific community at large.

[@ronwood7029]

The Bible gives all the answers you need

[@damelas2]

You should see what the Bible says about how to deal with a termite infestation. Lol...

[@philrichter3161]

God is capable of working outside the laws governing the universe since he himself created them. Old earth or new earth, God is timeless. I personally find the old earth model more amazing because of how perfect things had to play out for life to be possible. I love both my new and old earth brothers and sisters.

[@Gwaithmir]

And your evidence for these outrageous claims is......?????

[@philrichter3161]

@@Gwaithmir Look at astrophysics, why can we see stars that are 13.5 billion light years away? Look up the likelihood of life being possible on earth, God had to create it in perfect balance with other planets, galaxies, and solar systems for the gravity to be just right. And the evidence that God is timeless, he waited 13 billion years for conditions to be just right on this planet. A God who can wait that long for me is truly amazing. Even Christians admit the universe is expanding. And God only intervened when necessary, his miracles defy the laws of physics. Even the best minds in the world who are skeptics, Stephen Hawking, Neil Ce Grasse Tyson, are baffled at how perfectly the universe was formed. Watching videos by hugh ross and frank turek are a great place to begin. Again, old earth, new earth, I love my Christian brethren all the same. It's not critical to one's salvation like believing in the holy trinity.

[@richardgomez1151]

Ignorance is strong in the coment section ...

[@alantasman8273]

Yup....your comment is an example of that.

[@wiltonsmith3397]

@@richardgomez1151 “comment section”.

[@IvanMartinez-ld5mx]

John long, fight the good fight and never surrender the false theory, for at least you can remain consistent.

[@bolpote2827]

Thanks for this I had a good laugh 😂

[@mrb.8389]

You briefly mention other forms of radiometric dating that can prove millions of years. Isn’t everything older than creation 6,000 years ago proof against creation??? Structures in Turkey to 12,000 years ago. Tree ring counts to 13,900 years ago. Ice core layers back to 800,000 years ago etc

[@beestoe993]

You are assuming that Radiometric dating is actually reliable. We have all been lied to. I used to believe the millions of years clap trap, not anymore. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions. Unverifiable assumptions. Ice core dating is one of the least reliable methods of all.

[@alantasman8273]

Since no was there but God... all evidence of millions of years is mere supposition. Dinosaur soft tissue puts the lie to dinosaurs having lived millions of years ago.