How Do We Know How Old Things Like Dinosaur Bones Are?

Thanks to SHEATH for sponsoring today's video. Get 20% off your order right here → thld.co/SHEATH_brainfood
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
kzbin.info...
This video is #sponsored by Sheath Underwear.
Sources:
Stapleton, Andrew, Ancient Minerals Fill In Lost Chapter of Earth’s History, Cosmos, May 9, 2017, cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience...
Radiometric Age Dating, U.S. National Park Service, www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/...
Peppe, Daniel, Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods, Knowledge Project, 2013, www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...
Nelson, Stephen, Radiometric Dating, Tulane University, April 18, 2012, www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens...
Currie, Lloyd, The Remarkable Metrological History of Radiocarbon Dating, US National Library of Medicine, March 2004, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Radiocarbon: Information for Authors, Radiocarbon, May 25, 2011, web.archive.org/web/201308100...
Basics of Radioactive Isotope Geochemistry, Cornell University, Spring 2003, www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/cl...
McRae, Andrew, Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale, The TalkOrigins Archive, October 2, 1998, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/datin...

[@TodayIFoundOut]

Thanks to SHEATH for sponsoring today's video. Get 20% off your order right here → thld.co/SHEATH_brainfood

[@struckfire-de7or]

3:31 I alwys thought stratigraphy was the study of winning at Stratego.....bump bump, bump. Tsss..(drums & a snare)

[@struckfire-de7or]

4:06 I always thought that beta Decay was a 4chan poster that had died. Bump bump, bump, tsss. (drums & snare)

[@pandapants84]

Can Simon do more underwear commercials? Better than anything on TV. 🤣🤣

[@robinburt5735]

How did the name Sheath make it past advertising execs? It's a terrible name

[@pandapants84]

@@robinburt5735 because that's where their "sword" goes! 😂😂

[@izanreltih7218]

Video starts at 1:55

[@BiggsTheOwl]

Pretty sure it starts at 00:00

[@Tamatchi_]

You a real one 🤝

[@DocFear]

nah... it's a good ad

[@pamelamays4186]

Your ad read for Sheath underwear had me laughing out loud. It sounded so, if I may say, British. Well done Mister Whistler!

[@LifeEnemy]

"The balls" 😏

[@phoenixsixxrising]

I love how he put in the time to stop and think of clever euphemisms and then totally disregarded them "lets just say, your little joey.... your penis" 🤣

[@rlsuth]

Can't believe he did that with a straight face.

[@milk-it]

And I thought he lost his female audience with that ad! I stand corrected :-).

[@iprice77]

@@rlsuth but did he? the video cuts instantly after he says penis :D

[@daviddavidson2357]

I always thought it was because of the date on the dinosaur's tombstone.

[@harryv6752]

😂😂😂

[@ardenalexa94]

Lol

[@drymoper2234]

We found a dinosaur tombstone once but the date on it was so badly eroded from rain and weather erosion

[@heyjo5525]

CHICANO FROM SOUTH PHOENIX THAT WAS FUNNY

[@TheCrapman50]

The sheath ad you made just made the video a pseudo-business blaze.🤣

[@mrsossie]

He was trying so hard to make it sound "more sensible" than the one on business blaze. Gave up half way through.

[@Thepuddingcup]

Legend

[@TeamLegacyFTW]

Allegedly😉

[@nasanerd8931]

For the win

[@melissathompson9700]

I’ve wondered about this so many times, I swear it’s like this channel knows all the weird questions I have in my head that I would never ask out loud 🤣

[@oxcart4172]

Why not ask? It's the only way to learn!

[@anonymousrex5207]

The only bad question is the one you don't ask... I tell my kids that all the time

[@chadfalardeau5396]

Or one that you already know the answer to

[@azrasashima3733]

-unsure if they mean age of bones or the underwear-

[@w00tb0ss]

It also depends on who you ask. Don't just say "ask" in the comments people. Ask the right people the right questions. And always have your own ideas and engage in dialogue if possible. Yay!

[@jessefowler1470]

I love how business blaze made you more open to humorous personality. You have me cracking up on your other channels now. "Johnson or... penis..." haha. Keep being yourself. You rock

[@nickmilner8911]

Simon explains, describes and teaches in such a brilliant way but I still haven't got a clue 🤪

[@Leviathan894]

If you still don’t have a clue then I would put some of the onus on his presentation. He isn’t really teaching so much as presenting. This type of delivery assumes a person has the proper prerequisite knowledge, which the audience probably doesn’t have. If they did, they probably wouldn’t be watching the video.

[@UntakenNick]

What I'd really like to know is how do they figure out the whole body structure and a lot of other things about a species by just one single bone or a very reduced fraction of the whole thing.

[@boriskortiak320]

Comparative Anatomy, among other tools. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_anatomy?wprov=sfti1

[@WesMordine]

Its called guessing. Educated guessing. Plus, no one from that age can come and tell them how sadly mistaken they are.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@WesMordine "Its called guessing. That is called BSing.

[@CHRlST101]

Dinosaurs are complete bs. The dinosaur narrative is a mythical story made up to support the idea of evolution and deny creation. As you can see from this video all of these dating methods are extremely unreliable and cannot account for all of the variables which can change data. They like to give incredibly ridiculous times like 100m years because people can’t fathom it and give into the thought process that given that much time anything is possible.

[@exilife2565]

We figure it out by using parts of a different structure from the same species so we can try to make a bigger version. We have found over 80% of a dinasour before just isnt common because the bone material breaks down easily with how much time has passed

[@Painted_Owl]

Fossilization is such a rare happenstance that it's absolutely mind blowing it even occurs, only have captured about 1% of life that once was... imagine that, the world we call our own being completely foreign to our very eyes

[@channelexodus777]

very big flood

[@dracolique]

@@channelexodus777 not even close

[@channelexodus777]

@@dracolique y u geh?

[@dracolique]

@@channelexodus777 y u dum?

[@channelexodus777]

@@dracolique no u

[@PhotoJeticPoet]

I was just talking to my friend about this, this morning 🤣 Thank you for the reinforcement for the conversation

[@kitothompson7930]

BADA DUM DUM TISSSSS Boy With The Blaze has officially integrated himself with another of Simon's great channels. I approve.

[@iDoit4LoLz]

Searched exactly for this topic. And ordered some new under-roos, too. I just love how dedicated Simon is.

[@Pebbles5863]

Watching this 2 years later and radioactive elements have become relatable. I to have slowly started to decay in the hopes of finding a more stable self xD.

[@michaelantosch9888]

Simon flew through that script so smoothly, you'd think he actually knew what he was talking about.

[@davebrunero5529]

The key thing to remember to radioisotopic dating is there is an assumption that we know the starting concentration of the isotope. As a result it is not a guaranteed value for a date and should be always compared with other data sources (e.g. historic documents, surrounding artifacts, sediment layer, other radioisotopes, etc...). But when applied with other data, we can have confidence on an items age.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

"adioisotopic dating is there is an assumption that we know the starting concentration of the isotope. An assumption based on known chemistry and physics. Particularly in the case of the lead in the zircons. Its ALL from uranium decay. C14 is calibrated with tree rings and glacial varves. "But when applied with other data, we can have confidence on an items age. There is ample data.

[@caodesignworks2407]

Yeah, he literally said this. Twice in this video.

[@morrisizing]

He stated why we know the starting point of the isotopes for both methods used. May be avoid believing everything you read on creationist websites.

[@Dudette12]

​@@morrisizingwhen you have undeniable proof we will. Historical accounts and pictures with a time stamp. Oh wait that's not possible. Oh well I guess we'll wait for a time machine Oh wait that's also science fiction

[@zappawench6048]

Am I the only one who remembers when people used to call a condom a "sheath"? Rather unfortunate choice of brand name, IMO!

[@carolgibson-wilson4354]

Probably why it was selected.

[@andyroidify]

seems rather.....fitting

[@Fetidaf]

I think that’s the idea... covering your “sword”

[@vondumozze738]

James Bond called them "safes" or 'safeties ".

[@spinnymathingy3149]

TROJAN is aptly named

[@johnfrerichmann651]

that ad read was way too funny to be on this channel 😂😂😂

[@vhawk1951kl]

Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.

[@robcandy9273]

Just had a flashback to an old potholer54 video about a creationist trying to carbon dare a dinosaur bone "oh we can't carbon date this. There's no f***ing carbon in it" 😜

[@josepadron2615]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5POi4mwi9tnhMU

[@oskarhenriksen]

Same!

[@oskarhenriksen]

Found it kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4GooaqhjcanmLs

[@jacobmatthews6527]

"OY!! Hovind!! You can't Carbon Date this. There's no f***ING carbon in it!!!" Hehehe. Classic.

[@robcandy9273]

@@oskarhenriksen 😂👌

[@CrazyTruckinS10]

The diagram of the twig and berries in the pouch made me laugh

[@thisisstupid956]

This was very educational for my young daughters!

[@charlesjenkins7130]

Best opening ad EVAR!

[@kellyrobinson6663]

Fantastic video ☺️

[@jesusrojas6427]

Props to Simon for the underwear comercial. Well done 👍. Oh and the video is good too. 🤣

[@getsmartr]

Neat. Thanks for the fun facts

[@ewestner]

Me: Uranium fishing? I didn't know you could fish for uranium. Also me: ohhhhh, never mind.

[@amaccama3267]

Wow so much information before breakfast. I'm dizzy and think I'll have a little sleep.

[@sylvainponchelet646]

the best first strange sponsort in the life !!!!

[@MrCheckster2000]

And all this time I figured that they just googled it

[@iprice77]

How to make ads worth not skipping :D

[@syntaxerorr]

Great video!

[@TheEvilCommenter]

Good video 👍

[@marleybedford8628]

Yes, I did enjoy. Thanks from Oz.

[@cristian-ionutapostol8018]

Uranium is just spicy lead.

[@Greguk444]

Thank you. I learned something new that I did not know.

[@Blessedone333AZ]

You just learned propaganda created by the atheistic science Community because they hate God

[@Greguk444]

@@Blessedone333AZ what propaganda? Are you saying the world is 5000 years old?

[@aussiefool101]

Just love the Business Blaze nods

[@joshXnovak1]

Beard is looking great, Simon!

[@theintelligentcow7447]

This is the only channel that doesn’t look stupid no matter when you pause it.

[@bolasblancas420]

Play at ½ speed.

[@kalif404]

How do you keep a straight face with this commercial

[@Jon.S]

+1 for the Amiga 500 graphics on the potassium-argon series

[@smitty5890]

I get it. But I needs more schooling to totally understand all of this. lol

[@vipe650r]

Well said.

[@robertgraybeard3750]

SMITTY - formal education may not be necessary. You can learn on your own, especially if you take notes from Simon's presentation and use Google. Most Google hits of a scientific nature quote references which may or may not be readily available. If you live near a large metropolitan area with several colleges, you can probably check their libraries. Come to think of it, most libraries have arrangements for interlibrary loans so you may not even need to go to a large college library. Of course, Wikipedia may be enough to satisfy your curiosity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating / en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_track_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93thorium_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium%E2%80%93strontium_dating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium%E2%80%93neodymium_dating

[@jo-vf8jx]

Look up Jim Al-Khalili on KZbin. He’s got a few programs that explain things in an easy to understand way.

[@beagleissleeping5359]

Friend 1: dinosaur fossils aren't bones. Dinosaurs aren't real. Friend 2: If they aren't bones, what are they then? Friend1: I don't know but they're not real. Me: patiently waiting for a healthy debate, but the conversation ended. 🐢🐊🦎

[@forthexp8649]

Well, i did learn something. I knew all this about dinosaurs (just tuning in for the watch time and to maybe be surprised with something i didnt know), however i learned that ive held bentonite clay. I know a lot about its various uses, but id never actually seen a picture and heard it described.

[@williammoore6067]

How is radiometric dating a precise science? You can measure precisely the current elements in the rock and we know the decay rates, but we don't know the ratio of elements when the rock was formed. You need to know the two quantities to calculate an age.

[@sisigs4820]

What if decay rates were different billions of years ago than it is today? Scientists seem to agree that the earths environment back then was pretty much nothing like it is right now. So, how can we accurately measure something from the past using present circumstances without knowing the implications for past circumstances in a potentially far different enviroment?

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Radiometric dating methods are frauds. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved. Get a king James Bible and believe. Read John.

[@lightning1896]

For example, one massive variable would be the composition of the atmosphere, how much radiation from the sun actually reached earth thru that atmosphere. Carbon dating requires more blind faith than believing turtles and elephants hold up the planet lol

[@normative]

@@sisigs4820 Because radiometric decay is governed by fundamental physics. It’s not the sort of thing that changes with the weather or the amount of nitrogen in the air. Normally the only people who propose this sort of thing are crackpot religious fundamentalists deseperate to make earth somehow be 6000 years old.

[@stevemartinmusic]

Also, science has revealed that the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying over time. Therefore, a stronger magnetic field, which shields the sun’s cosmic rays, could cause carbon-14 to be made at a much slower rate, thus inflating the ages it comes up with. So, if some scientists are willing assume with faith that the atmosphere has always been the same when using radioisotope measurements, I feel fine assuming with faith in the bible’s story that Noah’s world wide flood changed the atmosphere and makes all of it an educated guess. What pisses me off is that this dating method that produces ages of billions of years is taught as FACT to children in schools who do not have the intelligence or knowledge to question it.

[@SMCMUSICLIST]

thanks for covering the pros and cons of radioactive dating

[@johnstown2451]

Zero Point Energy (ZPE) great study into why time appears old. Max Planck inserted a variable to an equation known as Planck’s constant. There are several theories to what causes this variable in the universe. Planck’s first paper was about QED physics and quantum scale-1962 Louis de broccoli so we should find a real explanation to the zero point energy and classical physics. 40 years later he wrote SED physics. They created a vacuum at the coldest temperatures expecting to find nothing, the atom to be slowed down-there was still so much energy. The theory is this sub atomic energy is effected by the expanding universe. As the universe expands (“stretching of the heavens”) this creates a resistance on our reality: the speed of light changes, time (atomic clock time) appears old etc. As the election makes one orbit, it is battered over 18,000 times by waves *(Heisenberg uncertainty principle) It’s assumed that the Universe is expanding, into what? How many stars? How many would have to be created a Second for 4.8 billion years... Oops they changed the age again... we’ll let’s assume (in a couple years they say 20billion) that’s 7million stars forming every-minuet! They claim dying stars formed the higher elements- how to you fuse past iron, YET even with nuclear fusion- you want us to believe that billions of stars had to die to give us the elements we need? There’s not enough time nor enough Chance in the 20billion years. Furthermore, it’s never been observed, it’s purely theoretical. Currently there’s an estimated 400 super nova rings- ruminants of dead stars. Every 20 years we see one blow up but there’s not enough graves yards. This suggests they all formed quiet quickly and all at the same time. Argument: electro static force causes hydrogen and helium to be attracted to each other. >Where did the force come from, where did the elements come from, where did the space come from? How can the gravity (that pulls elements together) overcome the intense heat which keeps the elements a gas? Boyle’s gas law: when gases come together, heat pushes them away. Yet, 1 star, 1 woman- 3 maji and shepherds knew- & changed the world. A 600 year secret passed down from Daniel (Jupiter and Venus) after being captured by the Babylonians then by the Persians. Helping secure favor by those Kings he would provide council and advice from the Hebrew God. Interpreting dreams, writing on the wall and even giving a scroll to Cyrus the great from Persia that detailed his arrival to a ‘T’ written by Isiah 150 years before. For the rest, see Ezra and Neimiah ... Daniel 9:25 Not until Nehemiah was their permission to rebuild the city of Jerusalem (not the temple). He was trusted by the king as a cup taster because he was trusted he was granted to rebuild the city to get you at March 14, 445 BC. Sir Robert Anderson head of Scotland Yard was knighted and published in 1894 a book - The coming Prince. Bible always talks in 360 day years. 701 BC earth stableiced , every 104 years Mars and earth would pass near Hezekiah had to change the calendar couple times. Jesus arranges Palm Sunday per Zechariah 9:9 on April 6th, 32AD. 173880 days - to the day! Just as Daniel wrote.

[@basattayfun1666]

a little too much information, thank you very much!!! :))))))

[@twocvbloke]

I tried radio-carbon dating once, still didn't get me a girlfriend... :P

[@ericstamps4717]

damn dude, I've heard of liking older women, but...

[@foxpuddles]

Basically, we will never know how they do it

[@MichaelOKC]

Soooooo.... I decided to unwind with a little thc (allegedly) and an adult beverage and watch this to unwind before bed! I should have known better! LoL

[@necko2529]

Just you wait, Simon, here come young earth creationists with the evidence to the contrary, any minute now...

[@tedrex8959]

Oh no they won't, because they don't HAVE any evidence to the contrary just crackpot ideas.

[@rileymrr1]

Actually the Bible in the very first paragraphs say something destructive happened to the earth. And the Adam & Eve story is a tale of re-creation.

[@necko2529]

@@tedrex8959, you completely missed my sarcasm.

[@DuolosX]

How about some young-earth scientists? I'm afraid a belief in a young earth is incredibly logical. The evidence is there if you're willing to look for it. While scientific theories have sought to disprove a young Earth, they've never been able to do so. Making claims of "millions of years" is not scientific because it is neither observable nor testable (two major requirements of the scientific method). So educated guesses, sure, but certainly not proof. The theory of evolution (and, by extension, the old-Earth theory) is a bit backwards. Adherents began with a conclusion: "the universe has no intelligent creator." They then went about their scientific (again, not actually scientific) endeavors to prove it. And have failed. The fact that there is so much order and logic in the universe proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there must have been an intelligent designer. It is the most obvious thing in the world. But, it's as the Bible says: "The fool in his heart has said there is no God." :)

[@jacobmatthews6527]

​@@DuolosX "The evidence is there if you're willing to look for it." ....and ignore all the evidence contradicting it. "While scientific theories have sought to disprove a young Earth, they've never been able to do so." It has been done repeatedly. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not a valid defense. "Making claims of "millions of years" is not scientific because it is neither observable nor testable" The evidence is observable. The conclusion drawn from that evidence is testable. I suggest reacquainting yourself with the scientific method. "Adherents began with a conclusion: "the universe has no intelligent creator." " No. YOU have it backward. The existence or nonexistence of an intelligent creator is not assumed or precluded by those theories. In fact, the majority of adherents to these theories STILL believe in the existence of a god. You are just mad that the god from YOUR particular interpretation of a particular book has never been demonstrated to exist. "The fact that there is so much order and logic in the universe proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there must have been an intelligent designer. It is the most obvious thing in the world." This does not follow from what we observe. An appeal to personal incredulity is considered a logical fallacy for a reason.

[@cookieDaXapper]

...LIKE button "SMASHED" dear Sir!!!!!!

[@jonthornton8758]

Finally an advertisement I can actually relate to.

[@Hellasta]

I was clicking through the ad (allegedly) and just heard Simon say, "...or PENIS!" rather loudly.

[@MrLeo2A6]

"Sticking to things" 😚🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jessiesratrods1210]

That Sponsor plug is an Epic Ad Read. Allegedly.

[@just_a_turtle_chad]

Turtle approved

[@EchoLostAvakin]

Wow I saw a random video of yours for the first time yesterday about an Internet puzzle mystery. And today I randomly wandered how carbon dating works in pailiontology* and found your video again! Pretty strange coincidence * I can't spell

[@sardonicspartan9343]

It's not strange. Your phone as a mic and search histories are shared between social media friends.

[@EchoLostAvakin]

@@sardonicspartan9343 I don't have any social media friends, what's that got to do with anything

[@dracolique]

@@EchoLostAvakin No, the fact that your phone has a mic has nothing to do with it, neither does your social media group, unless you actively share things. The way it works is that the KZbin/Google algorithms (KZbin is owned by Google) pay attention to the things you're watching, the articles you're reading, and the things you search for... and if you watch a TIFO episode or something else science related, then more of that stuff will come up on your feed and you'll be more likely to see other things like it. It's the same with any other channel subject.. the algorithms constantly adjust themselves to show you things (and to advertise things to you) that you seem to be interested in.

[@EchoLostAvakin]

@@dracoliquethanks, although yes I know how the algorithm works as a youtuber. It was from a Google search. The 'search' results are not arranged depending on personal preference a Google hit page number will be the same for everyone, hence the coincidence in finding the video near the top of the list. Simply a coincidence

[@into_the_void]

Someone hates jockey I see 😂😂

[@801russc]

LOL lost you at carbon-14, I'll have to take my A.D.D. meditation and watch this video again. Thanks for the video.

[@aisadal2521]

I've always wondered how they put timestamps on their discoveries

[@darwinwallace77]

@Muzaffar Krylov You didn't get far in university did you?

[@limbogt747]

@@darwinwallace77 I'm waiting for the explanation

[@darwinwallace77]

@Muzaffar Krylov I know your type, uneducated but attacking science you don't understand. I don't understand, ergo it can't be true.

[@darwinwallace77]

@Muzaffar Krylov Yea I did take science, that is why when those like you who make uneducated comments without any evidence, I will address their ignorance.

[@darwinwallace77]

@@limbogt747 Another person who didn't watch the video for a simple explanation

[@Yezpahr]

Ok, the banana's example sold me.

[@quiet1050]

Best commercial ever

[@wombatt360]

400,000,000 years ago... Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

[@reggiep75]

I had to listen back to the intro as all my brain would allow me to hear was 'meat-eater' and not 'meteor'.

[@spoon4956]

I can't stop thinking that you're Michael from Vsauce

[@patrickbrookings]

Only Simon could make an advert sound hilarious. And even the name 'sheath' of that underwear is just too funny, lol!

[@joek7762]

At the 06:06 mark, why is that Caveman sticking his arm up that Wooly Mammoth's ass?!

[@More-Space-In-Ear]

Sheath underwear, yep, when it gets really cold you can just use 1 pouch 🥴

[@macaronibones105]

I've always wondered how we figured out that coal and oil are viable fuel sources

[@boriskortiak320]

First guess - Lightning strikes.

[@zed1stwizard]

Well, I see we have a few people who like to discount current science.

[@johnflechs6359]

I have to look up the sheath designer... knew a guy I deployed with who was working on that problem.... could it be him?

[@DrivermanO]

William Smith was the father of stratigraphy - he mapped the entire geological formations of the UK.

[@thomashenry3221]

I watched this entire video stoned and have no idea what he said at all

[@2011blueman]

Since I visited the creationist museum I know that humans and dinosaurs coexisted only a few thousand years ago. :)

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

Lol 😂

[@hooper4581]

🤦‍♂️

[@an0rangutan]

Oh, here comes the hate for what is (likely) a joke.

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

@@an0rangutan one can only hope that it’s a joke...

[@daemonsdiablo]

Lol the ark encounter is a whole new level of silly isn't it.

[@franklynne3637]

Skip to 1:54 when it actually starts to avoid wasting your time unless of course you come to youtube to shop for underwear.

[@ethanleroux7911]

Edutainment is the best thing to happen since the printing press. As long as we're able to care, we won't stop learning.

[@vinnyvlado9633]

I don’t know why it put Simon was very funny for me lol 😂 😂

[@onandonitgoes5957]

Dumb comment but... I love Simon's shirt and would love to know where I could get one

[@Boyracer2983]

great, now I want to buy new boxers..lol 🤣😂

[@SmokenAces88]

41 Dislikes? Someone must of smashed it after watching Business BLAZEEEE

[@blakhorizon915]

1:00 "the balls" Your welcome.

[@daisysoup158]

Hawking underware again Simon? Inyour spare time, right

[@Jasonmakesvideo]

Little Joey! Ha!

[@cliffcurtistruth]

Dude we didn't come here for a big ass underwear commercial.

[@jeycee32]

(Skipping through sponsor content)... “P€NIS!”...wait what’d I miss?

[@mirthenary]

If only my mom would stop telling me the earth is only 6000 years old🙄

[@Mr-Tibbster]

The irony is, not even the Bible teaches that. It says word for word at Genesis 2 if you look into the original Hebrew, that the creation days of Genesis were not 24 hour days but were "generations of time". The "heavens" (space, stars, sun) came first, then the Earth, and slowly light broke through the once thick atmosphere (the verse on the appearance of the "luminaries"). And the order of the apperance of all animals in the text matches the fossil record of apperance too, sea creatures, reptiles, birds, land animals and finally humans. (The only difference between the stand of many modern scientists and Genesis is the belief in Macro Evolution and men coming from apes as opposed to being an independant species).

[@WesMordine]

What he said.

[@DuolosX]

@@Mr-Tibbster The bible DOES teach a 6-day creation. While the original Hebrew word for day, "yom" could sometimes mean an "era" or a generic time period, it was never used in that context when clarifying words like "morning" (ereb) or "evening" (boqer) were included in the phrase. Read Genesis 1:5 again; "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." The day-age theory ignores those clarifying terms and uses a completely unrelated verse to explain away millions of years.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@Mr-Tibbster " (The only difference between the stand of many modern scientists and Genesis is the belief in Macro Evolution and men coming from apes as opposed to being an independant species). No, the order of creation is wrong in Genesis, and there is that silly Flood that didn't happen. Hardly the only errors in the Bible.

[@Mr-Tibbster]

@@DuolosX I can see why you may say that. However... Genesis 2 is connected to Genesis 1, the original bible had no chapters or numbers. The beginning of 2 is a continuation of 1. Genesis Chapter 1, verses 1-31, Chapter 2 verses 1-7, 20-22 should all be read together, and chronologically arranged, as it recaps the creation days in further detail. According to evolution, it is theorised based on fossil appearance that from the first cells in the earth, sea creatures first came to be and evolved into land reptiles (including dinosaurs) of which then turned into mammals, including birds (the earliest “true warm blooded bird” being considered to be the Archaeopteryx, once thought to be a cold-blooded flying reptile akin to the earlier Pterosaur, or some mid-way form, due to its similarities with early dinosaurs). As such on this basis, they state the creation account is inaccurate and therefore not inspired by God, that the "order is wrong". The first problem lies here however in “definitions”. We categorise animals with modern day taxonomies based upon our selected shared commonalities between creatures. When it comes to the order of the Creation account and of Evolution, they are remarkably similar, identical even, only separated by this one difference. We must consider the fact that Amphibians and Reptiles are water-based animals, animals capable of living in water an extremely long time, if not indefinitely. The bible never states that none of the sea creatures that were first made did not have the ability to walk up upon land. There is actually a seperation in the verse of "sea creatures and things that move in the water". Leading further off from this point, we should also consider that it is common knowledge to Evolutionists that dinosaurs and modern-day birds have remarkably akin features, and it is why they theorise that these creatures must have led the way to the evolution of birds. The part where it becomes questionable and is often in hot debate in the Evolution community, is over whether they had feathers or scales, and whether they were warm or cold blooded. A number of back and forth books, articles, writings, and statements have been made over these things. The centre of this debate should be of high interest to a Christian advocating Genesis, because of the fact that the “birds” or “flying creatures” of Genesis, may include the definition of “flightless birds”, such as emus and ostriches. If such is the case, this brings into the realms of possibility that included in the category of the birds mentioned in the creation account, would be the dinosaurs. But if both considerations are indeed the case, then we can say with very high probability that the creation account’s wording of “sea creatures, then birds” would in fact be fully accurate to the order of fossil appearances beginning from the sea, to reptiles and to then to dinosaurs. As for the Earth's age. The first mention would be in the first sentence of Genesis 1; “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. This is not an introductory, it is a statement of a “single event” in the creative process, and it does not say how much time passes between this event and the beginning of the following “creational days”. In the next sentence it simply states that “the Earth was desolate”. This is what some creationists call “gap theory”, and in my opinion it makes perfect sense, in that the premise of Genesis is that the Earth was “created”. If the first sentence was but an introductory or title for Genesis as opposed to an actual event of which was a “part” of the creation process, then there would be a contradiction, in that the first official statement or stage of God’s creative works would be in fact the second sentence, in which doesn’t state the Earth was made, but says “the Earth was desolate”, meaning it was already there and God “then operated” upon it. But such a take is not consistent with the entire premise of which is “Biblical Creation” and the first line would be in contradiction of itself. As such, the first line is a statement of a creation event within itself, of which we do not know the time passage of, meaning between the initial creation and the “gap”, there could have been millions or billions of years. The second mention of the age of the Earth and time period of creation is mentioned at the ending statement of the creative process in Genesis chapter 2; “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven”. This is why I stated that it was important to include Genesis 2 within Genesis 1, because it is so often overlooked by the majority of Creationists and Atheists alike. Notice suddenly, that the seven days of creation is suddenly referred to as “one day”. Is it a contradiction? What’s going on here? The word here rendered “day” in English is translated from a Hebrew word as you say is; Yom. Yom has several definitions of time, including that of a lengthy time period spanning further than a literal twenty-four-hour day. This is why in fact, several Bible translations actually render the said verse as “in the generations that Jehovah God made earth and heaven”. Such translations that include this variation of verse are; The King James Bible, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, JPS Tanakh 1917, American Standard Version, Brenton Septuagint Translation, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version and Webster's Bible Translation. As we see, each “creative day” of Genesis, then, is seen to be spanning “generations”, not literal twenty-four-hour days. It gives us the context of the creative days. And considering the rest of the order of the animals is also the same, it's not a possibililty to be ignored I feel. "A morning, evening and next day" in this context is not literal according to such.

[@adelinomorte7421]

*** you made the question so, you want to know; now if you do not believe the specialists that dedicate their life to answer questions of the kind, you have to do it yourself, otherwise stay ignorant of things you do not know or care about; I do know, first I learned from those specialists, secondly I spent a great deal of my life on the field collecting samples (rocks) mostly from the period of "Jurasic Superior" around 200 million years ago, did study palaeontology, geology, practice speleology, consulted many books related like, geology, botany, zoology, crystallography, etc. I spent a great deal of my life researching; and if more world would be, I would be there . But if you have believes not in accord with it, you have only 2 ways, one will be, most likely, stay on your believe, but do not make silly questions, the second, if you want to be honest with yourself, humbly study all of it, no one will learn by scavenge knowledge from dead ideas.***

[@tsartomato]

0:43 a slave can't a man adjusts

[@loganswanson7213]

Was that the bite of 87?

[@brotherbear1162]

Hey there mister, his name may be Joey but he's not little.

[@idk-imacat]

I feel like simon could do a better "ba dum dum tiss"....like I remember it from some random fever dream.....

[@christianjackson5826]

Most hilarious way I've ever heard someone say penis.

[@philbarrett3739]

I thought I'd clicked on a home shopping network advert at first.....

[@maxmatiash1777]

Hate to be that guy but in regard to the North American Inland seaway in the late Cretaceous you mean 70 million years ago not 170; 170 million years ago was the Jurassic

[@Cee.Jay.71]

She thunder wear🤣

[@treeman5263]

Only a British man can talk about underwear and make it genuinely hilarious and not uncomfortable lol

[@howardf5264]

Relative ages does not require any knowledge of depositional rates, only the relatve stratigraphic position.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

But that assumes that the rate of deposition is uniform.

[@howardf5264]

@@williamchamberlain2263 No. Relative dating only establishes the order of events, not the time between events.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

@@howardf5264 I see what you mean; different definition of 'relative' - I was taking it to be in ratio, but you're right that sequence order doesn't require deposition rate.

[@ianktgraham9057]

I'm sold on the underwear

[@kathygolonka6944]

i thought i would learn and understand this but i just realized why i didnt take math or science in high school. i wanted to understand it i really did but its just not in my brainpower to do so