Is Radioactive Carbon Dating Reliable? | CREATION with David Rives

[@Dudeguy36]

This underscores the root cause of our issue. Many have determined through what they believe is the truth (historical science, Darwin theories and such) that there is no God or one true God. In doing so the popular thought is that if there is no God than there is no absolute truth in regard to morality. So these last few generations are simply writing thier own truth. The problem is when society sheds the beliefs of their ancestors which built the world in which they live, it will collapse because it so drastically changes the culture, beliefs, and customs regarded as correct in society. As of right now we are in the stages of an identity crisis between those who embrace this new idea and those who hold on to the beliefs of their ancestors.

[@magnusgranskau7487]

But you of abrahamic religions does just the same though, just blindly believe some thing that other men wrote 2000 years ago. So then Norse mythology is real because someone wrote it a long time ago, and similar of other religions has some passed down stories from way back ago about creation, world disasters and the end of the world? All in life is speculation, no one really knows. The ones that say they do is lying. We can only draw conclusions. So keep an open mind

[@gaylechristensen6285]

The world says, "See it to believe it" God say: ' Believe it to see it."

[@violetlove1893]

It should be common knowledge that carbon dating is not accurate. Thanks for talking about this topic.

[@michaelanderson4849]

It is already common knowledge among people not being scientifically illiterate that carbon dating is only accurate within a specific window of time and even within that window of time there is a margin of error. But I hope you don't think this is the only radioactive decay used for dating materials?

[@qzh00k]

It should be common knowledge just how accurate those measurements can be when done properly. It is rather amazing what we humans have learned and can do.

[@knightclan4]

Yet it gives us patterns that let us see the bigger picture that there was a single catastrophic global flood recently versus multiple small floods throughout time. Remember that we have not reached equilibrium yet. Coal seams giving similar readings should be considered. Measurable amounts inside fossils supposedly millions of years old. Way too many anomalies that discredit uniformitarianism too have absolute faith in that theory.

[@2l84me8]

@@knightclan4 No, there never was a global flood and archeology debunks your claims completely.

[@knightclan4]

@@2l84me8 You’re free to think that there never was a flood, but that doesn’t make your statement true.

[@TimothyChapman]

Answers in Genesis did a video a few years ago about how many of these decay rates were never measured, but rather, assigned based on the evolutionary timeline already in place. And how any evidence that the assigned decay rates are wrong is simply ignored.

[@karhukivi]

I can measure many decay rates of many radionuclides e.g. Rn-220, Rn-222, I-131, Na-24, or TC99m in my lab and always get the correct decay rate or half-life as published by tens of thousands of similar measurements elsewhere over the last 60 years. One calibration sample of Cs-137 (half-life 30 years) which we used back in the 80s turned up recently and what do you know - it had a lower activity just as one would calculate. There is no evidence whatsoever for claiming that these are "assumed" or "assigned" - they are measured. Science is not afraid of criticism and validation, unlike other organisations.....!!

[@mikekruger8806]

Is it true the earth's magnetic field decay is measurable, and that the moon has been increasing in distance from earth

[@mikekruger8806]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGiZnatjacuBY8k

[@mikekruger8806]

Here they talk about rate of decay of radio activity in elements affected by electro magnetic signals, that can either increase the destabilization or slow it down..

[@qzh00k]

They are not assigned at all, they are measured and proven in a set of standard references that are managed though an agency we now call the NIST. If one wants to do Isotopes that is one place to start. These are global science endeavours, cool human stuff

[@samwagner7837]

Something being improbable is not a argument. Take a piece of paper and write down a thousand digits. The chance of you writing that exact combo is 10to the 1000 power... yet it's right there on the paper. Improbable things happen all the time in fact calling something improbable implies that it is in fact possible. So stop making arguments on improbability. Alot of improbable things had to happen for your parents to meet and have you the same with your grandparents. We go back far enough the chance of you existing seems nearly impossible yet your here.

[@adamrspears1981]

Yep. Our chances of hitting the jackpot lottery after buying a ticket are pretty slim......but yet eventually someone hits it! If The Universe can sustain long enough, anything that can happen, will happen one time.....& if left to sustain long enough still, it'll all happen twice... & if left to sustain even longer, it'll happen again in the exact same order as it did previously. Probabilities....even ones that are vanishingly small, are still possible. It amazes me that on a Monday, Christians will declare, "With GOD _all_ things are possible!" But then on a Tuesday they will express doubt & unbelief concerning a process found in nature because its "improbable".

[@creamycold1681]

Make it simpler for me 🌝

[@markmello1366]

Yeah, my parents meeting: is why I’m trying to fit a “flux capacitor” in my Delorean

[@kray-zivan609]

The chances that A combo will occur on the paper is 1:1. The argument is that a CERTAIN combo is needed for what we observe, whereas all other combos would fail to produce what is observed. Yet that CERTAIN combo is right there in front of us.

[@ApacheNL1]

This is nonsense. If you have to choose to believe in two unequally probable events, it would be logical to believe in the most probable event and reject the most improbable. Now if your most improbable event is virtually impossible, it's even easier. This is the case for evolution.

Great video brother

[@jessequintana412]

The irony of him saying that carbon dating is closer to Star Wars rather than the Bible a book that’s men wrote with ridiculous story’s

[@lewstherinteletubby50]

I disagree that old earth Creationism is completely unBiblical, but that being said, I'm a young earth Creationist.

[@adamrspears1981]

Radiocarbon dating isn't absolutely perfect at finding the age of organic material that's less than 50,000 years old.....BUT it gets things in the ball-park. The check on its accuracy comes from other things from the same, known time period being independently tested, & giving the same answer. -Which radiocarbon dating has demonstrated this. However, I am apt to think that a better way to date organic material probably exists..... we just need to find it.

[@qzh00k]

There are error bands derived from the measurements, a +/- number that you can find. That's a statistic available in most research papers and a career in itself, error margins and meanings.

[@danzac1857]

I used to be a young Earth creationist, but not anymore. I have studied this out on my own. If you can convince me that the Bible only allows for a young age for the earth, you will convince me to leave biblical Christianity as well.

[@tomlock5484]

The bible doesn’t disagree with the earth’s age being billions of years old.

[@ethancollinsworth3927]

i disagree. The genealogies say that Adam and Eve were alive around 10,000 years ago. However, as a christian, i don’t believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old. I truly believe that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and that the first MODERN humans were Adam and Eve. But the Bible is disagreed upon by Christians and atheist alike. At the end of the day if you have Jesus in your heart that’s all that matters!

[@tomlock5484]

@@ethancollinsworth3927 You're right. The genealogies tell us that humans have existed for around 6-10 thousand years, but the earth is another matter.

[@mattyboi8338]

It’s closer to 6000 years old actually the genealogies can give us a fairly accurate reading

[@tomlock5484]

@@mattyboi8338 Yes, humankind is around 6000 years old. The earth has existed for a lot longer.

[@moses777exodus]

Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, Universal Consciousness was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, Universal Consciousness was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that Universal Consciousness would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though Universal Consciousness is everywhere at all times, Universal Consciousness did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) Universal Consciousness is beyond heaven, earth ... and time.

[@Artur-dy1dr]

This is the best explanation for the subject I have ever heard! Usually every other theory is a stretch at best, this actually fits in nice and clean. And as a bonus, the "universal day" unit can be derived from taking the earths presumed age and comparing it against the rest of the universe's age in fractions known. If anyone wants to have a go at it comment below Thanks mate!

[@GrayCole96]

Not only all of this, but the current year made up of twelve months as we currently know it has changed greatly over time. Who is really to say how much time passed between every “day” God used to create the universe?

[@melodylalrinfeli2109]

A straight forward answer would be nice for a non scientist viewer

[@qzh00k]

They are being vague and misleading about how good we can be at using science and the tools humans use for it.

[@Hermanopepe]

Hi David. I'd like to use a part of this video in my Ask Me Anything featuring Charles Darwin. Is that ok?

[@creamycold1681]

What?🌝

[@Hermanopepe]

@@creamycold1681 Charles Darwin was wrong about so much. If he could do it over again, people would not believe in the lie of evilution

[@markmello1366]

@@Hermanopepe would they believe in the lie of the Bible instead?

[@Hermanopepe]

@@markmello1366 What lie is that? If you only believe it is a lie because of your unbelief, that's not good.

[@matthewleno4027]

God is good

[@encouragesolutions2595]

Disappointed the explanation wasn't more conclusive. Still vague.

[@qzh00k]

Why would a ministry want their congregation to be ignorant of the real world around us. Life evolved and we are a part of that very natural process, the science used is now human generations of knowledge and not one old idea. Please do better.

[@AshFaya]

Is Radioactive Carbon Dating Reliable? Short answer: yes (for thing between 10 and 10k years) But it's like saying can i use a minitel to send an email Yes you can but it's obsolete They are so many other way to date thing and far more accurate when it come to things that are more 1 million year Most of people only talk about carbon because it was the most common in the last century, but guess what we are in 2020 with cellphone with litteraly billion of transistor in it, don't you think we have found other way to date thing more accuretly than carbon!

[@fohrum4757]

This video is foolish. He literally used no data or evidence of his own, rather, he's just making empty claims that science is wrong. Okay, so prove it? Not to mention he says "many assumptions" qnd yet never points out a single one. Pathetic that people listen to this BS😂

[@bzaarr84]

Did it take the Colorado river more than 6000 years to carve the grand canyon

[@reeb9016]

The probable theory is a lake left behind from the flood let loose from above and carved out the canyon. Mt. St. Helens has a miniature example of this power of water/ mud ability to carve out rock.

[@markmello1366]

@@reeb9016 you mean the “probably not” theory of the flood. Remember, Genesis was written for people that lived in a country no bigger than New Jersey. No need to view the world through it, if we have nothing to prove itself against.

[@reeb9016]

@@markmello1366 We're talking geology here. How canyons are formed. They don't form from a comparative trickling river. It takes much more force, even if you believe in billions and trillions of years.

[@ashkachui]

They had sphinx before the flood

[@SonOfLaughter07]

3:20 that is absurd

[@PortmanRd]

Maybe we should scrap it? Infact why don't we scrap everything man has discovered. Let's return to a 1933 Germany scenario where everything that clashes with the bible is either burned or forbidden. The bible will teach you everything you've ever wanted to know. Life, the universe and everything.

[@handsfree1000]

The Bible does not say how old the earth is. A day for god does not depend on a rotation of the planet on its axis. It simply says In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. The creative days were not 24 hours long nor do we have to assume they where equal in length. God is not wrong when he makes a statement but we frequently misunderstand it.

[@magnusgranskau7487]

But you of abrahamic religions does just the same though, just blindly believe some thing that other men wrote 2000 years ago. So then Norse mythology is real because someone wrote it a long time ago, and similar of other religions has some passed down stories from way back ago about creation, world disasters and the end of the world? All in life is speculation, no one really knows. The ones that say they do is lying. We can only draw conclusions. So keep an open mind

[@Orthoshooter]

Educate yourself before making some broad, uneducated generalization about religions.

[@scottmoore5197]

This video was no help at all lol but further I'll dive into my research

[@Steelmage99]

"Is Radioactive Carbon Dating Reliable?" Yes. Next question, please.

[@jeanwetherbee5039]

No.its not

[@Steelmage99]

@@jeanwetherbee5039 Sure, it is. Here is a piece of advice; do not let dishonest religious apologists tell you what scientists know, say or do - just like you wouldn't like scientists tell you what theists know, say or do.