Lab Dated 10-Year-Old Rock at Millions of Years Old

[@williambillycraig1057]

The way skeptics get around this is by saying young rocks give the wrong ages, and that only very old rocks give good readings.

[@ji8044]

By get around this, you mean scientists understanding how to use science of course.

[@Jay-md6fk]

@@ji8044 The gentleman in the video understands science. You just don't like the answer he is giving. Or it is a case of bias because he is a creationist.

[@StageWatcher]

@@ji8044 If your priests of science say it is science, it must be so.

[@morefiction3264]

Well, that's convenient. Classic example of cherry picking.

[@seanpol9863]

The claim that scientists are "cherry-picking" ignores how scientific methods actually work. Potassium-argon dating, like any scientific tool, has limitations. It's actually designed for dating rocks millions to billions of years old-not ones that are decades old. Applying it to young rocks is like using a thermometer to measure the temperature of molten lava-it's simply the wrong tool for the job. When used correctly on old rocks, radiometric dating consistently produces reliable results, confirmed by multiple independent methods like uranium-lead and rubidium-strontium dating. These techniques often overlap in the time periods they measure, and their agreement strengthens the accuracy of the data. This isn't cherry-picking; it's proper scientific calibration and cross-checking. The Mount St. Helens and similar examples fail because they misapply the method to samples far younger than the method's resolution. It's actually a known issue with no bearing on the reliability of potassium-argon dating when used appropriately. Scientists don't ignore these limitations either-they account for them. That's why the broader body of evidence, including multiple dating techniques, overwhelmingly supports the age of the Earth being billions of years old, approximately 4.5 billion, in fact.

[@sorinankitt]

Dating had assumptions in place before the dating procedure was even developed.

[@TickedOffPriest]

If it cannot be trusted for known ages, how can it be trusted for unknown ages?

[@seanpol9863]

The key issue here is that potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating is not suitable for very young rocks, like those from recent volcanic eruptions, which is why it gave inaccurate results in the examples you're referring to. However, this doesn't discredit the method as a whole. For rocks that are millions or billions of years old, K-Ar dating works well because enough argon accumulates to provide reliable measurements. Scientists also use multiple dating methods, often with overlapping half-lives, to cross-check results and confirm the reliability of these methods. When used correctly, radiometric dating has been consistently validated by various independent studies and fields of science.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@seanpol9863 Then it should have had no detectable amount.

[@seanpol9863]

​@@TickedOffPriestThe issue with the potassium-argon dating method on young rocks is that it's not designed for that purpose. In young volcanic rocks, the amount of argon is too low to be detected accurately, which is why the results can show an incorrect age. For older rocks, however, the argon accumulates enough to provide reliable data. This is why potassium-argon dating works well for rocks that are millions or billions of years old, and scientists use multiple dating methods to verify the results, ensuring accuracy across different time scales.

[@EagleZoo]

@@seanpol9863 so, by your own admission these lava rocks were tested using multiple methods. Why did they give differing results?

[@mannyedwards2820]

@@seanpol9863 the labs should have reported an undectable amount of argon, resulting in no sensible date for the rock. This is not complicated.

[@patrickadams2864]

Glory to God

[@knottyboy6086]

Yeah, no. Not for this reason. But overall yes, Glory to God. The earth can be millions of year old and God Still created it.

[@cango5679]

@@knottyboy6086 Earth IS (a) God? Sun another?

[@irishdave4322]

How do you prove millions of years?

[@knottyboy6086]

@@irishdave4322 The Earth is flat huh? You know its flat. Come on, admit it dude. The Earth is only 6 thousand years old got it. Tell that to the Grand Canyon. Well one book written by some men say it is 6k years old. Some men hundreds of thousands of them say it is 4 billion plus. I will gamble on the hundreds of thousands of men. We have found human settlements well older than 6000 years old. Give God some credit dude. He did not make the Earth flat , and he gave us brains good enough to know its not 6000 years old either. Take a Geology class, study the rocks. You will learn how great God really is.

[@knottyboy6086]

@@irishdave4322 Take a Geology class. It is VERY interesting and informative.

[@noneyabidness9644]

"millions of years, apparently." We should stop humoring the guys claiming to be Napoleon.

[@dcsblessedbees]

That is the about Mainstream Science they don't like to tell you when they are wrong. God is Truth as is His Word.

[@seanpol9863]

Ah yes, because when mainstream science gets it wrong, it totally ignores it, right? Just like how scientists have repeatedly updated their models, methods, and theories as new data comes in. But sure, let's just trust the ancient text of a book, written by people with no access to modern science or understanding of the universe. Maybe they had it all figured out. After all, the Bible has DEFINITELY proven to be a reliable source for geological ages, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. How could science possibly compete with that, right?

[@SHRUBBERT]

Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn't our own lives right now matter more?

[@anna-y6e6b]

@@SHRUBBERT definitely our lives should matter more than whether earth is flat or now. but i think what matters more than our physical lives are our souls and the truth.

[@basixs88]

Some Scientists just won't quit lying 😂, seriously some of them know that they are wrong but they'll rather lie to the public than admit that the bible is Right

[@Dah_J]

Here before the first atheist hate comment!

[@SHRUBBERT]

Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn’t our own lives right now matter more?

[@ji8044]

Actually it's the creationist who is clearly lying here. Argon dating is never used under the circumstances he described in the video, but he lies to this audience in the hope you won't check it out yourself.

[@EagleZoo]

@@basixs88 uhh YA. EXACT same reason people deny Jesus and The Bible is a serious matter. They don't like what it stands for. If any of it is true at all (plenty of archeological discoveries) then there's a chance that it's completely correct. That's a pretty big deal

[@EagleZoo]

@@Dah_J ahh nah those people believe their absolutely right and all others that believe in ID and creation are buffoons. They're not ever going to convince the true believer. That only leaves time to delude young minds and shallow thinkers who really know nothing of the practicality in a philosophy espousing Intelligent Design and Creationism.

[@erikt1713]

The challenge is that not all materials are easy to date and some people doing the estimate can be over-confident. Instead choose zirconium crystals that contain some uranium. Zirconium does not incorporate lead at formation so the lead will be from decay of uranium only. This will be easy to date and surprisingly precise.

[@crystalclearwindowcleaning3458]

So shall We Trust men who weren't there who don't know everything or God who was there who does know everything. The Logical choice is obvious.

[@seanpol9863]

Oh, of course! Let's totally ignore centuries of evidence gathered through observation, experimentation, and peer review in favour of ancient stories written by people with zero understanding of modern science. After all, who needs evidence when you have a divine authority that just knows everything? It's not like science has ever corrected itself based on new discoveries... oh wait, it does that all the time. But hey, why go with that when you can trust an ancient text written by folks who thought the Earth was flat? The logical choice is so obvious.

[@truthgiver8286]

when god turns up and tells you then fair enough but until then I will treat your claims as the words of superstitious bronze age sheep herders who adopted god from the Canaanites. 😂🤣😂

[@EagleZoo]

@@truthgiver8286 Honestly an Antikythera Mechanism tosses all your bronze age babbling on its head. Be real. We have NO IDEA how some of the things were done in ancient times. We can barely do it ourselves with modern CNC lathes and "expert metallurgic craftsmen"

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"So shall We Trust men who weren't there who don't know everything or God who was there who does know everything" Quick; square root of 322076. What does God say? *Render unto science that which is scientific* .

[@truthgiver8286]

@@EagleZoo Sounds typical we don't know how it was done so it must have been god. If you bother to look skills have been developed and then lost throughout history. Your point is pointless.

[@theriveroffaith852]

Scientists didn't calculate the "what if someone tries to lie about where they found the rock," idea. Therefore, they rely on the person rather than the science.

[@henno3889]

You don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about. Please learn a bit about using different isotopes for objects of different ages.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Thank you CMI 🙏🙏🙏 God bless you

[@arifsoetanto7533]

If you don't trust that method, make your own 😂😂😂

[@adriaanvantulpenbaard1740]

The Aboriginals in Australia did not have nails, yet they find petrified wood with nails in it. So, the petrified wood is not as old as they say it is.

[@seanpol9863]

The presence of nails in petrified wood doesn't prove the wood is young; it just shows that the wood was exposed to human activity before it fossilised. For instance, nails could have been driven into the wood by settlers or other people, and over time, the wood fossilised with the nails still in place. In fact, petrification doesn't even take millions of years; under the right conditions, like burial in mineral-rich water, it can happen in thousands or even hundreds of years. However, this doesn't challenge the age of the Earth or radiometric dating, which rely on entirely different principles to determine timelines.

[@tb9k_]

Mt. Doom rock will make a good headline.

[@des711]

When I googled if new volcanic rock tests older than it is, and Google/AI says that it doesn't. Apparently google doesn't have information about the study.

[@stevennortje8399]

Please help, I went to download the free book but need a pdf version. Please let me know. Kind regards.

[@DoingItTheHardWayAgain]

I can't forget Richard Dawkins addressing this very topic: "The lava is millions of years old...." Literally a pseudo science or ignorance, imo both. It is clear that the antiChrists shall always push any worldview that denies YAHWEH.

[@jcsmith6396]

Thank you for the channel. The link for the ebook please :)

[@kristinam4178]

It's in the video description

[@SHRUBBERT]

Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn't our own lives right now matter more?

[@GrooberNedJardine]

In certain circumstances from what i have seen , rocks erode and become sand and soil , and then sand and soil over time becomes rock again . Again of course , under certain circumstances , just one example that i can think of was a WW2 crashed airplane cockpit part was found fossilized in conglomerate beach sand rock .

[@davidl.39]

Thanks for the great video/ interview. However I was unable to open the book as my device does not see your format... Blessings to you

[@JosipM333]

And how did they get to 1.5 billion years for potassium-argon???😱😱

[@seanpol9863]

The 1.5 billion-year figure for potassium-argon dating isn't a random guess-it's based on well-documented physical processes. Potassium-40, a naturally occurring isotope, decays into argon-40 at a consistent rate, which scientists call its half-life (about 1.25 billion years). This has been calculated through laboratory experiments that measure decay rates over time, not assumptions. These rates are actually a fundamental property of matter and don't change over time or under different conditions. Radiometric dating has also been extensively tested and validated by comparing results from different methods, like uranium-lead dating, which use entirely different decay chains but yield similar ages. This consistency is why scientists trust these methods for dating ancient rocks. It's also worth noting that these techniques are not used to date things they aren't suited for, like young rocks, because the decay products wouldn't have accumulated enough to measure reliably.

[@tnowandthen-t8t]

@@seanpol9863 "These rates are actually a fundamental property of matter and don't change over time or under different conditions." That is an assumption which has been experimentally proven to be wrong. Experiments always trump assumptions. At least, if we are doing science. "Radiometric dating has also been extensively tested and validated by comparing results from different methods, like uranium-lead dating, which use entirely different decay chains but yield similar ages" That is not a different method. It is a variation of the same method, and it has all of the same problems. It has the same assumptions, and consistency is just not a word that should be used for any radioactive dating method. The consistency of the results ONLY comes from the standard practice of throwing out dates that do not agree with the expected results. When a sample is submitted to a lab, the expected range of results is submitted with it. Any dates which do not conform to the expected results are simply discarded. This Is normal procedure. The RATE Project samples of various rocks to multiple labs, with different expected dates. Well, surprise, surprise! All of the labs returned dates in the "expected" ranges, even though they were completely different and completely incompatible. If you tried to pass off a test based on those kind of assumptions with that kind of track record in any other science, you'd be laughed out of town.

[@SHRUBBERT]

Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn't our own lives right now matter more?

[@tnowandthen-t8t]

@@SHRUBBERT "Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn't our own lives right now matter more?" If God is a liar, don't you think that matters to our lives right now? And no, our lives right now do NOT matter more than the veracity of the Bible.

[@michaeldavis6607]

​@@seanpol9863 how can a lab experiment calculate 1 billion years. They can't. So how do they come up with that incredible number?

[@WadeWeigle]

Our dating of things is nonscience. Just labs putting dates on objects willy nilly in order to fit a narrative. What’s sad is the general public does not question it at all.

[@seanpol9863]

Oh, of course! Scientists just sit around pulling dates out of a hat to fit a "narrative." Never mind the decades of rigorous testing, peer-reviewed studies, and cross-checking with independent methods like uranium-lead, carbon dating, and stratigraphy. And let's forget that these methods consistently align with observable geology, astronomy, and biology. Mate, it's not "nonscience" when radiometric dating is verified repeatedly. For example, volcanic ash layers can be dated using different methods, and the results still match. But sure, let's dismiss an entire field because a few young-earth creationists misuse a method not designed for what they're testing. Sounds legit.

[@garyradtke3252]

@@seanpol9863 How long did scientists push their theory that the sun rotated the earth as fact? You can't verify radio dating to the point of considering it fact. 1 degree off coarse in 1 mile is mere feet but 1 degree off coarse to the moon is over 4000 miles so how far off is the dating methods going back thousands or millions of years? Too many science things that deal with the past use assumptions to deal with unknowns.

[@teks-kj1nj]

What's sad is people with no clue what they're talking about spouting nonsense like this thinking they do. It's called Dunning Kruger effect, look it up. You are a text book case.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Our dating of things is nonscience." There is no *our dating* of things. I seldom date things but when I do, it is by putting a label on something when I bought it. If it is a tree, I can date it by counting the growth rings. I have no idea how you date things; thus, no "our" .

[@stripedassape8148]

how do we know time moved at the same speed as today, billions of years ago? is it constant or relative?

[@JohnA-bear]

Great example of using the wrong tool. Trying to use a calender instead of a stopwatch to measure a 100 yard dash. Not meter because I'm old school American.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Basically, the problem that exists with Scientism is as follows: if a Creationist says 1 + 1= 2, that's wrong and bad Science... because that remark would be coming from a creationist and so must be wrong right out of the gate and doesn't even need to be considered. Also, Materialists OWN Science, so only Materialists are allowed to say what's Science and what's not. (The conflation of Materialism with the Scientific Method yields 'Scientism'. There is a difference between the Scientific Method... which is simply a process to identify physical causal agents.... and Materialism, which affirms that ALL causal agents are physical)

[@seanpol9863]

If a creationist says 1 + 1 = 2, no one's arguing with basic arithmetic. The issue isn't who says it-it's whether the claim is backed by evidence and logic. Science doesn't "belong" to materialists; it's a process that relies on testable, repeatable observations to understand the natural world. It works because it excludes untestable claims, not because of some secret materialist agenda. The "scientism" accusation is just a way to dismiss science when it doesn't align with certain beliefs. The scientific method doesn't affirm anything-it tests hypotheses and rejects those that don't hold up. Mate, if creationist claims about the universe were supported by evidence, they'd be considered. The problem is they're not. Saying otherwise doesn't change that.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

@@seanpol9863 You say: ''The "scientism" accusation is just a way to dismiss science when it doesn't align with certain beliefs.'' Utter rubbish. It is clear you don't know the difference between Science and Materialism. You think they are one and the same. They are not. You are caught up in a paradigm lock. [Edit] As for ''evidence'' in support of Creationism, you know very well that's an old trick of Materialists. By ''evidence'' you mean: 'Show me your god on a petri dish or in a test tube, and then I'll accept that as evidence'.

[@SHRUBBERT]

Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn’t our own lives right now matter more?

[@deanvinson4032]

Trust the science huh.

[@MuzaffarKrylov]

Don't be surprised if we find out later that there were only a handful of real human atheists on YT. The rest were just cheap AI wannabe chat bots. It's funny... 😅

[@azeche592]

Neo inquisition everything which is in contradiction with biblical interpretation is a heresy

[@seanpol9863]

Yep, the idea that anything contradicting a biblical interpretation is "heresy" overlooks the role of evidence in understanding the world. Science isn’t about enforcing dogma-it's about testing ideas, refining methods, and building knowledge based on observable, repeatable data. Radiometric dating, despite its limitations, has been rigorously tested and cross-verified using multiple independent methods like uranium-lead or rubidium-strontium dating. These methods consistently produce reliable results when applied correctly to the appropriate samples. Clinging to biblical interpretations while dismissing well-established science undermines the pursuit of truth, which should rely on evidence, not rigid adherence to ancient texts.

[@SHRUBBERT]

What is neo inquisition

[@knottyboy6086]

The stuff making it might be millions of years old.

[@redbeard5598]

Anytme there's rock near a volcano, Argon is emitted by the volcano and absorbed by the rock. Analysis makes the rock seem older, then.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Analysis makes the rock seem older, then." As old as the argon.

[@theslugboiii5969]

I thought you couldn’t use K-Ar dating on rocks that are less than 2 million years old. It’s like trying to measure a hair with a metre stick

[@wearehumans1693]

@@theslugboiii5969 how do you know if it's 2 million years old, in the first place?

[@theslugboiii5969]

@ because we know half life’s of things

[@wearehumans1693]

@@theslugboiii5969 you may know the rate of decay, but you can only assume how much decay happened over time.

[@theslugboiii5969]

@@wearehumans1693 decay is constant though

[@ivanrowe2880]

Decay can be sped up with heat or slowed by ice/cold this also altering dayes

[@eingoluq]

How did I end up on the stupid side of KZbin?

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"How did I end up on the stupid side of KZbin?" Stayed on too long; late night stuff.

[@sandb1867]

Bad joke? It's not that Argon dating is problematic for dating young lava rock, but rather the suggestion that such dating methods somehow vindicates the absurd note that the earth is merely ~6000 years old. C'mon creationists, you aren't that weak minded are you??

[@richardjohnson8009]

well from what we see scientifically the flood or at least one portion of it happened around 13k years ago.... so, that would be the noah part of the bible... the timeline is a little hard to place but doesnt mean its without basis

[@1969cmp]

Watch for brains splitting in the comments section.

[@seanpol9863]

I'd like to see you put that to the test. I know you like a challenge. Atheist vs religionist.

[@TruthIsHardToTake]

The Bible is always correct. Scientists are mostly wrong, about everything.

[@SHRUBBERT]

So gravity isn’t real? Round earth isn’t real? Cells aren’t real? Why can’t both be correct? Some Christians believe the creation story was allegory. And we have some parts of our body that we don’t use anymore yet still have, most likely because of evolution.

[@davidmckenzie5085]

the bible doesn't give a time of creation in genesis only genes of man i agree with what you are saying.But no one man knows the time of creation only the Creator

[@GrooberNedJardine]

No , the Bible does not say the Earth is only thousands of years old . Because the account in Genesis has a re creation week of 6 days and the seventh day God rested . The Angels inhabited the earth first under Lucifer , who rebelled against God and convinced a third of Gods Angels to do likewise and they Destroyed the earth . So God re created the surface of the earth and then introduced Man . If one understands the Bible correctly there are many passages that back this up . Even the first few verses of Genesis give us an idea that this was the case . And until Religions of today come to grips with this fact that the earth could infact be millions of years old and was once the abode of the Angels ,then they will always come to loggerheads with Science .

[@SHRUBBERT]

So… because rock young earth is young? That’s not very smart but okay

[@FillYourHeadSwe]

Glory to JHWH

[@SHRUBBERT]

Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn't our own lives right now matter more?

[@ThePapawhisky]

This is saddening. No mistake made by a scientist or researcher in any way validates wild, baseless religious claims. Scientists are moving us forward in all fields. It is an iterative process. Religion is an anchor tying us to Iron Age ignorance. Again, no scientific finding or lack of proves religion is right. If you want to say your favorite god or text is anything but imagination, you have a lot of work to do.

[@irishdave4322]

Scientists lie so they can get funding. You are believing in pseudoscience if you believe millions of years ❤

[@brianbadonde8700]

inanimate material doesn't self organize into life, the virgin birth is ridiculous but the virgin birth of the universe is completely logical 🤣 I'm not saying the virgin birth of Jesus is true but it's less believable than the virgin birth of the universe since many animals can self replicate without having sex, all great scientists will eventually reach the conclusion that this creation has a creator

[@tonycoker6523]

You are deceived

[@teks-kj1nj]

@@tonycoker6523 Or more likely - you are!!!

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Religion is an anchor tying us to Iron Age ignorance" The usual epithet is "bronze age" which came sooner, I think.

[@marcs_matthew]

This is stupid. Where did the 10-year-old rock come from? Lava, solidified. What is lava made of? Rocks, very hot, so hot they liquify. Where does lava come from? Old stuff, deep in the Earth. I might as well pick a rock from my yard and call it zero-years-old because that's when I picked it up. This guy is nowhere near as smart as he would have you believe. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

[@des711]

The age of the rocks tells us when the layers have been layed down. So if fresh lava that is now a rock is dated as though it was layed down millions of years ago, but actually just layed down 10 years, than scientists can't truly date rocks unless they observed it being layed down.

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

You cannot date a ten year old rock Geology 101. Thanks for providing inaccurate and deceptive content to the uninitiated.

[@dfuzesavetf2147]

Please explain further

[@irishdave4322]

Another excuse for wrong evidence ❤

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

@@dfuzesavetf2147short answer is because the wrong dating method was used….and my guess was intentionally so. He mentioned using the potassium-argon method in the videos beginning….which is completely useless to date anything younger than 6000 years old due to the fact not a measurable amount of argon (the decay rate of potassium) will have formed in so little time. Then he referenced a newly formed rock of 10 years old…that was submitted to a lab for a potassium-argon dating. Needless to say one will get wildly discrepant incorrect dates by utilizing this dating method. As an aside some labs don’t even have the precise equipment to date items less than a couple of millions of years old for the proper amount of argon. They probably were aware of this when they utilized their lab of choice and no doubt neglected to inform them it was newly formed rock….something I would label as dishonest. Regardless…this video popped up checked it out shook my head and supplied the answer you asked for. Lesson learned….stay from this suppliers content.

[@robertulrich3964]

@@Andrew-pp2ql that's 6000 years rule change happened after Mount St Helens erupted. it's convenient that that date excludes the Bible EXO facto.

[@SHRUBBERT]

@@robertulrich3964 Does it really matter if earth is flat or round, old or young, etc? Shouldn't our own lives right now matter more?

[@johngardiner5206]

St Helens has erupted multiple times! Of course you're going to get multiple answers.😂

[@wondery6693]

Scientists are supposed to know how to collect correct samples right?

[@johngardiner5206]

@wondery6693 what part of anonymous samples confused you!? You can't pick and choose your facts!

[@MuzaffarKrylov]

​@@wondery6693bots all over the place on this topic now. They are all the same. They've put the 'mock' category on 10. It's hilarious....as if we don't notice. China needs to work a little harder on their algorithm. 😅

[@cowboy101lisa]

@@johngardiner5206 you completely and conveniently ignore the rest and “known, eyewitness lava flows”. Indicative of intellectual dishonest on your part.

[@johngardiner5206]

@@cowboy101lisa I waded through the mangled English once. I'm not going to do it again. "Anonymous sample" Without context. An unspecified, zero detail report. You'd have to be a creationist nutter to take anything scientific from this! 🤣