Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are a Complete LIE

Here’s why evolutionary dating methods are a complete LIE… In this video, Calvin Smith exposes what secular scientists don’t tell people about radiometric dating methods, and highlights their huge biases.
Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical videos every week.
Love our content? Help us to continue to proclaim the gospel and the authority of the Bible-from the very first verse-without compromise using apologetics by partnering with us here: answersingenesis.ca/donate
_____________
🔹 DIGGING DEEPER: Want deeper answers to your theological questions? Visit answersingenesis.org/answers
🔹 BLOG: See Calvin Smith’s weekly apologetics articles here: answersingenesis.org/blogs/ca...
🔹 FREE e-BOOK: Sign up for our email newsletter and get a free copy of Calvin’s eBook, “Fellow Biblical Creationists! - STOP Doing These 3 Things…” answersingenesis.lpages.co/fe...
🔹ANSWERS TV: Get equipped to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word with live and on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, Creation Museum, and other Ministries worldwide. Start your free trial today at www.answers.tv
_____________
SOCIAL MEDIA
🔹 Facebook: / answerscanada
🔹 Calvin Smith: / aigcalvinsmith
🔹 Instagram: / answerscanada
🔹 X (formerly Twitter): x.com/AnswersCanada
🔹 TikTok: / answersingenesisca
_____________
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[@AlexanderosD]

The biggest hindrance to the scientific fields, is the individuals' presuppositions, the inability to assess their error, and refusal to reevaluate their hypothesis. The very things that are necessary to properly practice scientific methods. They are bound by grants and funding and the demand for consensus to the presumptuous world view.

[@leongkhengneoh6581]

projection

[@CaptainFantastic222]

So you’d agree then that holding dogmatic views is a bad thing?

[@tims5268]

This comment is satire right? Radiometric has been honed over time and is still improving. They do so by literally ‘assessing their errors’. Meanwhile you guys reject anything that doesn’t match your dogma no matter how much evidence there is for it. You are projecting the weakness of your own worldview.

[@tims5268]

Science doesn’t rely on presuppositions, it relies on trying to refute itself. You are projecting the weakness of your own dogma onto science.

[@jockyoung4491]

No, all the scientists in the world are not dishonest whores. If you have to believe that in order to keep YOUR biases and assumptions, then your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[@carriestout6422]

The Mount Saint Helens rock being tested as very old, when they formed in 1982. This proves my conclusion that radio metric dating is suspicious.

[@nathancook2852]

It's radiometric, and that sample was done by a "creation scientist" (Dr. Austin and Dr. Swenson I believe) who deliberately used the wrong dating method in order to get the wrong age. That doesn't mean the method is suspicious. It is the "scientists" why deliberately got the wrong age that are suspicious.

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

You really should do some actual research and you'll learn how that was misrepresented to fit the young earth BS - have you heard of xenoliths? No? Did the YACs mention them at all? No? Hmmm...wonder why. Maybe because it would destroy their argument.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

If you wanted to test an old AAA battery with your multimeter, would you use the 1000V measuring range? No, because the range must match the expected voltage. It is the same with age determination, except that you cannot simply change the measuring range, you have to choose a suitable method from many. Therefor the laboratory must have some basic informations. If these informations are not available or are deliberately not given, the results can only be incorrect. This is what happened here on purpose.

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

@@h.gonyaulax2190 - exactly. These people just "believe" and have clearly never heard of xenoliths, or have a clue how science really works...and how creationists HAVE to lie to support their narrative.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

@@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober As Christians, they should be committed to the truth.

[@TheEndhasbeenWritten]

God is true and right 100% of the time...man is dust

[@RobotDude375]

15:33 its a history book and a manual for life. It's jam-packed full of letters, songs, instructions and other documents. Its literally a giant pile of evidence that just keeps on being proven.

[@Reclaimer77]

This is like calling a Tom Clancy novel "history". This is the problem. The Bible is just a work of literature. It has some history in it, with lots of characters made up and events made up that didn't happen. Sorry but it's not "evidence" for any of the super natural claims made up by a work of historical fiction known as the Bible.

[@wpochert]

And Muslims would say the same about Quran, but I suspect you would say they are incorrect. And they would say you are incorrect. Scientific study and analysis says you both are incorrect. What do you use as a litmus test for the truth ?

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@@wpochert read the book what every Christian needs to know about the Quran'. The Quran and the Hadith are filled with real errors, unlike the 66 books of the Bible. And no, real observational scientific evidence is consistent with the Bible.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@@wpochert divine revelation from God is a litmus test, the Holy Scriptures and natural revelation. And we can also find tentative 'truth' through observational science and historical science. And we can use logical reasoning.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@@wpochert there is no scientific experiment that disproves the existence of God or the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If so, please tell us how we can do that testable and repeatable experiment.

[@paullovessoccer3947]

I read at least 15 years ago about how carbon dating was flawed.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

Where did you read that?

[@bighairyviking387]

It isn't. You were lied to.

[@nathancook2852]

It isn't flawed, but the results will look flawed if the "scientists" using it try to use it for something it can't do. That is something "creation scientists" do often.

[@americansfirst1095]

What I find absolutely remarkable, is the fact of just how many youtube surfers are so well versed and knowledgeable on carbon dating. That's amazin!

[@kethib52154]

@@nathancook2852 I do not think it is seriously flawed but for younger aged things it shows flaw in radiometric dating. You are using the true Scotsman fallacy..error

[@BE_WERM]

1:35 Notes and Quotes from Scientist on C14 dating 3:26 Truth Behind Dating Methods and burning candle analogous. 5:55 More On C-14 Dating and Why Not to trust the Dating methods Blindly. 8:50 Good question for Evolutionists 10:16 Uranium Lead dating 11:35 Lava dome Of Mt St Helen Testing Grounds dating method results. 14:00 Carls bad Caverns Dating Results and Age Changes 15:23 Conclusion

[@garyhempel6316]

what strikes me funny is when anyone, says we used to think that "blah blah" but that's not true anymore. When what they really mea n is , that never was true.

[@SillyDeity]

Calvin seems to use "blah blah blah" in lots of his replies to comments. That must mean nothing he says was ever true

[@jounisuninen]

@@SillyDeity Calvin rationalizes logically his statements unlike evolutionists.

[@tims5268]

@@jounisuninen except he doesn’t. I have a catalogue of screenshots of his replies to me when I have conclusively pointed out lies he has told. He knows he is lying to you and he doesn’t care. I once pointed out a lie he told with a source and asked him how he sleeps at night, his response was to ignore that I had proven one of his many lies and said he sleeps just fine. Don’t fall for this crooks little scams, fact check everything he says and you will soon see just how deceitful he is.

[@SillyDeity]

@@jounisuninenSadly that statement is as nonsensical as Calvin's verbiage. Since when does making demonstrably false claims equate to "rational logic"? Since when does dishonest quote-mining equate to "rational logic"? Interestingly, you've made unsubstatiated claims in other KZbin comment threads and yet when challenged you run away. Are you always this dishonest?

[@aaronk9621]

@@tims5268 should he be deceitful, I absolutely agree this will be seen. But what if once he stands righteously before GOD and those calling him a deceiver will be seen as the deceivers and liars?

[@user-xy5qf3lo5d]

Candle diameter is also a contributing factor

[@l.m.892]

Carbon dating assumes an equal distribution of an isotope per unit time. Isotope formation depends on environmental conditions. They can change. They have changed. They even differ depending on geographical location.

[@Philitron128]

​@@l.m.892Do you really think that scientists don't understand isotope distribution? Really? Do mechanics not know that there are differing bolt sizes on a vehicle? Are you really suggesting that they're just too dumb? Please, go and look some of this stuff up before you embarrass yourself again.

[@americansfirst1095]

​@@Philitron128 .......Id put big money up, betting that you got all of the shots.....didn't you? 😔

[@carriestout6422]

I have always distrusted this since learning about evolution in seventh grade. I always thought the scientists came to the assumption due to worldview.

[@ryomensukuna4526]

I agree. Taking a 2000 year old book written by some random people and interpreting it literally is far more reliable.

[@nathancook2852]

@@ryomensukuna4526 And it has only been translated once or twice. No room for error, or deliberate change, there.

[@LetsssGooooooooo]

Darwin would have never endorsed evolution as a theory to explain the origin of species if he knew about DNA.

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

@@ryomensukuna4526 - LOL!!

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

Clearly you weren't paying attention in school then. Maybe go back to school and actually learn this time round.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people YET to be created, may praise the Lord

[@Colonies_Dev]

you all deny science because you believe a fairy tale from the middle ages

[@roerdomp16e]

Gods have been created... by men; your Lord aswell as the thousands of other Gods mankind has created.

[@howdydoodey3872]

Creation followers love the lies they get fed.

[@glenturney4750]

​@@roerdomp16e: PROVE IT! 😁 God WASN'T created by men, it's the other way around.

[@glenturney4750]

​@@howdydoodey3872: I know why you doubt God's existence. It's because, you don't like the thought of having to give your life over to Him to be saved and that you don't want your sins exposed in the Light. That's why you HATE the Light and those who choose to live in Christ.

[@jamescole3152]

The sound on this video is perfect. I wish all videos and movies were this well done,.

[@HardCoreFantasyFootball]

You had me at the dating game gag 🤣👍 Great show, love the whole style you presented it ❤️🍿

[@freedominion7369]

Fascinating arguments and thanks for posting 🙏✝️

[@mplsfarmer]

Love the video, but I found the background jazz music very distracting.

[@icqtrinity]

Me too. Neuro-divergent.

[@JRB-uy4ml]

I did not notice the music listening to what he was saying.

[@Biggskye]

Please tell me the source that reports a 44,000-year-old tree buried in a 45M year old rock formation as I cannot find it anywhere.

[@S-we2gp]

Sounds like bs to me. I’m not aware that the Bible gives specific dates or disagrees with science on the age of the earth so I don’t know why we have to try and tear these methods down with weak evidence

[@Zaaxun]

Walter Libby, who invented carbon 14 dating, said himself that there's so many assumptions and inadequacies involved nothing past the Egyptian era could be dated with any accuracy.

[@nathancook2852]

Dang, wish we had like, 10-15 more ways to date rocks that could help corroborate and cross reference rock ages. Oh, wait... we do, and scientists do cross reference using different methods. Huh, who would have thought they would ever check their work?

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

W. F. Libby developed the method almost 75 years ago and died in 1980. Do you seriously believe that the method has not been refined and further developed during this time? Just consider the significant improvements in measurement technology since that time.

[@roberthawthorne8396]

There is another crucial detail that contends with the accuracy of radioactive dating methods, Solar activity! In the paper, "Power Spectrum Analysis of Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Decay-Rate Data: Evidence for Solar Rotational Modulation", (P.A. Sturrock, et al., 2010), normal decay rates were shown to fluctuate on monthly and even daily cycles in accordance to solar flares and geomagnetic storms. Now since we don't know the rate of fluctuation for all the recent solar flares and geomagnetic storms, we can not simply assume that decay rates are remotely accurate due to how many have happened over the course of history nor how the severity of these solar events may affect the decay rates. For example, the paper demonstrates the fluctuation in decay rates during a potentially weak solar flare, but no information is given on the fluctuation of decay rates during the Carrington Event of 1859, or a Miyake style Solar Energetic Particle event which are said to be around 80 times stronger than the mentioned Carrington Event.

[@jimmycricket5366]

Thank you. This is just another reason why uniformitarianism is so dangerous to adopt when attempting to build theories about the unknowable.

[@roberthawthorne8396]

@@jimmycricket5366 I agree

[@salmonkill7]

You can't be serious. There is no truth to what you posted whatsoever. Nuclear decay rates are not affected by even the most EXTREME E&M fields. If nuclear decay rates are "variable" why then is this phenomena not observed with short decay rates? There are plenty of extremely short half-life isotopes and moderate decay rate radioactive isotopes and there had NEVER been ANY changes to these rates measured, even under extreme conditions. I was an expert in radioactive decay and measurement and I was selected to Lead the entire DOE NN-20 program that controls the USAs entire budget for research into the measurement of radioactive materials. One of the main areas of research was to develop clandestine ways to measure radioactive emissions from nuclear weapons and SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL. Note there are other dating technologies that can used to validate radiometric dating and they are OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE (OSL) dating that was used most famously to date the various layers of the GRAND CANYON top to bottom. OSL works by rocks and minerals slowly detecting and integrating the radioactive background (penetrating background). The OSL signal can be analyzed in any metal oxides (rocks and minerals) and the samples are either heated to induce Luminescence emissions (light emissions), or the samples can be illuminated with very specific INFRARED light and then scientists measure the visible light emissions from the samples. The stronger the light emission, the OLDER the rock or mineral. Less than 10,000 year old rocks WONT PRODUCE ANY LIGHT EMISSION because they are not old enough to integrate enough signal. Note Grand Canyon sediments used both OSL ND radiometric dating and BOTH techniques give the same age in MILLIONS of YEARS for the respective dates. Science isn't a WORLDVIEW and there is not such thing as SECULAR Science this is a lie. People have WORLDVIEWS but Science is a METHOD!!

[@roberthawthorne8396]

@@salmonkill7 well there is this paper, "Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance" Jere H. Jenkins, which backs it up. If anything this deserves to be further considered.

[@salmonkill7]

@roberthawthorne8396 I will give it a look. Is it published on the CREATION JOURNALS? I'm not making fun of religious people, since I am a devoted Christian older man, and I am helping young people with their faith journeys as well as teaching high school Science at a Christian high school but I am also a retired National Laboratory Scientist and I worked both with radioactive decay (radiation detection) for National Security and I developed award winning, patented OSL Luminescence dosimetry for Hospitals and Cancer Therapy centers for 34 years before I retired. I did my PhD Physics coursework at Purdue University. Coincidently I went to Physics classes with Dr. Stephen Meyer at Whitworth College (Dr. Meyer is a Christian apologist that achieved fame as a INTELLIGENT DESIGN proponent) and during my Physics graduate work I was in the next building over from Dr. Tour. Dr. Tour was working on his PhD in Chemistry in Organic Synthesis. Dr. Tour is making alot of noise in Science right now by challenging ORIGIN OF LIFE researchers. Sadly, there used to be a large chasm between Science and Faith but it's closing now and there is more evidence for GOD in Science than ever before and this pleases me tremendously!! I have always been a man of Faith and I accepted Jesus into my heart as a 12 year old and Faith has never left me and neither had the Lord!! Despite my academics in Science and my career I have never had to compromise my Science for my Faith. I've never seen anything in Science that disproved belief in God or Jesus. I always teach my students that the very fact there is life on Earth and the fact we have 92 elements and the forces in Nature is proof there is a God. I teach WORLDVIEWS as well as all the Science classes at my school! All this said, I try to provide an alternative to YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM because I firmly believe it's harmful to Christian faith with our youth. The reason I say this is because I don't think a less than 10000 year Earth is necessary for belief in the God of the Bible and certainly not needed to believe in Jesus. The main beliefs of the Christian Faith I teach in my World Religions class and none of these beliefs had to do with YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM. I understand the PHYSICS at a high level, and I even worked a career in radiation detection and OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE of metal oxides and both of these technologies are used to date grand canyon rocks. The data is published and is available through the NATIONAL PARKS. In the past I left the mission alone in terms of arguing for the problems with YEC but KEN HAM recently is calling for YEC advocates to go after Dr. William Lane Craig and the kindly Dr. Lennox and this is just plain wrong. Ken Ham is not a nice person if he's advocating YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS to shame OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS. Ken Ham also went after Matt Walsh with a vengeance and this really upset me. I can tell you honestly there is a chance OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS are wrong but the likelihood is EXTEMELY SMALL almost impossible because all the accepted Sciece and observations support an OLD EARTH. If you follow these things to their conclusions it forces GOD to be the great deceiver and I cannot accept a God that would due that because God is the great Creator and isn't a deceiver. Also I don't see anything in my Physics background or experience that disproves GOD or the Bible but naturally I have a very different Worldview than YOUNG EARTHERS. GOD BLESS...

[@michaeldavies4005]

Great presentation, but may I suggest you drop the background music, please. Distracting. Thanks.

[@kettlebellcarnivore-vr5cw]

And, not only are these videos straight-up great, the wardrobe is impeccable. Keep it up!

[@beestoe993]

The candle analogy would actually be more reliable than radiometric dating. At least the candle dating method provides a known sample for calibrating the nesseccary data. Dating of rocks doesn't start from the same laboratory results, it starts from an assumption of deep time.

[@nathancook2852]

There is no assumption. Radioactive decay has been observed, tested, and proven reliable.

[@beestoe993]

@@nathancook2852 The rate that the candle burns is only one part of the equation. But that says NOTHING about when it started burning. That part of radiometric dating is ASSIGNED. But where does that data come from? Answer; it comes from ASSUMPTIONS of biased people with an agenda, NOT from a laboratory sample. That is a fact wether you realize it or not

[@sciencerules2825]

@@beestoe993 With most radiometric decay series we do know when the materials started undergoing radiometric decay. It's after they were molten (which causes all daughter product to diffuse out) then cooled again below *closure temperature* which is when daughter decay products start accumulating again. That's why basalt and volcanic tephras can be radiometrically dated so accurately.

[@beestoe993]

@@sciencerules2825 Yea sure, you mean like the basalts from Mt St Helens that "dated" as 2 MILLION years older than we KNOW they actually are? That kind of accurate?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@beestoe993 That's a perfect example of dishonest creationists deliberately using an incorrect technique (K/Ar) knowing they would get bad results they could then crow about. Doesn't say anything at all about verified radiometric techniques but it speaks volumes about how low creationist liars will sink.

[@ronbyrd1616]

A rather recent doc film "Darwins Dilemma" conclusively and academically debunks darwins "species jumping" thru the Cambrian explosion of the geologic record. It's a tremendous witnessing tool .

[@sciencerules2825]

You mean creationist Stephen Meyer's hopeless deluded anti-science propaganda film? 😅😂🤣

[@ronbyrd1616]

@@sciencerules2825 No, I mean the uncontested doc film "Darwins Dilemma" in which viewers fall into one of two categories : they either love it and it's obvious conclusion of intelligent design, and those who avoid it...that film . It's also the one with some 12 or so tenured experts across 3 continents . And I do believe each of those experts have all been published . It's also the film which correctly points out that darwin himself admitted that the Cambrian explosion would be fatal to his "theory". That's the film I mean.

[@glenturney4750]

​@@ronbyrd1616: Would love to see it! Where can I find it? 😁👍

[@sciencerules2825]

@@ronbyrd1616 Yeah, that's the one. A huge steaming pile of creationist drivel from a scientifically untrained known liar and charlatan.

[@LordMathious]

It's very sad you think that film is a reliable source.

[@reneewauchula]

We call that cherry picking when I worked in the laboratory. You get a major fine from the government if they found out you were doing that.

[@littlefishbigmountain]

If the scientists decide to do it on their own. If it comes down from the top, then they don’t get in trouble for it

[@tonysheerness2427]

That is not science.

[@kethib52154]

When there's money involved, you can always count on bias. Follow the money..

[@nathancook2852]

@@kethib52154 That is what Calvin does... that is why he lies to you...

[@kethib52154]

@@nathancook2852 umm. calvin of calvin & hobbes?

[@dancingnature]

So they show you a clickbait picture of layers that were obviously laid down at different times smh

[@marcj3682]

Why did "earth" "decide" to lay down the different layers, then "decide" to lay down another different layer, then stop that layer, and "decide" to lay down another one?

[@cmwHisArtist]

Or (using the analogy) what if someone used a giant blowtorch to melt the candle almost instantly?

[@New_Creature_]

That reminds me. They say the Grand Canyon took so long to be carved out but that's assuming it wasn't a large amount of water over a short time

[@kwg5044]

Word.

[@gregoswald7723]

@@New_Creature_ I have heard Young Earth Creationists say that the Grand Canyon was carved out by "The Flood." I have heard other YEC's say that the stratum of the Grand Canyon was laid down by "The Flood." I have yet to hear one YEC explain how the singular Flood both built up the rock and cut through the rock to form the Grand Canyon. Since "The Flood" is the only Biblical event big enough to either build up or cut down the Grand Canyon, then it must have done both??? If you are asking if it was caused by a different "large amount of water" then the question arises, where did that water come from. Where was it accumulating before it was released? There is no geological evidence of a large enough reservoir or dam breaking. Geologists think the Grand Canyon may have been carved in as little as 5 million years which would have required a "large amount of water over a short [geologic] time."

[@derrickbillings8654]

@@New_Creature_ you couldn’t produce a feature like the Grand Canyon with a large volume and a short period. In Washington State there’s an area called the Channeled Scablands created when glacial lakes during the last ice age broke loose and swept across everything in their path on the way to the sea. It’s nothing like the Grand Canyon.

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@New_Creature_look up the Hudson seaway, you'll see how long it took to carve out the Grand Canyon

[@user-kx6qb2et4q]

How is radioactive decay 'snuffed out' and relit later?

[@calvinsmith7575]

Not constant. Its an analogy...

[@SepticFuddy]

Ever had a look at a nuclear reactor? What do you think the control rods are doing?

[@kwg5044]

Good question. Environmental changes and control factors like atmosperic density, pole movement, natural disasters, rising tides, solar flares, magnetospheric failure, volcanism, asteroidal impacts, nuclear explosions, day length, processional wobble, tilt, cloudy days, etc.. these all have an affect on rate of decay.

[@user-kx6qb2et4q]

@@kwg5044 Do you have a reference for these factors changing decay rates?

[@user-kx6qb2et4q]

@@SepticFuddy Please explain.

[@danpatterson6937]

An excellent review! It is hard to get around the Canadian o/u inversion, but a nice piece of work just the same.

[@audreymartin2515]

? I’m thinking this is written by an American- a nice piece of work even though it’s not American? Time to get over that.

[@danpatterson6937]

I'm thinking you didn't read my note but inserted yourself between the words, but thank you for the lecture. Accents of any sort are either a mild hurdle or a major obstacle and can be entertaining or not. The Canadian and upper northern US vowels are prominent features and define the speaker easily by geography. For a professional broadcaster to retain a local accent is always a surprise and it does get in the way of the message, though not substantially. My comment was driven by a nasty and worsening condition, misophonia, that I wish on no one.@@audreymartin2515

[@calvinsmith7575]

Sorry to hear about your misophonia brother, I suffer from it as well. Unfortunately my accent is definitely locked in place and the high o/u will likely never diminish : ). Whenever i'm at the US office I inevitably have people commenting on how I pronounce ''house' or 'about' and am always amazed at them hearing a-boot, when I am clearly saying a-bowt! : )

[@danpatterson6937]

I should never have mentioned the accent. My sincere apology. Best on responding to the misery of misophonia; let me know of any effective strategies. And I know I've offended your reader Audrey Martin @@calvinsmith7575 but that was a misread.

[@wpochert]

you do realize that the surface of the earth is always changing and churning around? There are very few places which have been undisturbed... those that have tell the story.. those that have not do not.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Yes I do. So?

[@unsignedmusic]

I can’t wait to read your peer-reviewed scientific paper, and watch you win your Nobel Prize.

[@user-xy5qf3lo5d]

Nobody gets outta here alive. You’re running on borrowed time. You’ll find the truth the second you die, unfortunately it will be too late.

[@annieoaktree6774]

Pretty sure the Nobel Committee doesn't award a Prize for lying about science.

[@therick363]

@@user-xy5qf3lo5dwhat’s funny is you completely ignored the post!

[@user-xy5qf3lo5d]

Bahahaha 😂 Noble prize ? They’ve lacked credibility for decades. Political hacks run the organization.

[@taylenvila3915]

@@annieoaktree6774They give "Peace Prizes" to war criminals, so what's the difference?

[@juanjosetalerogarcia902]

I always love listening to this. When I first read about it in the answer book 1 i was fascinated. And i still am

[@glenturney4750]

I saw a video years ago about a father and son who took a piece of wood, soaked it in water, then put it inside of this metal box that could be pressurized and add heat to what was inside. They did just that and left it in the box for a period of time, about 2 weeks, I think it was, and when they opened the metal box, the wood was turning into coal. So, the coal that these scientists are digging up and claiming to be millions of years old is NOT as old as they claim that it is, 'cause all that needs to happen is for the ground to split open, trees that have water in them, to fall inside, the earth pushes back together to bury them and under a short period of time, like HUNDREDS, or THOUSANDS of years goes by, then miners dig it up as COAL, after the trees were buried under PRESSURE AND HEAT to convert them into coal. That father and son team PROVED that it doesn't take long for wood to change into coal, which contradicts the claims of these scientists.

[@bustjanzupan1074]

Yes, but, the Great Flood was Not Global !!! ! !!! And, people are Not understanding the Bible Properly , Because they have not read the New Revelation trough Jakob Lorber, so , that is why such errors are happening. And, the Human Race is Not older than about 6500 years , Because it has Nothing in common with the so called Pre-Adamites (the cave man). Peace with you.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@glenturney4750 And sure enough, a tree in a wood gets pressurized and heated all the time? This is so stupid! Have you no critical thinking left? Has Bible study destroyed all your brain cells?

[@rizdekd3912]

@@glenturney4750 I would be suspicious of that video. True one can turn wood into something black that burns in a short time, but it's not coal it's charcoal.

[@H4KnSL4K]

Great presentation - Thanks!

[@ronbyrd1616]

By the way, the film "Darwins Dilemma" is free on utube .

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

And, by the way, "Darwin's Dilemma" has been demonstrated not to be a "dilemma" at all.

[@SystemsMedicine]

Hi AIGC. Well, I really enjoy the very high level of professional production in your videos. Thanks. On the other hand, at least in this video, you are avoiding a deep basic problem… When people that we now refer to as geologists started finding and excavating giant dinosaur bones, a great mystery was revealed: what were these giant animals, which were no longer found alive on Earth? Back then, Christian ‘geologists’ generally thought the Earth was about 6,000 years old, so how come ancient people didn’t write about these giant animals or paint them on their pottery or frescoes?? This was the beginning of the end of the idea that the Earth was only 6,000 years old. Then they found more fossils of more giant extinct animals, and then extinct plants, and then smaller extinct animals, etc., etc… So what was the explanation for all these extinct species, given that the Earth was only 6,000 years old? The GIANT problem is NOT whether you can find flaws in specific geological dates or dating methods or specific geological sites. The old ideas of a 6,000 year old Earth were obliterated, unintentionally, by early forms paleontology, archaeology, and geology. Once it became obvious the Earth was older, the natural next question was how much older? After about a century and a half of work, some directly concerned with the problem of the age of the Earth, but other work in pursuit of quite diverse scientific and commercial goals, many many many lines of evidence show that the Earth is quite ancient compared to what people (in the Western World) generally believed a few hundred years ago. Strap in and get used to it, mate. You don’t have to believe any of it, but you do so in the face of a mountain of evidence that suggests the Earth is very old. As for the title of your video, when you really really think you are correct about a belief you hold, and someone disagrees with you, this does not imply they are lying to you. Even if you find flaws in their logic, this still does not imply they are lying to you. Even if a group of such people publishes papers that you disagree with, and they are all completely wrong, this STILL does not imply they are lying to you. They could all just be wrong, and it is modern childish foolishness to say someone is lying just because you disagree with them and they have some flaws in their thinking. Scientists aren’t telling you lies about the age of the Earth. Grow up. Cheers.

[@prschuster]

Statistically, we expect 5% of results to be 2 Standard deviations from the mean, so we know one out of 20 will be bad. Each stratum has been dated thousands of times, so 95% of the dates will be in the same ballpark. Just focusing on some bad dates is dishonest. Do you think real geologists have never considered possible problems with dating? For example, carbon contamination must be carefully accounted for when using C-14 dating. How creationists can discount this when they purposely date rock millions of years old, make me wonder if they are dishonest or just clueless. And then the old Mount Saint Helens story comes up... look, we found a sample with an old date, not considering possible xenocrysts or other contamination! I guess that must falsify the whole science of geochronology, right? The creationist game plan is to bewilder people with a long list of difficulties in science to cast doubt on evolution, knowing that every branch of science will have some uncertainties to exploit.

[@christian84726]

fact is that we dont know it, so the best we can say how old something is, if it is recorded history, other is pure scince fiction. And also with some erosions happen when it was told millions of years, and in some occasions this layers have build up over night, there was an event dont remember the place where a liquefied mountain build those layers over night and after 20 years u cannot distinguish the layers from other and u would think these are millions of years old. Scince has often faked thinks to get recognitischen and fame about discoverys so the best is to be sceptic at all dates esspecially in Egypt where all dates are politcal crafted dates

[@marktapley7571]

Creationists are just exposing another evolutionary scam. Repeating a scam does not increase its accuracy anymore than a witch doctor’s incantations increase his.

[@christhewritingjester3164]

You're speaking on statistics in general, you're not providing an evaluation based upon actual findings to know if the dating in question is within what you're stating. The fact of the matter is that they are using methods that we can't verify the validity of by any other method. And when we have the ability to verify the age of something through observation, the results via these methods are never correct. And every calculation has a built-in unverified assumption in order to adjust the dates to the assumed time period.

[@marktapley7571]

@@christhewritingjester3164 Yes, or another definition for their technique is fraud.

[@onanisland6813]

So give me a ball park figure of the supposed 45k year old wood found within a basalt deemed to be as old as 45 million years old

[@danielnaanchin3855]

God bless you for this eye opener.

[@byrdsdoityourselfgarage7330]

That school reminds me of my elementary school in Elk Creek Virginia. It was probably the same age. I can remember the old old wooden floors, and the smell of the floor wax melting under the iron radiant heaters

[@all_bets_on_Ganesh]

If i knew nothing about radio dating before watching this video, i would now know -1 things about radio dating.

[@jackiemack8653]

That is why carbon dating was false on Holy Shroud of Turin. Read Riddles of the Shroud by William West

[@nathancook2852]

@@jackiemack8653 Nope, the Shroud is a fake. It has been prove multiple ways. Do a little research. These guys always misrepresent science, and they do so here. If only there were about 15 other ways to date things from the past, oh, wait, there are. And they work very well. The only times they don't work well is when "creation scientists" use then incorrectly or use them for the wrong thing on purpose, which has been known to happen on multiple occasions.

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

To quote the great philosopher Nicholas Fraser..."Why you always lying?"

[@Packhorse-bh8qn]

@GodlessAussieGlober What is there in this presentation that you consider to be a lie? Can you be specific? (HINT: Every fact he cited is just that - a fact. *_It's mainstream science_* . He has accurately and truthfully stated the methods and their underlying principles. The problems he has cited are discussed in the scientific literature. There is NOTHING at all about the facts he has cited that is in any way controversial or debatable. His *_conclusions may_* be considered a matter of opinion, but they are obvious to anyone who is willing to be honest with the data.)

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

@@Packhorse-bh8qn I don't have the time to write a full essay on everything wrong in this video. But do yourself a favour and watch some non AIG videos on explaining things like xenoliths and how the affect dating and read or watch some of Mary Schweitzer's work on what these lying a-holes misrepresent constantly about "soft tissue" - spoiler, it's not remotely close to how they represent it. I don't remember if they lied about that in this video but I know they roll out that BS constantly so they probably did. They have a very limited BS narrative.

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

@@Packhorse-bh8qn - he has lied and downright misrepresented the science to fit his false narrative, keep the gas lit and the grift going. Do yourself a favour and step outside your creationist echo chamber and read or watch some actual scientists explain things like xenoliths (pretty sure you have no idea what they are as these liars would never mention those because it would destroy their "young lava dating old" BS) and read or watch some of the stuff from Dr Mary Schweitzer about her "soft tissue" findings they roll out constantly. She's a devout christian and even she agrees the fossils are ancient and she hates how a-holes like this guy misrepresent her findings. And in closing, he didn't state facts. He twisted and misrepresented facts to fit his false narrative. If you were actually honest with yourself and did real research you'd know this. But you're happy to just blindly swallow the tripe dished out by these anti science organisations.

[@kethib52154]

Is that a kin to how often do you beat your wife?

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

@@Packhorse-bh8qn The lies start at about 0:00 and end around 16:16. The entire video is one giant example of how AiG and their ilk lie, misrepresent and assert with no evidence for an entire video to make it look like the greatest oxymoron to date - "Creation Science" - is somehow legit. And their ignorant rubes of an audience just swallow it all, unquestioningly. I've listed just some of their BS in my other replies in other comments here. I'm not going to write an essay here about their BS. You wouldn't listen anyway. You can take a creationist to evidence, but you can't make them think.

[@williamburroughs2273]

Can anyone tell me where the 6,000 year thing comes from? Because when I read Genesis I don't see anything to base that on. The early chapters of Genesis are written in a chronological way, but with no specifics; they read like, "God did this, then God did that, then this other thing happened", but it never gives a specific point from which to induce that the earth is 6,000 years old. The first hard chronology I see in Genesis is when it describes Noah's genealogy, but that wouldn't get you anywhere near all the way back to the Creation of the earth.

[@statutesofthelord]

william, please read Luke chapter 3. It shows clearly that the world of today is roughly 6,000 years old.

[@williamburroughs2273]

@@statutesofthelordI just read Luke 3 and I saw nothing to indicate that.

[@statutesofthelord]

@@williamburroughs2273 william, that's odd. That's the chapter that has led to many books about how the world is around 6,000 years old. My guess is that you didn't read to the end of the chapter.

[@globalcoupledances]

Wikipedia "James Usher"

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@statutesofthelordit doesn’t explicitly state 6000 years old.. I think he’s asking what assumptions are made

[@user-mc5so2fv4j]

Awesome presentation. Thanks for your work.

[@deweydewey6714]

I am one of those men that ran off to the Philippines to get away from all that BS, and I am happy I did!!!

[@rayluntz1981]

Thank you....Old guy comment for your yt points

[@calvinsmith7575]

Thanks! Appreciated!

[@luish1498]

Determining the appropriate dating method to use for a specific material requires careful consideration of several factors. Here are some key considerations that scientists take into account: Material Type: The nature of the material being dated is one of the primary factors in choosing a dating method. Different dating techniques are applicable to different types of materials. For example, radiocarbon dating is suitable for organic materials like wood, bone, or charcoal, while uranium-series dating is used for materials containing calcium carbonate, such as speleothems or coral reefs. Scientists assess the composition and preservation of the material to determine which dating methods are feasible. Age Range: The approximate age range of the material is another important consideration. Some dating methods are suitable for relatively recent or historical materials, while others are applicable to much older time frames. Radiocarbon dating, for instance, is effective for materials up to around 50,000 years old, while potassium-argon dating is used for rocks and minerals that are millions to billions of years old. Scientists assess the desired age range and select a dating method that is appropriate for that time frame. Preservation and Contamination: The state of preservation of the material and the potential for contamination are critical factors in selecting a dating method. Some materials may be well-preserved, allowing for accurate dating, while others may have undergone significant alteration or degradation, making dating more challenging. Scientists evaluate the potential for contamination from modern sources or from previous exposure to older materials. If a sample is likely to be contaminated, alternative dating methods or rigorous sample preparation techniques may be necessary. Collaborative Approach: In many cases, scientists employ a collaborative approach. They consult with experts in various dating methods and related fields to determine the most appropriate approach. This interdisciplinary collaboration allows for a comprehensive assessment of the material and the selection of the most suitable dating method or combination of methods. Cross-Validation: Cross-validation of results using multiple dating methods is a common practice to enhance the reliability and accuracy of age estimates. By using multiple techniques, scientists can compare results and assess the consistency and agreement between different dating approaches. This cross-validation helps to strengthen the confidence in the obtained age estimates. Ultimately, the choice of a dating method or combination of methods depends on the specific context, the available samples, and the research objectives. Scientists carefully evaluate these factors to select the most appropriate dating approach that will provide reliable and meaningful age estimates for the material under investigation.

[@calvinsmith7575]

All of which is dealt with in the video- demonstarating these techniques are highly unreliable...

[@luish1498]

@@calvinsmith7575 read my others coments about other dating process!! there are several dating methods that are commonly used in conjunction with radiocarbon dating to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the age of organic materials and archaeological sites. Some of these methods include: Dendrochronology: Dendrochronology, or tree-ring dating, is a method that uses the annual growth rings in the cross-section of tree trunks to establish the age of wooden artifacts or structures. By comparing the pattern of rings in a sample to an established tree-ring sequence, scientists can determine the calendar year in which the tree was cut down. This method can provide precise dating for materials up to several thousand years old and is often used to calibrate radiocarbon dates. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating: OSL dating is used to determine the age of sedimentary materials, such as sand or soil. It relies on the principle that natural minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, accumulate radiation over time. When these minerals are exposed to sunlight or heat, the stored radiation is released as luminescence. By measuring the luminescence signal, scientists can estimate the time elapsed since the sediment grains were last exposed to sunlight. OSL dating is applicable to materials ranging from a few hundred years to several hundred thousand years old. Uranium-Series Dating: Uranium-series dating is used to determine the age of materials containing calcium carbonate, such as speleothems (cave formations) and coral reefs. It relies on the decay of uranium isotopes into other isotopes through a series of radioactive decay steps. By measuring the ratios of different isotopes in the sample, scientists can estimate the time since the material was last in equilibrium with its environment. Uranium-series dating can provide ages ranging from a few thousand years to several hundred thousand years. Potassium-Argon Dating: Potassium-argon dating is a method used to date volcanic rocks and minerals. It is based on the decay of potassium-40 into argon-40, with a half-life of approximately 1.3 billion years. By measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 in a sample, scientists can determine the age of the rock or mineral. This method is particularly useful for dating rocks millions to billions of years old. These are just a few examples of dating methods commonly used in conjunction with radiocarbon dating. The combination of multiple dating techniques allows scientists to cross-check and validate results, refine chronological sequences, and obtain a more accurate understanding of the age of archaeological sites and organic materials.

[@luish1498]

@@calvinsmith7575 your misrepresentation about science doesnt work with me «Mr. Mutations doesnt produce new information«

[@jockyoung4491]

@@calvinsmith7575 You do not demonstrate the techniques are unreliable. You mention one or two cases where somebody who may or may not have done it wrong got something different. That is not a valid test. Blind sample comparisons of these techniques prove that they are extremely reliable. And that will remanin the case howver many times you choose to lie about it.

[@l.m.892]

@@jockyoung4491 You didn't pay attention to the video.

[@jameslowry1]

People I have met or spoken to on platforms like youtube or Facebook has used radiometric dating to question my position on Bibical creationism and a young earth but most if not all of them are ignorant of the various assumptions that have to be made for radiometric dating to work and I don't believe these assumptions (and there are at least three of them) are reliable or can be known for sure and if just one of the assumptions used (the decay rate for example) is not constant then your whole age estimate is rendered invalid

[@patricafalcone9524]

I've kept this to myself for decades and am probably not the first to consider this: but wouldn't the spectral properties of matter have had to change when the rainbow was given to Noah? Your reference to the physical law invariance being disproved by one of the scientists you referred to is evidence that something like that can manifest. Time dilation and contraction as a varying with the force of gravity / distance from the "mathematical point source" of a given gravitational mass has clearly been demonstrated (unless I'm mistaken). My gut tells me that there's a hunch regarding the possibility that the sudden restructuring of the spectral properties of water from no rainbow to rainbow should be explored relative to radioactive decay. So while this may sound laughable because one might say "where's the carbon in water", that's not the point, all matter changed because fundamental particles like electrons protons quarks and what-have-you had to be modified--so in effect all creation would have had to change--that sounds like a God powerful enough to do all he claims--a God people can believe in--a God that seals his promise in all creation. Typically, minute changes in the relative positions of atoms in a chemical structure map directly to changes in the relative spacing of energy levels. On the other hand, I'm not disputing the presentation given in the video clearly there is a fundamental problem with extrapolating back in time. While Avogadro's number is huge and should give plenty of particles in samples, we still don't have anyone that did experiments millions of years ago to provide us with benchmarks that we can trust today. Finally, the repeated special cases found in the fossil record from a mathematical-logical perspective should be sufficient to support the flood--lawyers routinely scour medical records for proof of an (possibly erroneous) entry that could scuttle a personal injury claim and the courts are all too happy to consider them. Yet the court of public opinion is fickle and often will pick what suits it best as purported by the liberal media; and so there will always be some kind of hinderance to getting everyone to believe the truth. Thank you for your dedicated effort to plainly share the truth.

[@isaiahmumaw]

For the record, I lean pretty heavily in the direction of Creationism. I worry you have some misconceptions. Spectral properties of water were likely not changed. Just as Jesus directed the disciples through communion as a symbol of his death and resurrection (taking something common and giving it deeper meaning), so too did the rainbow take on new meaning after the flood. The rainbow became a symbol, but was not new or unusual at the time. Could God have changed water? Sure. But the text doesn’t suggest that and it would seem to go against God’s nature. I’m having a little bit of trouble following certain portions of your comment. Seems that you’re pulling from a variety of scientific ideas and trying to place them where they don’t really fit in.

[@marktapley7571]

@@isaiahmumaw The introduction of the rainbow as a sign from God was likely a new phenomenon as it was the initiation of a contract. No need for anything to change as to the structure of water other than the new delivery system in the form of rain which humans had never experienced before. We are told that water flowed up from the ground under the old system. The entire world was evidently tropical as alligator bones and tropical plant remains have been discovered in what is the arctic regions today. Also the giant mastodons could not have foraged enough in what today are tundra.

[@kethib52154]

no the vapor canopy would have to be removed

[@patricafalcone9524]

Like I stated it's a hunch, that has the potential to become a theoretical post-graduate problem in physical-nuclear chemistry / particle physics.... I really should not have posted it without writing a book first. I beg to differ--something was changed the bible makes it clear that rainbow was new. That is clear as crystal. God has no limitations. He could do it w/ out perturbing physical properties or with. Assuming the w/ then you work from there to see what one comes up with. Einstein's theory of relativity directly follows from God's constat character. Fix the speed of light as constant and work from there--Einstein never said he did so (included God in his initial reasoning--thought he does invoke "God" from time to time in a wide variety of comments / arguments)--but no doubt there are those that would have and eventually then would have derived the same formula as he did (had he never had done so). And no I'm not implying that God is somehow hindered by the speed of light, another point is that people were already starting to think that the speed of light was more or less constant. Einstein's genius was that he picked that emerging and qualified "fact" as a starting point. You have to start somewhere. I'm merely choosing one of many starting points. Again, my apologies. (An additional point, there was nothing common about not just merely flooding but fully submerging the entire planet, nor was there anything common about creating an ark w/ no way to shut the door, nor was there anything common about confusing the languages, nor was there anything common about dividing the earth...nor was there anything common about loving all of us so much that God as Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead).

[@poliincredible770]

The Bible provides us with a reliable dating method. Humanistic methods provide us with "once upon a time."

[@CaptainFantastic222]

Wouldn’t “because the Bible says so” be more aligned with “once upon a time”?

[@Moist._Robot]

Isn’t it the bible that says “In the beginning”?

[@morefiction3264]

@@Moist._Robot Interesting that. The Bible saying the universe has a beginning several millennia before scientists, Hubble and Einstein, figured that out.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@Moist._Robot Interesting THAT. Isaiah the prophet lived in the 700' BC. He wrote THEN that Isaiah 40:22 "God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" and for almost another 500 yrs, "Scientists" of the day said the earth was FLAT !!!!

[@criticalthinker8007]

How since the books in the bible do not provide a continuous timeline.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great video! Trust the biblical dates!

[@HangrySaturn]

Absolutely do not

[@NorvelCooksey]

Amen

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

The bible doesn't give any dates.

[@jonathansutton1447]

@taylorthetunafish5737 And yet which person is our dating system based on? Hint: he’s in the Bible. 😂😂

[@richardgregory3684]

@@jonathansutton1447 Where does the bible give the date and year of Jesus birth? It doesn;t. It was a purely arbitrary decision, complete guesswork, that wasn;t even made until the third century. And the only reason it was used is because it was adopted by the Holy Roman Empire by order of Constantine who had converted to Christianity. And because Europe was for some time dominant in world affairs, it became an international standard. But India still uses Shaka Years internally; Japan regnal years after it's Emperors, Indonesia uses Buddha's birth as it;s year zero.Why are there seven days in a week? Because there are seven visible "planets" - The Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn visible to the naked eye. And how are the days named? After Norse and Roman Gods. Monday=MoonDay. Saturday=SaturnDay. Sunday=SunDay. Or Thursday-Thor's Day. I guess you must think these gods are real too then? So we have one Jesus Day - but 52 Thor's Days. ROFL

[@johnhavel7685]

When they say it agrees with strata and fossils it’s because layers of rock settle in strata over time so that a sedimentary rock on top of another one must be younger so if they get a date that doesn’t agree with the preponderance of evidence for the surrounding rock layers then it’s assumed there may be an issue with the sample from that strata and it’s associated date it’s really not that difficult to figure that out. It’s not like they have only tested one little sample from each layer no they have tested probably millions at this point of samples from various strata and have compared them around the world. There are layers of rock that are pretty much universally seen across the globe so you can get samples from all over the place of the same layer and test it to determine likely date and that doesn’t mean it’s not without error though. On geologic timescales a million years of error or even ten million is really not that long considering the earth has likely been around for something like 4.5 billion years. There are also not just radiometric dating methods used other methods are also used which add to the preponderance of evidence showing it likely is that old give or take some amount of error.

[@calvinsmith7575]

The idea of supra-position demanding that the deeper the layer the 'older' it is has been severely challenged by the study of sedimentation in real time where layers are laid down sideways- not top down. So no, these methods are severely compromised...

[@johnhavel7685]

@@calvinsmith7575 just because that may happen in some places does not negate the fact that in 99 percent of locations the strata do lay down layer on top of layer and that older layers are deeper. You can find anomalies in many things but those don’t necessarily mean that the general rule is invalid it just means that sometimes there are circumstances that occur causing unexpected things to happen. This is why we look at the overall preponderance of data in science not just some localized anomaly when determining things like this.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@calvinsmith7575 Scientists can tell when anomalies like that happen. Please do not suggest that all scientists are dishonest or stupid, just because YOU don't want to agree with them.

[@nathancook2852]

@@calvinsmith7575 Again, you misrepresent. It is easy for scientists to tell when that happens, and they can point it out immediately and they know why it happens. Stop lying.

[@Broke30YearOldShmuck]

Not a creationist but its beyond clear carbon dating is so against what science should be

[@SillyDeity]

What makes you say that?

[@SillyDeity]

It's been a week and you've still not substantiated your claim. Funny that!

[@tone9358]

Decay rates are constant & we have had little to no success in speeding them up. Also, you can not have millions of years of decay exist in only six thousand years. Atoms release heat when they decay & if you try to cram millions of years of decay into such a short time, you would release enough heat to melt the crust of the earth.

[@hanntonn2]

Decay rates are constant, but you need to assume the amount of radioactive material relative to the non radioactive byproduct of decay in the original object you're dating because you were not there when it was laid in the ground. That's why dating radioactive material without confirming evidence will always fail.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Well there has been a little success. Aren't you aware of that? If there has been a little success in small changes, how can you assume no change? And clearly there is either a natural or supernatural process that took care of the heat. Either, way, God took care of it. Scientists are still studying that. Are you a science stopper?

[@tone9358]

@@hanntonn2What you’re claiming is Last Thursdayism. God would have no purpose to create a universe that’s 6,000 years old with atoms that have decay of millions of years. Your claim only works if god would want to trick us about the age of the earth for some reason.

[@hanntonn2]

@@tone9358 No atom has decay of millions of years. Do you even know how it works? Let's just take uranium 238 as an example. Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That means that after 4.5 billions years, half of the amount of uranium will have decayed. Uranium starts to decay right when it is formed, but it just decays slowly. The fact that it decays doesn't mean it's old. The same is true for all isotopes. I hope this could help clear your misunderstanding.

[@hanntonn2]

Also, the only way you can know for how long a mass of radioactive material has been decaying is by knowing the original amount of byproduct of that isotope. You can't know that. The fission of Uranium 238 will produce Uranium-234, Thorium-230, Radium-226, and Radon-222 and finally Lead-206 . Just because you find a lot of Lead-206 along with Uranium 238 doesn't mean the Uranium has been decaying for a very long time because Lead-206 doesn't just come from the fission of Uranium 238. It also occur naturally. There is no solid evidence that atoms have been decaying for billions of years. Hope that helps.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution. They weren't developed to support evolution. They were strictly to find the age of various geological elements. You're not arguing with evolution here, you are arguing with physics. Here's what one geochronologist says: "The reason that I trust the accuracy of the age that we have determined for the earth (~4.56 billion years) is that we have been able to obtain a very similar result using many different isotopic systems. Most estimates of the age of the earth come from dating meteorites that have fallen to Earth (because we think that they formed in our solar nebula very close to the time that the earth formed). We have dated meteorites using Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb, Re-Os, and Lu-Hf isotope systems and have obtained very similar ages. The fact that the age we calculate is reproducible for these different systems is significant. We have also obtained a very similar age by measuring Pb isotopes in materials from earth...The decay constants for most of these systems have been confirmed in other ways, adding strength to our argument for the age of the earth." In other words, the age of the earth has been checked by a number of different radiometriuc methods, and those different methods have all arrived at apporximately the same age.

[@sciencerules2825]

It doesn't matter how many independent corroborating methods we use to establish the actual 4.5 billion year age. These people have already closed and locked their minds to any scientific understanding which contradicts the mythology they were taught as children.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@sciencerules2825 That's certainly true, but they may be others who read these comments who haven't formed an opinion of the right or wrong of it. It's important for them to know that physics plays a role in determining the age of the earth, and that it would play that role whether there was a theory of evolution or not. The creationists always want to tie their arguments to the theory of evolution, but they also contradict all the other sciences. It's important that people know that too.

[@jimmycricket5366]

_"Because we think"_ (Therefore we can be certain...).

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@jimmycricket5366 Not "Therefore we can be certain", but "...adding strength to our argument for the age of the earth..." It's true that finding a number of different sources that all give more or less the same result does add strength to the old earth argument. Against that we have a biblical account, not of the age of the earth, because it doesnt say anywhere in the bible how old the earth is,' but by adding up the generations given in the bible desptie the fact we have absolutely no corroborating evidence, and despite the fact many different ages are given for humans of the day.

[@Akutikun]

@@sciencerules2825It takes just as much faith to believe in what you do as it does to believe in the truth of what Jesus actually taught. The difference is that the Lord's words are actually available for you to prove in your own life.

[@SelimBuhai]

God bless you for all the work you do to bring His light into a world that does not know wich way to go

[@polomaster720]

Wow, this is really interesting. Thank you so much for teaching me about things I don’t know!

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Nonsense, lies, and intellectual dishonesty.

[@lovesickforone]

​@@mirandahotspring4019can't you just let polomaster just enjoy actual facts and science? Do atheist trolls have to try to attack anything logical or reliable... just on principle? Then calling the information that was presented well and with proper evidence and documentation... well calling others what you are, is the oldest trick in the book. Liars call honest people liars all the time... because the liar doesn't mind lying...a.k.a. You Miranda 😉

[@miscamisca6775]

" Wow, this is really interesting. Thank you so much for teaching me about things I don’t know! " i promise you, now you know even less

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

​@lovesickforone Because it _isn't_ "actual facts and science", it's disingenuous distortion coupled with selective editing and one or two barefaced lies. And it isn't just atheists who attack this intellectual dishonesty: I often argue against it and I am a theist. In fact, atheists are the ones with the least to lose from these videos: Ken ham & Co are doing their work for them, by making religion look silly and deceitful. It's Christians who are being misrepresented by this constant bullshit, and Christians who should be in the vanguard to oppose the conspiracy theorists who try to make the whole religion look ridiculous.

[@polomaster720]

I challenge you to support your claim with evidence!@@mirandahotspring4019

[@joem8496]

Sounds like confirmation bias is a big issue in this field!

[@saintmalaclypse3217]

Not really. As usual, AIG is counting on you being ignorant of science, incapable of researching, and unwilling to disagree. These are humans, so stop trusting them blindly as if they were divine. Imagine you found the bones of your great-grandmother, and wanted to see how old she was when she died. A scientist performs a test and the results say she was 2,458 years old. Well, you don't KNOW how old she was, but you can safely dismiss that result as garbage. According to AIG, this is because you are "biased", and that's the only possible answer. The reality is that you know MANY other facts that tell you that date can't be correct, even though you don't know what the real number is. You know you can safely dismiss the test results this time. But since the test sometimes is used to accurately determine the ages of other skeletons, you know the test isn't ALL bad, it's just not perfect. This is why we have WAAAY more tests than just C14. Each type of test has its strengths and weaknesses, but no test is a magic bullet that tells the age of everything. So, science does its best, tries not to rely solely on one method, and continues to improve. Mistakes are what lead to better and better science. A mistake in the age of a dinosaur bone isn't a big deal to anyone; but a mistake when trusting men like this liar to guide you through God's word and towards eternal salvation...? Well, a mistake there could cost you dearly. Avoid this organization - they profit from your support, and they garner your support by treating you like an ignorant child who can't (and usually won't) detect their lies. Turn on your bullshit detector and avoid AIG. There are plenty of honest sources of education on the Bible. This isn't one of them.

[@miscamisca6775]

Yes, so you should read up on science instead of watching videos like this

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

Confirmation bias is entirely the creationist's stock in trade. Answers in Genesis openly admit that that's how they operate.

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

Yes Calvin's confirmation bias is a big issue for him. Thankfully science doesn't care about it, nevertheless his continued misrepresentation of science and downright dishonesty is clearly feeding on the fears and prejudices of the credulous and the gullible.

[@joem8496]

@@user-jw2kl5ul3v lol maybe you're alluding to something else but your comment seems pretty exaggerated

[@craftysage1835]

2 Thessalonians 2: 10-12

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

So if it can't accommodate creationist viewpoints it must be false

[@hectorhernandez215]

One year in the Bible is aprox. 215,000,000 evolution theory years ...(taking the 13.5 billions of years framework...).... imagination in secular humanism is DEEP.......

[@jockyoung4491]

What does the Bible have to do with scienc?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@jockyoung4491 So many people, places and things have been authenticated by Scientists and Archeologist who took the Bible literally and verified them true as written Most early scientists were Christian.

[@nathancook2852]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 Sure, like when the church put Galileo on "house arrest" for contradicting their teachings? HMMM, who was correct then? The church vs science never comes out on the church's side.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 How do you explain the numerous things the Bible gets wrong about the natural world?

[@richardgregory3684]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 _Most early scientists were Christian_ The ones in China, India, Japan, Greece, the Roman Empire, the Golden Age of Islam, most certainly were not Christian.

[@Gadfly247]

Good info! Horrible and distracting background music.

[@icqtrinity]

Agreed. It triggered my ADHD.

[@renierramirez9534]

I agree in both statements

[@lorihuntley836]

Unfortunately, the background music was so distracting I had to quit listening after about 5 minutes into the video.

[@RickysFarmAndHatchery]

You know I do agree that some dates may be a little off but the reality is every single culture has some form of flood occurrence that happened in their stories even Egyptians have it. The real thing you should be asking is why are they saying that we were cavemen at that time when clearly enough there's been evidence throughout each layer of century of advanced technology somewhere in someplace. Follow the cookie crumbs do you have some form of events technology at some point in history, which way did it travel? how did it grow? Example the found a hammer in Iraq somewhere then he found the lighter somewhere else inside a rock where was the hammer and where was the lighter what states what countries and what was the next technology which way did it travel?

[@richardgregory3684]

_but the reality is every single culture has some form of flood occurrence that happened in their stories even Egyptians have it_ It's almost as though floods are common events and humans liked to make up tales about angry gods and heroes. The bible story is clearly just plagiarised off the Epic of Gilgamesh. And you see, many of the cultures you refer to - their flood stories are quite different. And some of them have recorded histories that go back not only further than the suposed bible "flood", but which are actually older than the earth's biblical age. And how did these cultures survive?

[@jockyoung4491]

Every single culture is built on a body of water. Of course they think floods are a big deal.

[@Yeshua1158]

But are they seeing the year/date of lava? I don’t understand why they used lava rocks! God bless.

[@coolhandphilip]

The C-14 issues he raises are quite real. Most scientists just know not to bring these issues up, to keep their jobs and focus on the things they are researching directly.

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

And you're intimately familiar with carbon dating procedures and other radiometric dating? Maybe watch some videos that actually explain how it works without the bullsh!t these people insert to make it fit their grifting god agenda.

[@genome616]

There are known issues in dating but that only remains true if we had no verification methods, something he fails to mention, carbon dating is actually only used to reliably till about 50,000 yrs his 100,000 he suggests would be too unreliable, we don't just assume or take a value as absolute, we verify results by sampling non radioactive sources like marine varves or millennial tree rings to find natural background levels. This idea that scientists are just so stupid to understand the limitations or that they blindly accept results without question is absurd to say the least, yes we can all find quotes and questionable progressive theories that were totally wrong, even Einstein spent a decade chasing a failure and Hawking's spent most of his life denying information could escape a black hole yet flipped his position when he saw the flaw in his thinking, we now know it and call it Hawkings Radiation and we have observed it, so yes no one claims science doesn't go down blind allies but the crucial part and the part this guy refuses to acknowledge is all peer reviewed and accepted theories have stood the test of time and remain the accepted theories because the scrutiny globally by 10'000's of scientists to get a peer reviewed paper accepted sets the bar so high it blocks partial or wild theories from passing. Evolution stands at the strongest theory to date given the evidence from several different unrelated fields of science and the fact that it is demonstrable provable, given that we have very strong theories like special relativity etc all been proven and still fall short at the wealth of evidence we can show with evolution it really shows it is no longer a question of it been real it is now irrefutable, this guy though will ignore all this and make up his own version quoting Darwinian claims where we are 150+ yrs ahead now and know Darwin got a lot of it wrong. Now find a place for Evolution to sit in your bible because you are going to need to soon, we have already created synthetic life and watch it evolve, you can believe me or not that is your choice but soon we will see this as a regular repeatable experiment in biology labs and you're going to have to find a way for it to sit along side your own faith.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

W. F. Libby developed the method almost 75 years ago and died in 1980. Do you seriously believe that the method has not been refined and further developed during this time? Just consider the significant improvements in measurement technology since that time.

[@coolhandphilip]

@h.gonyaulax2190 Using C-14 we still can't date anything with much accuracy past 50,000 years. I suppose a sample with a ratio asymptotic to 1 you could try to extend dating past 100,000 years....

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

Yes C-14 dating has limitations. These are very well known and documented. It's not like anyone is trying to anything. That's why multiple dating methods exist and more often that not, more than one method is used to verify dates. C-14 dating isn't the only tool in the tool box and like any tool, you need to use the right one for the job. Do yourself a favour and do some actual research. You might be surprised what you find.

[@user-hr8dx9qw4n]

They found the oldest homo sapiens skeleton in Morocco, dated on 300k years, with the Thermoluminescence method (precise on +-10%). They also found hundreds of homo sapiens skeletons all over North Africa dated on 250k years or 180k years, depending where they found them. So its a fact that we humans exist in our actual form since around 300k years. Well correct is that archaeologists are very active lately: they are digging out for example a human settlement with a pagan temple dated on 12,000 years of age with a fertility cult room full of stone penises in Turkey (Göbekli Tepe). In South Europe they found cave paintings with shamanistic hunting gods scenes dated on 60,000 years of age, they found all over Europe artefacts of Venus gods dated on 40,000 years of age, and of course the oldest scripts of complete pantheons of gods 10,000-8,000 years of age. We found millions of artifacts of many different religious believes and they are still finding a lot more now, in the next decades we will know much more. But they do NOT find a single testimony of a one and only god “Yahweh” or “Adam and Eve” older than the bible (3500 years). It’s getting even worst: the homo heidelbergensis is much older than us and invented religion (he put his dead people in graves together with grave goods for afterlife), arte and music. Are homo heidelbergensis and homo neanderthalensis also considered by god? How about homo erectus? Did god create Adam and Eve as homo heidelnergensis in his image and then we humans evolved to homo sapiens and now we have a more advanced image than god? No my friend, we evolved in evolution :)

[@miriamtowers2240]

I'm not sure you got the point he was making - you can't trust the dating methods. If you took his point (you clearly don't) then all the evidence you cite is simply agreed, but not at the dates claimed. The Bible, very early on, speaks of idolatry, so people worshipping other gods is hardly surprising. I take homo heidelbergensis and homo neanderthalensis as simply being races of humans that have now, in general, become extinct, although I believe it is said that we have some neanderthal DNA. Don't let science, which really does change what it says all the time, stop you trusting in God.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@miriamtowers2240 _you can't trust the dating methods._ There's nothing wrong with the dating methods. They've been tested and verified by science for a hundred years. Creationists can't explain why so many independent methods agree with each other and all give ages much older than 6000 years. All they can do is yell "BAD ASSUMPTIONS" and run like scared bunny rabbits.

[@therick363]

@@miriamtowers2240the point is creationists don’t like dating methods and at best misrepresent them and worst blatantly lie.

[@Broke30YearOldShmuck]

How are they getting those dates just curious 😂

[@user-hr8dx9qw4n]

@@therick363 Then they are just wrong , those creationists :)

[@DarrenRea]

I'm starting to get the feeling if scientists removed their current world view glasses and put on God creation glasses, they'd make a lot more new and exciting discoveries, a lot quicker. For example, the blood in dinosaur bones. Granted it was discovered by accident, but it could have been discovered a lot soon if the God creation lenses were on sooner.

[@user-yx1pr7xm4z]

As someone who is trying to rediscover my faith maybe someone here can explain my dilemma. I agree with the video presenter that isotope data is unreliable at best and that scientists seem to cherry pick data to fit their conclusions. But I also know from history, that the Bible has been altered several times, has had information removed and translations morph the meaning of many passages, and that many stories in the Bible are much older than claimed because these stories show up in more ancient texts such as sumerian religions thousand of years before the writings of the Bible. I would assume that is a borrowing of religious beliefs similar to the pegan traditions being consumed by Christianity during the spead of the religion through Europe. Could someone help me with this question and maybe help me find the faith that I'm searching for?

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

In what way precisely is isotope data unreliable? Oh and if you're going to parrot what Calvin claims about radiometric data then be prepared to cite your sources - because Calvin doesn't.

[@Durwood71]

The Bible has not been altered. Through textual criticism, and thanks to the large number of original manuscripts and manuscript fragments that exist -- far more than what exists for any other ancient work -- scholars have been able to determine what was originally written with a high degree of accuracy, and what discrepancies do exist between manuscripts are few and limited to things like variations in spelling, or the placement of a punctuation mark, and none of it affects any core doctrines of Christianity. As for writings supposedly more ancient than the Bible, for instance, _The Epic of Gilgamesh_ which records a great flood, this would seem to be independent confirmation of the history recorded Genesis, although Gilgamesh presents a badly distorted version while Genesis presents an account that is superior in detail, completeness, logical consistency, morality, and God's holy character compared to the quibbling, fickle gods of Gilgamesh who argue with each other, give vague and incomplete instructions to the protagonist, and tell him lie to others about the coming flood. The Biblical account has an air of truth to it, while _The Epic of Gilgamesh_ is a mythical retelling of history altered to conform with Sumerian culture.

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

@@Durwood71 You have *original manuscripts* ?? Well that's quite a claim. Where are these _"original manuscripts"_ ? Please provide citations that support such a claim. If you can't, then everything else you've claimed about the Bible being "unaltered" is simply wishful thinking on your part. As for the Biblical Flood account being superior to the Epic of Gilgamesh because it has _"logical consistency"_ ? Really? When did Noah enter the ark? *Seven* days before the flood began (Genesis 7:7-10) or *the day that the flood began* (Genesis 7:11-13)? How many of each clean animal did Noah take into the ark? *Two* (Genesis 6:19 and 7:8-9 and 7:14-15)? Or *seven* (Genesis 7:2)? Did everyone (except for Noah and his family) die in the flood? *Yes* (Genesis 7:21-23)? Or *no* (Numbers 13:33)? How long did the flood last? *40 days* (Genesis 7:17) or *150 days* (Genesis 7:24 and 8:3)? How long was the ark afloat? For *seven* months or so (Genesis 8:4) or at least *ten*( months (Genesis 8:5)? Not much _"logical consistency"_ there. You really need to work on your claims and your arguments. 😆

[@luish1498]

Dating methods utilize various equations and mathematical models to estimate the age of geological materials. Here are a few examples of equations commonly used in dating methods: Radiometric Dating Equations: Decay Equation: N(t) = N₀ * e^(-λt) This equation describes the decay of a radioactive isotope over time. N(t) represents the number of radioactive atoms remaining at time t, N₀ is the initial number of radioactive atoms, λ is the decay constant, and e is Euler's number (approximately 2.71828). Half-Life Equation: t₁/₂ = (ln 2) / λ This equation calculates the half-life (t₁/₂) of a radioactive isotope. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the radioactive atoms in a sample to decay. λ is the decay constant, and ln 2 is the natural logarithm of 2. Carbon-14 Dating Equation: Age Calculation: t = (1 / λ) * ln [(N₀ / N) + 1] This equation is used to determine the age of organic materials using carbon-14 dating. t represents the age of the sample, N₀ is the initial amount of carbon-14 in the sample, N is the current amount of carbon-14 in the sample, λ is the decay constant for carbon-14, and ln is the natural logarithm. Isochron Dating Equations: Isochron Equation: t = (1 / λ) * ln [(N₀ / N) + 1] + t₀ Isochron dating methods use multiple isotopes of the same element to calculate the age of a sample. This equation is similar to the carbon-14 dating equation but includes an additional parameter t₀, which represents the initial time of the system.

[@user-yx1pr7xm4z]

@Durwood71 on the last point first, you seem to be saying that the epic of gilgamesh is an inferior copy of the noah tale, if I'm incorrect please forgive me, but if the reading that I've done is accurate, the sumerian writing are much much older than the creation of the old testimate. So it would seem to me that the Christian bible is a retelling and adaptation to older religious writings, hence my quandary. As for the first point about the Christian bible not being adulterated, if my first point is true, that the bible is a retelling/rewriting of previous religious texts, than that in itself would tell me that it has been altered. The council of niciaa was convened to coalesce the doctrine, specifically the divinity of christ, well that would also be an alteration or deviation from the original writings. I could be incorrect in these assumptions but as I said I am trying to rediscover my beliefs and these issues, while not causing conflict in my faith, raise questions. I truly believe that something as wondrous as this planet does not just happen by happy accident. I believe there is a higher power. But I'm also a skeptical and not trusting person and feel I need to understand to believe. Sorry if it seems argumentative, and thanks for the response.

[@JacoBecker]

Amen, Christ is Lord. Thy Word is Holy. Thy Word is Truth.

[@kittykatters3972]

9:10 Calvin makes the claim radiocarbon dating assumes the current atmospheric C14/C12 ratio has always been the same. That is a claim made from Calvin's ignorance and is 100% wrong. The entire reason C14 is calibrated against multiple independent yearly dating proxies is because it is known the historic C14/C12 ratio has *NOT* been constant but has varied by as much as 5% over the last 55,000 years. Correction curves are calculated from the yearly proxies and are provided by scientific organizations like INTCAL so C14 dating can be as accurate as possible. The evidence shows there was *NO* major disruption to the C14/C12 ratio by any mythical Flood only 4400 years ago.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

Looks like Smith stepped in it again.

[@cinny.]

"has always been the same" in his own words he said that it would have been "different before the flood" so he did not say that it's always been the same at all???

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@cinny. He said *science assumes* the ratio has always been the same. That is simply wrong.

[@Broke30YearOldShmuck]

You say the evidence shows there was no disruption? What evidence is that exactly can you elaborate on that please because I guarantee that it is as pseudoscience as radiocarbon dating

[@americansfirst1095]

The carbon dating experts on this website is amazin !

[@1MoreTurn]

Its a good thing most ancient cultures and civilizations (even those not near a flood zone) don’t have a global flood myth…. O wait.. they do.

[@nathancook2852]

And all of them are older than your flood myth. So, your religion copied their myth. Your myth isn't even original...

[@exhumus]

All with vastly different timeframes for when it happened, how long it lasted, which god or gods did it and why. But hey, floods happened in oral the history of most civilisations therefore specifically Jesus, right?

[@davidgardner863]

Calvin says that C14 dating only works on something once alive then he uses diamonds that were never alive as an example for erroneous dating. That can only mean the sample was contaminated as no doubt other examples he talks about. Radiometric dating is not as simple as creationists lead you to believe and is corroborated by different methods of radiometric and non radiometric methods.

[@chasebush7423]

C14 is a carbon isotope. You can use this method on anything containing carbon. And luckily diamond is filled with carbon atoms

[@davidgardner863]

@@chasebush7423 , No, only on once living organisms.

[@chasebush7423]

@@davidgardner863 oh I see my apologies. after some digging, I see that diamonds are much too old to perform C14 radiometric dating

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

Calvin lying again. The very first quote he uses is clearly mined. The words are in the book, but in context it is clearly meant as a criticism of archaeologists who apply this sort of approach. It is also a book about archaeology not evolution. Always beware the quote mining. Its invariably a heap of lies.

[@NoobDeSupreme]

Perhaps you should actually look into science. I never believed in God until I started going to college and associating with atheists and realizing almost everything they say is a massive load of bullshit. 25 years ago there was only 2 sexes. Now there is infinite! The Bible is like a rod, science is like a rope dangling by the rod, it keeps bouncing away from the rod but inevitably its momentum will decay and it will align with the rod. I follow the rod, not the rope.

[@michellecoronado4732]

Love this. The beginning had me laughing. The rest had me fascinated

[@calvinsmith7575]

Thanks!

[@addersrinseandclean]

Keep up the good work

[@grassroot011]

It is better to have not lit the candle then to have lit it and then to put a basket over it to prevent light from going all out for all to see!

[@willthewhale8021]

I've gone from thinking this channel is just slightly disingenuous to thinking it's straight up dishonest. What I “learned from just these three examples” as you put it, is that you have no problem insulting the intelligence of those who look to you for accurate information. Your very first quote is over fifty years old from a Swedish man's lecture at a symposium. It's so weird how you keep using quotes from extremely outdated and out of print sources that become difficult to check. Well, I'm getting a scan of the piece you're citing within a couple days. It's always FASCINATING to see the context around these decades old quotes you use. Your second quote IS accessible, though, for those who have access to certain online archives. Because...again...it's from an almost 50 year old article from a journal that closed down more than a decade ago. But we learn so much! The very previous sentence to the one you cite here is establishing how this ISN'T an acceptable methodology. "Citing only the age of a particular sample is not really adequate if the date is to be used in a geologic interpretation or if it is to be of value to other workers." And the line AFTER your quote goes even further. "Small scale or subtle discrepancies, which may be important in a comparison of radiometric ages and faunal zones, cannot be evaluated nor perhaps even recognized without detailed mineralogic and analytical data." It's talking about how NOT to perform these experiments, anticipating problems, and offering solutions. And your third quote is even worse. Taken from a book...which again is more than 50 years old. You just love outdated stuff, don't you, AiG? About how when things conflict, we have to acknowledge something is wrong, and which of the methods of dating are more feasible to be seen as accurate. In this case, they're saying that the stratigraphy and layering is probably more indicative than a bad reading in dating. Though...again...I cannot emphasize this enough...that's the method used more than 50 years ago with technology and understanding from that time. Even the forward to the book anticipates people doing exactly what AiG is doing here, "The reader may be surprised by the seeming uncertainties and debatable questions raised in the text, but the nature of geologic interpretations is such that the evidence available does not often lead to a single, simple explanation. On the contrary, professional geologists may be disappointed by the sometimes simplistic discussions of very complex problems. Hopefully the treatment herein strikes a reasonable balance between meaningful generalities and rigorous scientific honesty." Sadly, AiG did not. And then to have the audacity to accuse someone else of cherry-picking data. *EDIT* I got a copy of where the first quote comes from, too. Had to request a scan of a physical copy from an archive, but got it, and I'll reference it in another comment down below.

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

Calvin's habit of dishonest quote-mining has been pointed out by many people on many occasions, but Calvin doesn't care. His own organization has this to say about quote-mining, _"To put it bluntly, quote mining is a version of lying."_ but Calvin carries on. So he's a hypocrite as well as a liar. But then we knew that anyway.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Love this!

[@calvinsmith7575]

So, let me get this straight. Evolutionary 'data' is only good if its current? But 50 years ago the quotes were current (and considered accurate). So what does that say about the current data? And today's evolutionists are much more careful about getting fact checked so often aren't as honest. When in time should what evolutonists say be trusted?

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

@@calvinsmith7575 Actually let's get this straight Calvin. You were caught out yet again blatantly quote mining. Something that even your own organization describes as lying. An honest person - someone with ethics and integrity - would apologize and take the video down. But you don't. What does that say about you?

[@Bomtombadi1]

Calvin is here guys, and his ego is bruised guys! Notice the snarky tone?

[@natemead]

Ice cores, tree rings, many methods point to the same dates.

[@calvinsmith7575]

No. They really don't...

[@kittykatters3972]

@@calvinsmith7575 Yes, they really do no matter how much you lie about it.

[@diamondlife-gi7hg]

tree rings from pine trees with double rings so they got the dates wrong.

[@diamondlife-gi7hg]

bristle cone pine tree is the oldest?? but they have double rings so false date.@@kittykatters3972

[@barend4285]

How about all of you give some evidence or articles that support your arguments? I am trying to figure out what is true and you arguing like children is not helping anyone

[@RustyWalker]

This was answered by geology in the 19th century. Moving on.

[@5winder]

Amen! God bless you for this truth.

[@justinsane7832]

so the alternative is magic man snapping his fingers. only religious people think things came from nothing.

[@cubic-h6041]

And also the big bang-ers too. Mormons don't believe creation eh nihilo though. They are the only group to stand out with regards to this.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"only religious people think things came from nothing." That may be; but it means many scientists are religious. The big bang -- everything from nothing.

[@therick363]

@@cubic-h6041which big bangers say from nothing?

[@therick363]

@@thomasmaughan4798the big bang doesn’t say from nothing

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@therick363 "the big bang doesn’t say from nothing" The big bang emanates from a *singularity* which occupies no space. I am free to decide that a singularity is equivalent to nothing for this purpose. After all, the bible also does not say "from nothing"; "let there be light" and there was light, but no discussion on how exactly light came into existence or even that God commanded it into existence. If I say "Let there be light" and light appears, perhaps it's just 7 a.m. and sunrise. I simply gave it permission! At any rate neither is it impossible that God said "let there be light" and kaboom, the big bang, about 13 billion years ago as scientists measure things. As God measures, who knows? The bible is simply not a scientific document and makes no claims at being one.

[@djsarg7451]

I was asked why I post on AIS videos. That is a good question. The posts are a reply to claims AIS makes all the time. They say there are only two worldviews: YEC (Young Earth Creationist), and atheism evolution. This is not true and is an insult to "day-age" believers who do not believe in evolution. AIS- YEC also continuously say that anyone (Christians and non-Christians) who says the Earth is old (measured at 4.543 billion years) is a bad person working to deceive people. They claim is anyone that who thinks the Earth is old must believe in Darwin evolution. This is NOT true either. One can know the Earth is old and not believe in Darwin evolution. I have found AIS- YEC to be very dishonest in these claims. AIS- YEC goes even a step farther down this twisted logic. If you believe the Earth is old, then you MUST believe in Darwin evolution, then they tie Christian salvation to animal death. As contrast day age believers say the age of the Earth is not a salvation issue and that there is not enough evidence to prove Darwin evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. The age of the Earth and the Universe have been measured beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus "day-age" believers are happy that scientific data as at last put a date on what the Bible stated thousands of years ago about the beginning. God created for 6 days (time spans) and rested on the 7th day, a time span we are still in, see Hebrews 4:10. Day 7th is not 24 hours, neither is day 1 to 6. Waiting for AIS to stop calling me and others deceivers.

[@Danny-rq6oz]

I'm sorry, but your post is a load of bullocks. I've never heard YEC say there are only 2 world views. I've never even heard YEC call theistic evolutionists deceivers (although you are deceiving yourselves). The age of the universe has not been scientifically established because it is impossible to do that with legitimate observable science ( as opposed to historical science which has very little to do with traditional science). Lastly, Hebrews 4 does not teach we are in the 7th day, I have no idea how you got that out of the text. The eternal Sabbath is heaven. Hebrews 4 says, "Why would Jesus have spoken of another day if He had already given this rest.... Labor therefore diligently to enter into that rest.". The eternal Sabbath will come when you die and will be made perfect when Christ comes again.

[@djsarg7451]

Ken Ham says to all the time. Me or evolution.

[@phamnguyenduynhan6421]

Amen! Thy Word is true from the beginning!

[@LastNameTom]

The bibe literally says that the Earth is not old enough for the Roman Empire to have been around. Considering the blatant facts and rwcordings that yes, tmit was around before the bible says the earth was formed. Remember, you can't spell believe, without a LIE.

[@gregoswald7723]

1:54 If a quote supports your (Calvin Smith's) theories, you put it in the main text. If it contradicts in the slightest, you (Calvin Smith) leave it out. The author of that book wrote it during the infancy of radiocarbon dating. Her studies were developing ways to avoid contamination of samples. If a sample showed 'out of date' results it is likely a contaminated sample and its results can't be trusted. What a great example of taking a quote out of context! How is this NOT LYING?

[@calvinsmith7575]

Did you watch the rest of the video where I talk about contamination? And how is quoting an evolutionist lying? : )

[@kittykatters3972]

@@calvinsmith7575 You post out-of-context snippets which deliberately misrepresent the author's actual views. That's flat out lying Calvin and you know it but you just don't care. Honesty and integrity mean nothing to you.

[@calvinsmith7575]

@@kittykatters3972 HAHAHA. i love it when progressives try to shame you with morality based attacks. : ). haven't you guys learned that doesn't work anymore? Priceless...

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@calvinsmith7575 Yes Calvin, we've all learned trying to shame you for all the lies you've been caught in doesn't bother you in the least. That's what having no morals and no shame does for you.

[@calvinsmith7575]

@@annieoaktree6774 [Translation] Wah! My shame tactics aren't working! reeeeee!

[@greenguitarfish]

Was it just a coincidence Neil DeGrass Tyson shows up on an add on this presentation ? 😆 So I guess that is ether very poor target marketing, or the devil trying to snatch the seeds of truth being sown. Keep up the excellent work AIG ! You’re making all the right people nervous.

[@jockyoung4491]

Yes, all scientists are servants of the devil, right? Very medieval of you.

[@HangrySaturn]

You think like a superstitious peasant.

[@greenguitarfish]

@@jockyoung4491 😆 So stereotypical of you ! The scientific method was developed by Bible believing Christian scientists, and I listen to PH.D scientists who believe as I do about earths history, so your comment is nonsensical. You would obviously like to believe your evolutionist guru teachers are all about science, and I am into blind faith, but it’s the other way around. In reality you’re just desperately grouping around searching for any excuse to exclude the creator God from any explanation, even though design in nature is beyond obvious.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@greenguitarfish All those Bible believing Christian scientists were also honest enough to keep their religious beliefs completely out of their scientific work. If only creationist could be so honest.

[@greenguitarfish]

@@annieoaktree6774 No, early scientists talked about God and the Bible often. The culture at that time was not hostile to God as it is today. Also, evolutionists do not keep their faith out of science research at all ! Everything they examine is viewed from an evolutionary lens. So, we find dinosaur soft tissue, which common sense and research shows could never last many millions of years, but evolutionist fist say it is contamination, then when forced to admit it is soft tissue, they say wow, I guess it can last millions of years ! We don’t understand how, but since it’s there it has to. They never question the deep time, which is indispensable to the evolution story. It’s the same with carbon 14 found in all the rock layers, fossils and even diamonds. ( C14 decays to nitrogen 14 I a theoretical 90,000 years, so if rocks and fossils still contain it, it cannot be millions of years old) They just ignore it, because it contradicts their evolutionary worldview. They involve their evolutionary religious views to interfere with research. Look at the junk DNA idea. This held back research for decades entirely due to an evolutionary faith. We now know the so called junk DNA is no evolutionary leftovers, but is extremely active in making RNA. Again, their religious adherence to evolution contaminated the pure unbiased research that they should have been doing.

[@grahamak22]

KEEP SHINING THE LIGHT..

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

Worldly belief in radiometric dating: "Dont confuse me with Facts, I already made up my mind!"

[@jockyoung4491]

You don't "belleve" in the laws of physics?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@jockyoung4491 The early scientists WERE CHRISTIANS !!!!

[@welcometoWWW]

​​@@jockyoung4491Here's something for you annoying atheists. One physical law states every force has an equal an opposite reaction. This Worldy law mirrors the spiritual law of what goes around comes around, "karma". As above, so below. Or in this case, as below, so above. The spiritual laws came first and manifest the physical ones you see. But sure, "science".

[@glenturney4750]

​@@jockyoung4491: I believe that God SPOKE, things HAPPENED and that's ALL that's important. Why does it matter WHEN these events happened? Trying to discredit God? I'd rather just trust HIM and not the scientists. It doesn't really matter, (in the big picture), about dead trees and rocks of the past, but rather WHERE we want to GO AFTER we die. 😁

[@jockyoung4491]

@@glenturney4750 That's fine. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem if people feel they have to lie about science on the way.

[@JenMarco]

Thank you for confirming this for me. People argue with me and believe the science is absolute and a fact.

[@mickjames7962]

The whole world is deeply deceived.

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

So...the Bible gets the value of Pi wrong. Does that mean that the Bible is "absolute and a fact"?

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

A couple of out if context quotes mined from books written in the early 1970s. Calvin may sound plausible but he is selling a lie here

[@KalonOrdona2]

You could help by providing context, then we could judge if it's cherry-picked or not. I'm not sure why you mention the decade as if it matters.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@KalonOrdona2 I wrote a more comprehensive comment elsewhere in the thread. To save you searching for it, it read "Calvin lying again. The very first quote he uses is clearly mined. The words are in the book, but in context it is clearly meant as a criticism of archaeologists who apply this sort of approach. It is also a book about archaeology not evolution. Always beware the quote mining. Its invariably a heap of lies."

[@MNsportsman]

Show the proof. Prove these scientists are right. You can't, because they can't. Be careful mistaking your opinion as a fact.

[@SterlingS.Clarkson]

That candle analogy is terrible. Radiometric dating doesn’t just assume constant decay rates and initial conditions; it is supported by multiple lines of evidence and cross-verification methods. Scientists are aware of and account for possible variations and interferences (like changes in environmental conditions affecting decay rates) through rigorous testing, multiple samples, and different cross-referencing radiometric techniques.

[@timboslice980]

Hey guys check out jimmy akin’s mysterious world. He has extremely well studied episodes on young earth vs old earth from a faith and reason perspective. Also evolution vs creationism vs theistic evolution. Also if noah’s flood was global, local, or allegorical. He really does a good job of synthesizing the data and giving each side a fair shake. It’s a really good podcast i think it stays in the top 10 documentary podcasts out there. Recently he did one on a nearly irrefutable miracle of a man who’s severed leg was healed. Hundreds of witnesses made up of doctors, soldiers, family, church members, even the men who buried his leg! Incredible story! Anyway blessings of the lord to all you hard thinking christians!

[@stephencummins7589]

This is one of the most ignorant man I have ever listens to.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Thank you for your algorithmic contribution to the channel! : )

[@stevenpike7857]

Yes of course, Evolution is a lie, that's why I think a magic sky daddy did it. I call it the I Dream of Jeannie theory. 🤣 Evolution doesn't make logical sense so magic did it!😅

[@SlightlySober645]

Here’s actual evidence for God: its called the Principal of causality, is the basis of science, biology, physics, order and reality as we know it. When you flip the light switch, why does the light turn on? because current is running through the light which turn the light on. If you cut the kitchen light off, then go to bed and it’s on in the morning, the most logical explanation is that someone got up in the middle of the night and turned on the light. The most un-logical explanation is that nothing made the light turn on. Not a ghost, not some superhuman bird that came and turned your light on, absolutely nothing and your light still turned on. This is what we call illogical, why? Because of the principal of causality, long story short it means that if something had a beginning, it had to have a cause. If the universe came into existence without a cause, that would mean something could happen without a cause. And if something could happen without a cause, then something can happen for no reason. Which again would destroy the basis of science, physics, biology, etc. Now the principle of causality is a theory, but every second you spend on this earth, you’re adding evidence to support this theory. Every time something affects you or you affect something you are supporting this theory. Every time you blink, every time you eat, every time you hear something, every time you speak, every time you touch something, every time you move, you are supporting this theory. It is beautiful yet horrifying at the same time, you are unable to do anything without supporting this theory. And if everything has a cause, then this theory is true. And since we have yet to document or see anything that happened without a reason, then there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this theory is true. And if this theory is true, then that would mean the universe would have to have a creator as well. The principle of causality, also known as the principle of cause and effect, states that every event or phenomenon occurs as a result of one or more preceding events or phenomena. In other words, there is a cause for every effect, and the cause precedes the effect, And so far it is proven to be our reality.

[@browill9]

Thanks brother Calvin. I always enjoy your videos. GBU

[@calvinsmith7575]

Thanks! Please share! : )

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

You like being lied to?

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@calvinsmith7575 I'll share. You lie a lot.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***to me no one lies i do not understand why they lie to you about those things***

[@jackiemack8653]

You just said no one lies so how can they lie? Duh

[@adelinomorte7421]

@@jackiemack8653 ***seems to me that you did not read properly what I said, I am patient, I will say it again but in upper case and comment, here we are "TO ME NO ONE LIES I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY LIE TO YOU ABOUT THOSE THINGS", my comment, to me no one lies, meaning that for me they tell the truth, but you take what they said as a lie, do you understand now? or you are too stupid to grasp it?

[@adelinomorte7421]

***it is a common mistake, when someone has a preconceived idea about anything and someone tells it differently, immediately they point the finger saying " you lie" ***

[@roerdomp16e]

If there is one thing unreliable it is "answers in genesis".

[@calvinsmith7575]

I.e. even if C14 and other secular dating methods don't work I have an ideological commitment to materialism so I won't let the facts or lack thereof interfere with my presuppositions...

[@nathancook2852]

They are reliably incorrect.

[@nathancook2852]

@@calvinsmith7575 Transitional fossils, DNA evidence, embryonic evidence, observed speciation, and on and on. It is creationists with their commitment to a fairly tail that need to check the facts.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@calvinsmith7575 But they do work. They've been tested repeatedly and shown to be very accurate. All the creationist lying in the world won't make that change.

[@thomastrain7311]

One thing that is reliable? The blissful ignorance of that comment 😂

[@johndewet7494]

This guy is a clown. His ignorance is astonishing.

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

Not to mention his dishonesty. He's been repeatedly called out for both - and its been demonstrated in various comments that he's quite deliberately lying and misrepresenting science. But he's never once made a retraction, an apology or pulled a video for being inaccurate. Desperate stuff from a con man working for an organization that preys on ignorance and gullibility.

[@trappedinexistence]

you should approach the bible with the same level of scepticism. the NT has several contradictions, removed parts, added parts, different versions, anonymous authors, doesn't go back to it's source, etc. there is no "one NT" there are many different NTs. same with the OTs. first establish your version of the bible as reliable before quoting it. nice video nonetheles. it was clear, entertaining and easy to understand.

[@peterkwakman7440]

So, they are assuming their 'facts' ?

[@user-jw2kl5ul3v]

No. Calvin is making claims about science which are false. That's a fact.

[@SteveMcRae]

If this video was supposed to be satire, it may actually have been funny. The amount of misinformation about science, and carbon dating methods is remarkable. No wonder the comment section is blowing up, not from YEC"s buying into this gross misunderstanding promotional video for AiG, but full of people all pointing out the errors Smith makes in the video. None of which he will ever address, and most certainly never correct. At no time does he actually show dating methods are inaccurate due to our understanding of physics. Nor will he ever.

[@colmcille9669]

Was he lying about none of the measurements from Mt St Helens being younger? I found that curious, since if true it would discount random error or contamination.

[@SteveMcRae]

@@colmcille9669 Argon and Potassium dating will not age the age of the rock, but of the last solidification...making it appear lot younger. Also, due to inclusions of argon concentration may be off, or loss of argon from the excessive heat.

[@colmcille9669]

@@SteveMcRae Thanks. Did you mean "a lot older"? His claim is that the 20 year old rock was dated at hundreds of thousands of years.

[@SteveMcRae]

@@colmcille9669 Could be either, as it would depend on how much argon escapes as opposed to how much is included. Either way it will not give accurate dating...which is why it isn't used to date such volcanic flows. I believe it was Austin who dated Mt. St. Helens to 20 years using K40/Ar40 dating, he took it to a lab whose equipment couldn't date rocks less than a few million years old...but he insisted they do it anyways. Why he thought testing Dacite that was only a few decades old would be feasible is anyone's guess. Since the detector had limitations, it couldn't date anything that young, and so the sample was the incorrect type that the facility could perform accurate test on. So in that case, the rock was only 20 years old, but the dating method was the wrong method to use as he was told by the dating facility. Thus is results were a LOT older than expected...but other samples, other methods, and other facilities may show a younger age if there are more Ar40 or Ar39 inclusions.

[@colmcille9669]

@@SteveMcRae Ok so misapplication of protocol. Thanks.

[@genome616]

This guy is such a story spinner, he is effectively making his own version of science up to make it look like it is totally unreliable, he has effectively ignored the scientific method especially with his candle analogy and then somehow linked this to decay rates of elements. Here is the position on elemental decay and why we take it as a universal constant, we have the ability to see millions and billions of yrs into the past in astrophysics and see it as it happened by looking into deep space, we can observe the luminosity decays of supernova that occurred billions of yrs ago and see them as they were then as the light finally reaches us and measure the decay and all the results suggest that decay rates have remained constant over that time as they exactly match modern rates of decay, there are other methods too to verify constant decay rates over large time scales of elements all supporting a constant decay value. His candle analogy is laughable at best and a poor attempt to hoodwink his followers, no scientists would measure the burn rate of a known candle then walk in that room and assume it was the same length, it was lit at the same time and burnt at the same speed, the scientific method prevents this by the way it works, also his attempt to then suggest this is similar to element decay rates is laughable it is in no way comparable. Carbon dating is reliable to about 50,000 yrs, we cross reference it with known values by comparing it to non radioactive samples like marine varves or tree rings, this gives us a very accurate and verifiable dating method. I will leave you with this that creationists still cannot answer, we find an igneous rock that formed deep as a melt so having no zircons in then rose and solidified thus zircons formed, there are methods to know whether this occurred with the absence or appearance of other minerals, we take the samples and zircons and measure them for 2 different types of Uranium & lead, lead is an indicator of uranium decay as there is no other entry route for it to exist inside zircon as zircon has a very tight crystal structure it eliminates most other impurities from been present but uranium is the big exception, as we get 2 isotopes of lead from decay rates we have 2 effective clocks to verify each other, a sample of zircon the size of a grain of sand will have billions of these clocks so next we sample very old formations and young ones and sample the lead isotopes and compare the different decay rates, if they match different samples that are created at different ages we have a very strong indicator of a decay constant over that time frame - results confirm this to be the case and BTW Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 have half lives of 700million yrs and 4.5billion yrs respective. When can cross reference these samples with local decays of other elements found in the same layers and predict the abundances in some cases, the accuracy of these predictions is confirmation of a constant decay the a very high probability of a Earth been billions of yrs old. I find it amusing this guy simply cherry pick a phrase or opinion of a few guys while not giving the full context they were printed in nor the fact some of them were contended and are historic and since been proven wrong. He uses science when it suits him then claims its unreliability when it doesn't, you cannot have it both ways. Either ignore all science and go with your faith or actually accept it and try to find room for you faith around it, this is exactly why the bible was once a literal book throughout and now we have so much of it been figurative, religion has had to make way for science otherwise it destroys them.

[@PhilTough-hn8qj]

Your wasting your time none of these godists have the slightest idea what your going on about. You have simplify it and put it in an allegory. Don't forget to add some crap animation though.

[@samundeeswari.s4264]

Look man, Great job trying to establish literacy here but these people are not worth wasting your time, Let them accumulate their idiocy and reveal themselves as uninformed clowns someday in real life. So yea not worth wasting your time.

[@IntoTheOutside000]

This is the first time I hear a logical argument against science by religion. Excellent. I know a good argument when I hear one.

[@KenJackson_US]

_"Against science"?!_ The argument is against abuse of science or junk science, not against truth.

[@GoboBox]

Science advances one funeral at a time.

[@The-Man-On-The-Mountain]

KZbin recommending me this channel made me say "Jeeesus Christ!" 😂

[@howdydoodey3872]

Yeh, far to much Christian bull shit is on KZbin.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

COL (chuckle out loud).