Same people would look at the newly created Adam and say “ this man is about 25-35 years old” when in fact…. he is 1 day old.

@webstercat

6 ай бұрын

Since Adam was the first person who would look at him?

@damianholmes3049

6 ай бұрын

I love it when people intentionally miss the point. 👆🏾

@TisDoulos

6 ай бұрын

Also the newly created eyes which Christ created for the blind man...

@CBALLEN

6 ай бұрын

Amen, God also made the trees and plants fully grown and bearing fruit at their creation..Paul told us to beware of , " science so called" or " false knowledge ".At the flood the water also would have washed away radioactive salts leaving them also looking ancient while being relatively young. Basically lead in rock are what they go by,so when you have lead in a rock and no or low radioactive salts, they just assume that the radioactive isotopes have all become lead, however if the rock was created with lead in it, that messes everything up.

@CBALLEN

6 ай бұрын

To have carbon 14 in anything means it's relatively young.

When I was in college I took some science classes, including biology. When we were learning how to do dating methods, we were taught to first set the date range that we "know" these samples would hit based on our expert knowledge. Then, when dating the samples, we automatically dismiss any results that don't hit our expected range. We are supposed to assume any dating that's "wrong" was contaminated or something.

@Pyr0Ben

4 ай бұрын

yay science!

@williamnicholson8133

4 ай бұрын

You were taught by a religious professor

@jacobwest7

4 ай бұрын

​​@@williamnicholson8133is your comment a knock on religion or a knock on evolutionists for believing evolution regardless of the findings since they almost treat it like a religion?

@noobsaibot5285

4 ай бұрын

@@jacobwest7 Just have faith that (atheist/evolutionist) scientists are always right in their guess work.

@SheepAmongGoats

4 ай бұрын

Sad part is everyone is under the belief all dating methods just cross check with each other.

I appreciate the use of satire following nearly every instance of the phrase "well, it's interesting..." or "well, it's really interesting..." It is a very gentle way of pointing out the lack of integrity in many of these dating methods. Thank you for having this discussion and sharing it!

Yet another great video. I can hardly wait to see what's next, God bless you and everyone who watches.

"How old do you think the earth is?" I'm thoroughly convinced that it is at least 32 years old.

@Malhaloc

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 Strangely enough, I haven't asked them.

@tommi7554

6 ай бұрын

So it's possible our grandparents lived with T-Rex and other big beasts and earth had very warm climate just 100yr ago... 😂 must have been exiting times.

@Malhaloc

6 ай бұрын

@@tommi7554 There are plenty of depictions from before dinosaur fossils were discovered of man and dinosaur coexisting. They just didn't call them dinosaurs, they called them dragons. Would have been absolutely nuts to see!

@FJBandtheHOherodeinwith

6 ай бұрын

@@Malhaloc Show me one of a man with a T-Rex. Kamoto dragons might be considered dinosaurs by idiots. Waiting for the T-Rex with proof.

@Malhaloc

6 ай бұрын

@FJBandtheHOherodeinwith Not a T-Rex, but there are some of men riding Pterodactyls. I wish we could share images here. Google "historical depictions of men with dinosaurs" there drawings, carvings, statues, and all kinds of ancient art.

DATING LABORATORY: ''Tell me where you found this rock, so I know how I am meant to fudge the figures to get the kind of dates that I am told I have to find otherwise I lose my job.''

Great information, shared, thanks. God bless your ministry.

Thank you for your good work!

Thank you for all your hard work 🙏🏻

That's definitely what I was thinking, these dating measurements are troll science. I've always cringed when YT videos start talking about millions of years of human evolution. If humans were getting better over time why did they live longer before the flood than now? Every new generation gets more imperfect than the last.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

For a conventional view of evolution, and way back in time, your mutation might make you less likely to survive to pass on your genes. Today, however, we intervene medically, and more people with a genetic medical issue that would see them die in childhood now actually survive, reproduce, and pass on the genes. Also, youth have a higher risk-taking tendency where they play chicken with their futures. Those young people back in the past did not survive, but today we erect physical fences around clifftops and blowholes - Young people survive to pass on their not-so-smart genes... We also have the trend where more educated people are avoiding having children, which may have a reverse evolution effect, plus this is compensated for by our welfare system... Do they survive and reproduce, and the population IQ reduces? There was a movie made about this.

@maxfive2644

6 ай бұрын

Your proof is what, the Bible? That might satisfy your personal truth, but in no way provides historical evidence of human evolution one way or the other. It is an inspiring story, borrowed from multiple other mythological beliefs, written by men (and some women, but those stories were excluded from the canon), and is open to a wide degree of interpretation. Science cannot give us meaning about the universe any more than religion can explain the workings of the universe from the smallest atomic particles to the nature of gravity, space, and time. It's folly to try to think either one can do the job of the other.

@iNsOmNiAcAnDrEw

6 ай бұрын

That's where you're wrong. God literally told Noah how to survive the flood. He gave him scientifically correct instructions. He didn't say 'just do whatever and I'll bend the laws of the physics of this world to accomodate you' which proves your understanding of the validity of spirituality is underwhelming.@@maxfive2644

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

There are 2 books of revelation. Natural created and inspired written. The Bible is concerned with theology-not “natural science” (which is way broader than scientism allows). Both should be in harmony/concordance where they touch upon issue’s. As far as measuring primordial ages go…I don’t trust anyone’s dating methods and hold them ALL with great skepticism-including YEC system. I do like how YEC keeps the world on their toes reminding us with assumed and very erratic problems in our measurement systems. I do not like YEC because they teach God is a deceiver to us in the “appearance” of old age crap. Then it’s only right they hold my belief that God inspired to have written in the same way: an historically polemic mythology to match the ANE and the rest of the worlds common mythologies that He and He alone is God and the one to whom they think they are worshipping but not. He and He alone is the creator who created the universe (who brought all things into being including space, matter, etc.,) and had to break an Nation who was holding to these ANE mythologies. He and He alone creates, Names, and gives functions to that which is created. He and He alone IS the plural Godhead of the elohim (all spiritual beings) and He created them as well. In so doing He created a pattern for Israel to follow (on purpose) to remind them of His rest-a spiritual rest, not a work rest. “Age” of the universe and all things is not the THEOLOGICAL point in GN 1. The “days” of creation was written in a common ANE literature format of X+1. “Age” was not on God’s mind-getting things THEOLOGICALLY correct was. Also, numbers are usually symbolic in the OT & NT and 7 is for perfect completeness. “Age” of the creation is not important to salvation. GN 1-11:9 has many similarities of other theological mythologies because there is truth in them and the Bible is not “borrowing” but rather is UNIQUE in the truth of them. Which mythology came first-as a believer-of course Gods did in which fallen mankind has jumbled up and God bided His time to set the necessary record straight to the world. As to the details He did not give because obviously they were not necessary to the theology, He wanted conveyed and left them to the book of Nature. However He did it I’m more than happy that He did! Time to stop being the ancient church of failed scientific traditions people. Go forth with caution though of course!

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

Yes, the large number of dating methods show inconsistencies, but YE scientists (term used loosely) should not cherry-pick from so many results. Yes, there is variation, but error factors of millions of years over hundreds of million years are still mathematically small. Then, the error factor for light and now gravity detected travelling at C had a 1.7 second discrepancy when measured, that gives an error factor of 10 to the minus 30. Infinitesimally small error. Again, only one result detected using brand new gravity wave detectors, but as more data arrives, the YEC timeline becomes more difficult to believe, unless you propose (without any evidence) that the speed of C varies (and simultaneously for light and gravity), or my God creates the image of an event 'in-transit', but that event never happened... My God is not deceptive, and his timeline is believed by secular scientists and OEC scientists, and by scientists from other faiths. It is only the YEC group that have the problem.

Love the videos, can't wait to hear from some of your speakers when they come to Perth 🙌

This was a fantastic discussion...may God bless the both of you.

If the dating method actually works, you shouldn't have to tell the laboratory anything. Especially not "when" you collected the sample. It should just work.

@FilipCordas

4 ай бұрын

Yee why would you care about sample contamination. And the conditions of any measurement are irrelevant and are always the same that's why when you measure the length of a metal pipe in the summer its the same as in the winter no differences happen due to environmental conditions.

@mattbrook-lee7732

4 ай бұрын

You don't understand dating methods. You can't use potassium argon dating on new rock. The results will be completely unreliable. These people know that. They are conning you

@Nils-gi5bv

4 ай бұрын

In order to select the appropriate method from several possibilities, the laboratory needs some informations, which were obviously intentionally not provided here. For K/Ar dating, a presumed minimum age of at least 2-3 million years is necessary, otherwise you are only measuring the error noise of the apparatus or data from remaining impurities from previous measurements. If you personally determine values with a measuring instrument, you must also select the appropriate measuring range in order to obtain usable data. If the laboratory had had information about the origin, the sample would have been rejected or a different better fitting method would have been chosen. The video is a well-known attempt to discredit scientific methods in connection with the theory of evolution. Strangely enough, these people use other achievements of the supposedly lying sciences in all areas of their lives as a matter of course.

@his-kingdom-net

3 ай бұрын

Radioactive dating methods have varying date ranges in which they (assuming the assumptions are correct, which they are not) can provide accurate dates; outside of these ranges they produce nonsense dates. But if one has a rock and wishes to ascertain the age, the scientist is supposed to know the age of the rock prior to measuring the age. One would be hard pressed to find a better example of circular reasoning. The homogeneous differential equation is simple enough to solve, but an effective real-life application towards dating rock/fossils is impossible.

@mattbrook-lee7732

3 ай бұрын

@his-kingdom-net there are lots of measurement tools. Eg microscope, micrometer, calipers, ruler, tape measure. You wouldn't choose a tape measure for the width of a hair, and you wouldn't measure a room with a ruler. If you can understand that, you can understand why using the wrong test will give you wrong result.

Great video!

thank U Tas, 4 yr findings of d difficulty of using radiometric dating methods n get accurate results. 1 cannot go back in time to test n know d level of things.

This excellent video highlights the real issue of faith vs. faith. Not faith vs. science. All we have to indicate the age of the earth is the biblical narrative. Other than that, we can never know for sure. The scientific method cannot be used for this issue. this issue is a historical debate. science only works in the present.

@alexdrake8079

7 ай бұрын

I have to tell atheist this all the time, science only comes from man's knowledge of the known world so man can never look into the past by looking at rocks all day 🤦

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

Yes agree - We have old Earth creationists + secular scientists + Muslim scientists adhering to old universe thinking. Then opposing we have Young Earth creationists, likely to be a minority, with many in this group having negligible scientific training, but some with Hebrew translation backgrounds... I have not yet been able to find what position my Hindu, Sikh and Bhuddist friends take on the age of creation. Then I had my late uncle, a Hebrew scholar, who, along with many others translated "day" as period of time, and then other Hebrew scholars who translate "day" as a literal 24 hour day (likely a bit shorter back then...). Then, my pastor at a new church also was a Ph.D. in Geology, and he favoured OEC. So today I suppose I look more to the ideas of Louie Giglio and John Lennox. Also early in my path to faith I had church leaders tell me I had to abandon OEC ideas to find faith ... This is clearly a stumbling block placed in my path, and I fear my previous church leaders may be in a bit of trouble on Judgement Day.

@stevepierce6467

4 ай бұрын

Some day you ought to find a real science book and read it. There are some things we can never know "for sure." But there are a lot of things we can know pretty well. Exact geological and astronomical measures are impossible at the moment, but we have some very accurate (where results comport with known facts) approximations which do a good job of describing the real world as we find it.

@alexdrake8079

4 ай бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 I have to say this science doesn't know everything because it gets all of its info for man's knowledge and they only know as much as they lived on this Earth which isn't everything so they are just given everything they were told. They aren't really reliable since man is the only one interpreting everything of knowledge which is usually more misleading than giving out facts.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

4 ай бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 Books date so quickly these days - An astronomy textbook from a few years ago will have none of the JW telescope updates. And textbooks don't yet have the recently discovered Deniliquin asteroid impact crater. Then add the Mt Toba eruption that just popped into my feeds. Again, the web updates, but books lag behind and date so quickly. This giant volcano erupted 74K years ago - It dwarfed Krakatoa and looks to have wiped out most life on Earth - Evidently, a few thousand humans survived and became us. So God's 4.5B timeline is dotted with earth-shattering events, but no ancient writings mention them. The YEC crowd do not address these events, except with unbelievable postulations like 'the speed of light changed', or God put the evidence on Earth for events that never happened. Why would God do that?

One thought came to mind is what and how "old" was the materials that formed into a "new" rock was made of. As in one way of observing "new creations" we have never truly observed. My thoughts being our perceptions and expectations form what we want and not necessarily what we have.

Dr. Tas have an interesting method of teaching, i like a lot.

I like his assessment of the dating methods.

@wpriddy

6 ай бұрын

You would. It's wrong.

@jajajajajajajajaja867

6 ай бұрын

@@wpriddy Bahahahajajajjajajajah. Why if the method is foolproof as you believe would any input for the process besides the rock be needed?

@wpriddy

6 ай бұрын

@jajajajajajajajaja867 because you cannot carbon date rock

@jajajajajajajajaja867

6 ай бұрын

@@wpriddy where and when did I mention carbon or carbon dating? They use a process to measure radioactive decay of the argon in the rocks? What are you confused about?

@mattbrook-lee7732

4 ай бұрын

You can't use potassium argon dating on new rock. That is why the people doing this test lied to the lab and told them they thought the rock was millions of years old. Once the lab knew they were testing rocks from Mt St Helens they flat out said the result was unreliable. Spouting this stuff is a flat lie. Radiometric dating is accurate. These people are grifters

I’ve always wondered about the method of aging things. They say things like using the half life of carbon or other materials and yet we have no idea if the half life of anything stays consistent over time. It may be consistent or it could exponentially decline after some time. I do know a major event with lava or water can drastically change land very quickly.

@gilwg1233

6 ай бұрын

There is no evidence that the rate of radioactive decay changes with time.

@mathunt1130

6 ай бұрын

The constancy of the half-life is actually a prediction of nuclear physics. The mechanism of radioactive decay is well known, and can be tested with those radioactive isotopes with shot half-lives and the half-life can be measured over the period of decay and the half-life can be confirmed to be constant. As the mechanism for decay is the same for *all* elements.

@JayDay32

6 ай бұрын

@@mathunt1130 so we make an educated guess that because we can see something in one element with a short life cycle that it is the same for all elements with a long cycle. We do this a lot in science, educated guessing and more often than not we then find something that disproves our educated guessing. Science by nature is hypothesis then testing then testing again then disproving and then hypothesizing again. The issue in todays world view is that science is a fact and not an educated guess that needs to keep proving itself. We cannot know how thousands of years effects an element or the environment it is in during that time because it cannot be seen and researched over that time, so in essence it is all educated guessing and should be seen as that. Not facts beyond reproach.

@JayDay32

6 ай бұрын

@@DigitallySaved you mean learn the science from the people doing the science and just believe what they say. Sound thinking. How about I act like a scientist and question their theory and test it in ways that disprove the theory. Such as he did in this video where some how a 10 year old rock gets aged as millions. Sounds like their theory doesn’t hold up in that case, so it needs more testing. Do t ever just believe what you are taught or told. I have done my research and understand what they say, that doesn’t make it actual.

@JayDay32

6 ай бұрын

@@DigitallySaved University of Colorado. Microbiology bachelors degree. I took quite a few Chemistry classes, as Chemistry is my favorite subject while in school. Again, in real time and even seeing data going back 60 years only fully proves 60 years of visible results. We don’t know what specifically happens a thousand years ago because there is no research going back that far. This means we are abstracting data and making assumptions.

These findings prove what I’ve always thought about the “science of dating “ matter , when clearly they have next to NO base of measurement to compare with.

@alexfromoz

6 ай бұрын

To the ignorant, you would appear correct. Physics can determine properties of elements accurately. Potassium 40 has a half life of 1.25 Billion years. So using the K/Ar method to date young rocks is absurd and disingenuous as it can only give an age of 2million years for young rocks. Even if the rock is only 10 years old, it is accurate to within 0.002% using the K/Ar method (because of the half life of Potassium 40). And don't say you can't trust physics. You rely on it to drive, use phones, in the medicines you take, and flights you take.

@mikehenson819

6 ай бұрын

@@alexfromoz 1.25 “ billion years “ is a mighty long time. How can you or I or anyone be absolutely certain about that when we have no idea the extremes of all the variables the matter would have been subject to even for a period of 50 years, much less 1.25 billion??? Who are we to say? Physics doesn’t give us such certainty of dates.

@alexfromoz

6 ай бұрын

@mikehenson819 actually physics does accurately tell us the half life of elements. Don't let you ignorance in the matter override reality. Why don't you apply your logic to the application of "the Bible". Apart from the book saying it is "the truth", what other proof or tests confirm it? Physics is testable, unlike claims in the bible.

@alexfromoz

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 spoken like someone with a poor understanding of physics

@mikehenson819

6 ай бұрын

@@alexfromoz my dear “ believer in the theories of man”, the study of physics doesn’t and never has explained conclusively all of things. Even bonafide scientists have admitted this. How can you or any other scientists prove the exact age of anything conclusively by carbon dating when there is simply no definitive absolute age of anything in the universe that’s pre historic??? It’s all accomplished by “faith” in their supposed theories, which can’t be proven conclusively once that age is assumed greater than know recorded history. So it takes as much faith to believe the “ billions of years nonsense” as it does for me to believe in fairies. And why is it always on believers in GOD to prove his existence to you??? If anyone told you, would you believe it??? The answer is NO. Apparently you have made your choice, and justify it by demeaning those who choose the Bible narrative, as you think it makes you intellectually superior. All the while you forget that the very Father of scientific study was and remained a Believer in the Christianity and never moved away from his faith.

Wonderful facts

Good one.

This is why we have many dating methods. Potassium argon is for the longer ages and we know you will get wild results if your using rocks out of the range. Its like they are complaining about measuring a couple of inches on the ground with the tripometer on your car..

@hasone1848

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 that's my point. The idiots in the video are using the wrong dating method and saying "see all science is wrong". If try to measure inches in a car it will say zero, which is the wrong answer. Seems like you agree with them since you put the cry/laughing emoji.

@hasone1848

6 ай бұрын

​@@joefriday2275 How much radioactive dating have you done yourself? It is very well known that radioactive dating will give you wild answers,,, get this,,, when you use it incorrectly. This video is all about "we got a wrong answer, using this dating method wrong" therefore god.

@hasone1848

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 Yes, This video does show the inaccuracy of dating methods,,,,, When You Use Them Incorrectly. The 15 trillion dollar oil industry is extremely dependent on these dating methods because when there are old rocks you get oil. Smoke detectors use radioactive material that detects the smoke. Medical, Food and Agriculture industries also depend on our knowledge of radioactive materials. What young earth creationist methods are use to help any other industry? The answer is none.

@ColtranesOffspring45

4 ай бұрын

I think the assumption is that "dating methods" are not without their issues. I don't believe anyone in the comments is a science hater

@hasone1848

4 ай бұрын

​@@ColtranesOffspring45 your right, dating methods are not without their issues. BUT we understand them so well that we know the issues. This is why the oil industry depends on radiometric dating Soo much, you find old rocks in the date range you are looking for, you will most likely find oil. And yes, there are probably no science haters in the comments, but there are plenty of science deniers (they only deny the science that they don't like) in the comments. YEC is a breeding ground for religion telling people to deny evolution, radiometric dating and so many other fields.

They also send the samples to multiple labs - and pick the results from the lab that fit with the narrative they were trying to create.

@jessebryant9233

7 ай бұрын

So why all the different dates? Maybe you're just upset because the results don't fit with the narrative that you accept?

@akmurf7429

7 ай бұрын

Some honest evolutionists will admit their paradigm is a religious one. It's time they all admit evolution is a religion to the uninformed.

@roblangsdorf8758

7 ай бұрын

If I remember correctly, Steve did publish the results from all the testing firms.

@phedders

7 ай бұрын

@@roblangsdorf8758 Indeed! Sorry I wasnt implying that he had - he was very open. It is just standard practice among many researches to use multiple labs and then select favourable results. Sadly far too much research is paid for and the results are pre-determined. Researchers need funding :(

@iamtruth6056

6 ай бұрын

@@jessebryant9233 you obviously didn't pay attention to the video or you would understand phedders's comment. It is mainstream scientists who are the ones picking and choosing for the date the best reflects their presumptions. The video is about a scientist who published ALL the dates given to him and not cherry picking any date.

I wasn't aware that lava erupted from Mount St Helens! I was always led to believe it was a steam explosion from magma well below the surface. I guess I learn something new every 7,200 years!

@inspiringphilosophy any rebuttal?

The dating of the Mt St Helens Rock is a famous example of improperly doing your research. Go read the paper and the data taken from the study. They sent the (most likely contaminated) samples to a lab that SPECIFICALLY STATED that they did not have the proper equipment to measure very low levels of Argon. When the lab sent the dates back, they said that it was LESS than 350,000 years old. For creationists to constantly leave that important part out is incredibly dishonest and should raise a lot of red flags.

@user-sy4ov7tb3q

6 ай бұрын

You comment alone tells me that you did not read the paper thoroughly yourself. Quoted from Steve Austin's paper - "Potassium and argon were measured in the five concentrates by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. These preparations were submitted to Geochron Laboratories with the statement that they came from dacite, and that the lab should expect ‘low argon’. No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (ten years old at the time of the argon analysis). The five concentrates were returned with given ages of 0.35∓0.05Ma, 0.34∓0.06Ma, 0.9∓0.2Ma, 1.7∓0.3Ma, and 2.8∓0.6Ma. You can read the paper here - creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

@AaronMeaserProductions

6 ай бұрын

@@user-sy4ov7tb3q Exactly! Because the Lab did not have the proper equipment to date such low levels, those numbers are where we would expect. Of course they aren't correct, that's the point. The half life of K is 1.3 BILLION YEARS. We're talking about nearly non-existent levels of Ar. Honestly though, why haven't creation scientists repeated the experiment to solidify their "proof"? Why do they constantly go back to this one study as their proof when they know the study has many questions about its quality?

If only everyone heard this information .. unfortunately, most children (and adults) never hear this. They believe that those dating methods are accurate and that the earth has to be billions of years old.

@kyus1974

6 ай бұрын

Carbon dating is accurate. The same science brings us atomic clocks, GPS and satellites and many other technologies. This is poorly thought out propaganda, which only catches the lowest denominator.

@jimthomas1989

6 ай бұрын

@kris001 The Earth is Billions of years old ! God who has a name and it is YHWH pronounced Yahweh in Hebrew and translated into English language is at Exodus 6:3 and Psalms 83 :18 And God's Son's name is Yeshua and translated into English language is Jesus . Both together Created The Heavens and the Earth !

@his-kingdom-net

3 ай бұрын

I work in the education industry. All evolution, origins of the universe, radioactive dating sections of science are devoid of any evidence contradicting the narrative. Every real science allows dissent, but not these three subsections. The only reason I can come up with is that almost no one would go along with the narrative if the students had equal access to the pre-cherry-picked data; the theories/hypotheses are so weak, no dissent is allowed. The kids are dumbed down by not allowing them to think. I always asked my kids pointed questions when going over these topics - the kids saw the fraud right away when presented with counter examples.

If I understand, the lab doing the K-Ar dating measurement has to *crush* the sample to *release* the argon which is trapped by the crystalline structure of the sample. But is it possible to crush the rock thoroughly enough to release enough for accuracy? Couldn't *even 100 atoms* of structure imprison several argon atoms? How likely is it that the whole sample could be crushed to powder finer than 100 atoms?

Great!

I’ve always believed the Bible which explains the flood and common sense shows the rapid draining caused our landscapes. My 6th grade science teacher in 1978 showed us how easy it is to see what happened.

@teks-kj1nj

6 ай бұрын

My common sense doesn't tell me that, I must be dumb. Can you please explain it to me so I can understand too. thank you. Until now my science books books made perfect sense, how can they get it so wrong I am asking myself. Thankfully now I have you to explain how all fields of science got this so wrong

@saywhat8966

6 ай бұрын

@@teks-kj1nj Scientific Research is a cutthroat business for fame and grant money. The squeaky wheel gets the $$$

@gilwg1233

6 ай бұрын

The oceans contain salt water. If there was a flood that covered the entire earth, that water would be salt water. All fresh water fish would die and all inland lakes would be salt water lakes. Noah's flood is nonsense.

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

@@teks-kj1njare you saying that massive local floods can’t create massive rapid erosions? Geez…my modern secular science teachers are crap.

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

@@teks-kj1njare you also saying that textbooks CAN’T possibly be wrong?

Steve Austin? Wasn't he the six million dollar man ?

@alantasman8273

Ай бұрын

That would be the $ 45 million Dollar Man adjusted for inflation.

I thought that the "canyon" mentioned here was carved thru the recently deposited soft ash, not thru rock. Am I wrong about that?

@creationministriesintl

5 ай бұрын

No. It was carved out of hard basalt, (igneous rock) not soft volcanic ash.

Cant get enough, what a blessings

Exactly the same thing happens in astronomy with the interpretation of the red shift. Carbon dating is reliable only down to 40-50k years back. 100k results will be already very questionable.

@StarterHomeRentals

6 ай бұрын

How would we know it is reliable 40,000 years back? If everything tested was no older than 10,000 years old, they would all come back 350,000 or more years old? Then how do we know anything at all?

The findings of soft tissue in fossil Dino bones left the Carl Saganites stupefied. They immediately went mute and huddled up to strategize what lie they would agree on next.

@fadya3901

4 ай бұрын

That was not correct, it was fossilized veins that’s all. Very well preserved.

@danacamp5437

2 ай бұрын

@@fadya3901 veins ARE soft tissue. They certainly aren't bones or teeth.

@fadya3901

2 ай бұрын

@@danacamp5437 she didn’t do it right, it was debunked. They couldn’t replicate her claim.

@packerfan66

2 ай бұрын

@@fadya3901if you pluck at it, pulling it in a direction and it snaps back a nearly equal amount it’s elastic and pliable. That’s not fossilized veins.

I was living in Bend, OR during the Mt Saint Helens eruption. We had about a half inch of ash all across Bend for quite a while.

@oobermackn

3 ай бұрын

My grandma had a bunch of jars full of ash I guess my mom and her had to go out every couple of hours to clean the cows nostrils of ash.

I've always doubted how they could just assume radio dating was accurate. I always thought it was a guess at best. Those confirms it.

@buffalobob3796

4 ай бұрын

Try googling it. It is a trusted method dating and used by scientists around the world.

Im confused, isn't the rock before it got ejected by Mt.Helen it's already existed below the volcano. It's already aged even before it came out.

@earlclep1

6 ай бұрын

In your analysis every rock, every grain of sand, drop of water and everything else on earth is exactly the same age. For that matter I guess everything in the whole universe is exactly the same age. At least now we know 😂. The key to the knowledge of the universe and even the big question everyone is looking for the answer to is revealed when you receive the promises. When that happens, some say it's when you receive the Holy Spirit, you begin to truly understand the things that baffle the rest of the world. It's not arogance it's just God actually revealing everything that He wants you to know. Remember when Jesus told a parable, only the chosen could understand that the parable meant. Interesting to me that even the disciples had to ask Jesus "what does the parable mean Lord." Nobody likes to admit it but until the Holy Spirit came upon them 10 days after Jesus went up to be with The Father, they still were not of the flock. Once they finally believed they understood everything that had confused them before. I hate to be long winded but people better understand if they haven't received the Holy Spirit (the promises) Jesus will utter those terrible words "go away, I never knew you" meaning you never knew or understood Him. The Jews come to believe when the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead after 3 and 1/2 days of laying in the street of Jerusalem 🤔. Interesting that resurrections seem to play a KEY role in acceptance. God created the earth and everything else for a really good reason and it is as old as He says it is, I promise you that this is true.

@jeffg4570

6 ай бұрын

I think they’re using this argon dating method to determine when the lava solidified.

@theCosmicQueen

6 ай бұрын

no, because it got molten into lava , and that restarted it or changed it into a " new rock" or so they call it.

@coolhawk2003

6 ай бұрын

It's like having a new poop but someone says it old poop because it was food and it was grown in the ground switch is made from old poop.

@brendtpederson2376

6 ай бұрын

Lava is lava. It was not a rock before it was lava

Seems pretty likely that regardless how the earth was formed or created, that it would have been so with "age" built into it. Very unlikely that there was zero of the daughter elements present. Was adam an adult on day two of his existance? Was geological strata all just sand or lava on day one? "God" had to understand all of the science in order to create us,, all life forms, the universe, the sun, etc.. physics, biology, even the genetics.

Fifty-seven people being killed by the eruption is the worst natural disaster in American history?

Amazing

Since we know the Rock from Mt St Helen’s is ten years old, what happens the Argon testing if you recalibrate the test to ten years old? You speak about a stop watch ticking off the time but not knowing when the clock started. But now you do know! Recalibrate the test! I want to know now how old are all the other rocks that tested using a faulty calibrated test.

@vladtheemailer3223

7 ай бұрын

​@@joefriday2275Yes, and they were told that the dating method would not work for that same.

@chriscordray8572

6 ай бұрын

The fact some rocks are more radioactive than others that's not a good choice of dating accurately. 😂 he's leaving out do many facts..lol

@user-sy4ov7tb3q

6 ай бұрын

@@vladtheemailer3223 The lab was not told the age nor the origin of the rock. It was a blind study from their point of view.

@vladtheemailer3223

6 ай бұрын

@user-sy4ov7tb3q They didn't need to be told. They knew by examining the sample. The method is hardly used anymore. They asked for that specific test, knowing that it would give an erroneous date.

@Luiz__Silva

6 ай бұрын

@@vladtheemailer3223 like if any other test would not suffer from the same flaw regarding the initial unknown state.

Great video! Observable science verifies what we read in scripture. We need to get scripture back in public schools.

@refuse2bdcvd324

6 ай бұрын

@@lizd2943 modern dating methods are unverifiable because there is currently no way for us to travel back in time to verify that the methods being used are accurate. But the observable science we CAN use and verify is the field of archeology. Archeologists actually use the Bible as primary source material in understanding artifacts being unearthed in the Middle East today. Archeology is a field that specializes in both science AND history. That means people who reject scripture fit the category of observable science denying documented history deniers. Please accept observable science and documented history; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your hearty that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

This is very much like trying to date when a candle was lit if it burns half an inch per hour and is now only two inches long. Dating when it was lit is impossible if we dont know its original length. Also, was it a single burn or multiple burns?

So, I have a creek in my front yard. The channel the creek is in is roughly 4 feet deep. Do they assume that that creek is very young? What about on of the larger rivers like the Mississippi River is it young is that why it isn’t in a giant canyon?

@jounisuninen

5 ай бұрын

Not all rivers were born at the same time. Grand Canyon was born because the waters of the Great Flood streamed along that route while the land masses were still soft. Not much time needed as you can see if you pour water on soft sand on a decline.

Would not the molten rock continue to exhibit radioactive decay before, during, and after melting? I don't understand the premise that radioactive decay resets to zero on melting, as suggested by the video. The "new" rock from being molten, retains its ancient age despite being melted and resolidified. Is an age reset really being proposed? Please can we get some peer review here?

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 Please, read again annieoaktree's response. You might find, it was actually correct. In order to understand different dating methods, not just radioisotope decay rate based, it is always a good idea to study them. For example, topic of this video is quite well understood and analyzed. K-Ar dating is very good for old stuff, but for fresh the error bars get into way quite quickly. Simply put, Not the best method, no crosscheck. Results can be summarized as "zero to ~3 Myr". Age of the universe: Yes, new hypothesis came out stating, that the current estimate might be significantly wrong. That can happen, science can never be sure that the answers we have are the true final answers. Science is basically set of ideas and guesses, that fit, what we observe, are testable, and have capability to predict. If someone comes and shows a better model, that fits and can explain even more, it can update or in some cases completely replace previous one. And no, 26.7 Gyr hypothesis is not confirmed yet and scientists are mostly skeptical so far. As we improve existing methods and discover new ones, we just get more and more accurate results. And yes, we get a lot of things wrong. It is not that easy to get it right. It is less of a problem to get something wrong than not trying to find the answer.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 Yes, but you need to say why, and not just repeat statements as fact. Science will always revise itself as new information arrives. This is what good science is. On the other hand, YEC people do not address new information, like demonstrating where newly found massive asteroid impacts appear on their YE timeline.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 Yes, but we have MRI machines and imaging techniques that work and that save lives... Contrast with earlier technologies like X-Rays. We have enormous gains in scientific knowledge, but then so many of us are not educated. How many us realise and understand that the water in our bodies, and the water we drink is comprised of Hydrogen that created just after the Big Bang cooled off a bit, and then, our Oxygen (in H2O) comes from exploding first generation stars? Truly mindblowing that the basic materials in our bodies date from so long ago.

@berniekerns4281

6 ай бұрын

@@user-vn8so9rf3d ...evolutions refuse to use all facts and evidence...only the small scope that tries to support their belief ... excluding all the contradictory facts...

@chriscordray8572

6 ай бұрын

You are correct. It doesn't matter. That matter is eternal. It just forms something else. As matter mixes and gets compressed with heat it will form a conglomerate of different ages. So the rock would have different ages.

Sorry but the earth isnt 6000 years old. Man is older than that.

@rizdekd3912

6 ай бұрын

My belief that the earth is older than a few thousands of years old doesn't depend on radioisotope dating but rather observation of how long weather takes and how much weathering there appears to be. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but someone poking holes in radioisotope dating..something I don't understand very well...isn't going to change my opinion.

@rabbidninja79

6 ай бұрын

@rizdekd3912 mine is from that, and gospel. There's a passage where a man asks God how long is a day to him. He says 1000 years. And how long is a 1000 years to him and a blink of an eye. God is outside of time and genesis is written from his point of view. These young earth people try to count with generations of men but think that we were first... there were 5 "days" of creation before man came. Assuming a day could be any amount of time, it stands to reason that "days" before men could be eons.

@rizdekd3912

6 ай бұрын

@@rabbidninja79 I am very comfortable believing the earth is ancient...in fact I find it far more fascinating if it is. Pondering the ancient earth and how it came to have the features it has is fone of my favorite pass times. Somehow, visiting the Grand Canyon believing it and the rock it formed in is a mere 5000 years old is anticlimactic. And that feeling would apply, I think, regardless of ones theist beliefs.

@rabbidninja79

6 ай бұрын

@rizdekd3912 same here. I'm a scientist and a theist. They aren't mutually exclusive but complimentary. Sure there's clashes between the 2 but that doesn't mean they're exclusionary.

@rizdekd3912

6 ай бұрын

@@rabbidninja79 I am an atheist, but do not think science is inconsistent with or refutes most theistic worldviews. Individuals within those groups (atheists and theists) may have what I consider unscientific reasoning, but it isn't necessary. I know one meme atheists seem to highlight is they don't believe in basing anything on faith. But I disagree. I recognize I base a lot of things on faith and am not reluctant to do so. In order to have a basis for one's life and worldview, one must have faith in some underlying grounding of all reason and thinking.

Very good explanation I will pass this around. Creation is the only answer. Keep up the good work.

Is all lava comprised of same elements and concentrations of material and radioactivity?

These were the same evidences that I heard back in '97 when I got saved and are still the same today as they have yet to be countered by the atheist evolutionists.

@jessebryant9233

7 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 Looks like someone doesn't have any "science" to bring to the forum. Maybe you're just brainwashed?

@hwd7

7 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 You wrote, >> I didn't know any better until i went to college, then I learned that what the apologists said about science wasn't accurate at all>I'm not an expert on radiometric dating

@jessebryant9233

7 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 For example? ... Or do you think we should just take YOUR word for it? And if it is so accurate, why do different labs come up with different dates? And of course, claiming "no peer review" is an argument against the naturalists, because that's on them.

@hwd7

7 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 What you seem to be alluding to is natural selection, which is observable. However yo extrapolate such speciation within the Biblical created kinds or families is where the argument lays. >>> You ever heard someone say "T-rex turned into a chicken"? It's not at all accurate.

@jessebryant9233

7 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 No, not one single "apologist" says any such thing... But "scientists" do claim that all living things share a common ancestor, and I don't have to hold your hand through the rest of this train of thought, do I?

About the half-life issue. The Earth's crust is dynamic, meaning that it's moving all the time. And sometimes it moves a lot, and very quickly. Hold that thought. Now if there is a sample of uranium sitting in a rock, and I walk by with another sample of uranium, so that both samples are now very close to one another, both samples are now decaying faster because of their proximity (each smaller sample became part of a larger sample because of its proximity to the other). That's the whole concept of a half-life; a larger sample decays more quickly than a smaller sample. So unless you know the physical history of a given sample, you cannot presume to know its age by looking at daughter element ratios. And of course, as always, you'd need to know the parent/daughter ratio at the start of the clock, when the sample was formed, and you weren't there when it was formed. Then there is the notion of moderators, such as water, which can accelerate decay. And I suspect that there are other factors which can significantly accelerate decay, that we don't yet fully understand.

@Mr0800092000

7 ай бұрын

yes, they assume there is no daughter ratio at the beginning. that is the first assumption I mentioned.

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

Well…so much for dating anything beyond actual humanly recorded history…

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

Can’t even accept YEC or the Jewish Calendar either since they assume a literal account in Genesis 1 which is obviously a symbolic account inspired by God.

If argon had escaped, then the age would be under-estimated. The result means that the argon must have been present long ago. If the age is over-estimated, the question that then arises is where did the argon come from? How do we know whether the rock was melted ten years ago?

As a science nerd, I've always felt that consistency of half-life is a super flimsy concept. How precise are the measurements over what spans of time? We've been doing radiometric dating for just over 100 years? Assuming that 1905 measurements are just as precise as current measurements, and that NO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS contribute to the variation in decay, how accurate can any of these predictions possibly be? There just doesn't seem to be enough time to demonstrate that decades of measurements to millions of years in precision, in a world filled with all kinds of natural catastrophe and ice ages, is accurate. And the fact that they cannot operate in a blind sample context demonstrates how flimsy this area of science is.

@physiocrat7143

4 ай бұрын

Half lives are a statistical effect. Isotopes have a definite probability of decaying within a particular period. The half life is derived from the probability. Unstable isotopes have a high probability of decaying and therefore the half life is short.

@physiocrat7143

4 ай бұрын

@@83Bongo As a Christian myself I find these creationists embarrassing. They put up an obstacle to faith and make us look like simpletons. There is some very nice geological evidence in the coal fields of Northern England. The River Wear flows round Durham and then passes into a gorge between sandstone cliffs. There are relics of layers of sand which look like ancient sandbanks at the mouth of a river. Between some of the layers there are paper thin layers of coal, representing a season of two of growth. If you add up the total thickness is is obvious that this took hundreds of thousands of years to form. The layers of chalk and clay underneath London are hundreds of feet thick and full of fossils. They couldn't have formed in less than millions of years.

Straight off the bat he states that they used Ka/Ar technique to date the rocks. If you knew that the rocks were 10 years old you would definately not use Ka/Ar as the method is not used to date rocks less than 6 - 10 thousand years old. That in itself will bring wildly innacurate dates. If they do not know which method to use that suggests that they do not know what they are doing and therefore any results reported by them should be viewed with skeptism.

@robertulrich3964

6 ай бұрын

The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. That's circular reasoning. and on top of that, Ironically, if you exclude any dating from 6-10k, you're excluding by default, the biblical narrative of a young earth.

@primusstovis3704

6 ай бұрын

@@robertulrich3964 You said it - I didn't. I think that is called a strawman. I shall repeat what I said seeing as you failed to read it. "If you knew that the rocks were 10 years old you would definately not use Ka/Ar as the method is not used to date rocks less than 6 - 10 thousand years old. That in itself will bring wildly innacurate dates. If they do not know which method to use that suggests that they do not know what they are doing and therefore any results reported by them should be viewed with skeptism."

@nathanielalderson9111

6 ай бұрын

@@primusstovis3704 And you miss the point that the lab did standard tests, and got the confusing results. Leading to the valid conclusion that the labs don't know what they are doing. You can't make a date based on where the rocks are from - assumption. The logic of the video is sound.

@beestoe993

6 ай бұрын

If the Ka/Ar dating method is garbage for rocks less than thousands of years old, how does anyone know that is works for anything??? If the only thing it "works" on cannot be of a known age, then how can it be claimed to be accurate at all? What a lousy excuse for backing up junk science!

@primusstovis3704

6 ай бұрын

@@nathanielalderson9111 Having to repeat myself - again. "If you knew that the rocks were 10 years old you would definately not use Ka/Ar as the method is not used to date rocks less than 6 - 10 thousand years old." If you knew that the sample came from an eruption just a few years before collection then you would not use that test.

Creation ministries; you have obviously no idea how sadly off course your tainted view of reality truly is.

@Steve52344

4 ай бұрын

What I'm saying is that any half-educated 10 year old today knows more about how the world works than any biblical Bronze Age character could even imagine. As for accurately dating the past, science makes the creationist view look like mental illness.

When carbonating something like a rock that went through a lava stage recently, how much of that rock is just old rock that may be thousands of years old, and will the base material that melted as it’s pushed out and lava, retain the argon levels and points of measure? I guess what I’m asking is could a 350,000-year-old rock melt be pushed out as lava and still retain any of it original structure that would affect the carbonating or or once it melts is it starting fresh each time? Like the xenolith, forgive my spelling, will the melted rock contain that as well or is it just the solid pieces that didn’t melt? And if so, or if not, does the heat remove the carbon or can heat affect the carbon. And the rocks that didn’t fully melt they break those open and measure them will they get a different carbonating before or after the Heating? Has anybody ever taken a rock split it into Cooked it to the point where it starts to melt in a kiln let it cool and then date both sides to see if there was a difference between the two?

@klouis1886

3 ай бұрын

You can only use carbon dating on organic material. Lava is not

We need timestamps

@user-sy4ov7tb3q

4 ай бұрын

Available in the description 👍

Could it be that elements in the lava have carbon dating that age?

"The relative timing between mixing and eruption can affect the amount of excess argon recorded in plagioclase." Layer, Paul W., and James E. Gardner. "Excess argon in Mount St. Helens plagioclase as a recorder of magmatic processes." Geophysical Research Letters 28.22 (2001): 4279-4282.

@anthonypolonkay2681

6 ай бұрын

So going off of this, there is no way to not have extreme amounts of excess argon in any volcanic material.

@MyPaddy2011

6 ай бұрын

Of course it can, in much the same way as, given reliable testing methods, I can tell the age of my unicorn by the length of his horn.

@utubewatcher806

6 ай бұрын

@@MyPaddy2011 I believe we're dating rocks, not mythical creatures.

@utubewatcher806

6 ай бұрын

@@MyPaddy2011 Job 39:9-12 and Numbers 23:22 King James Version.

@MyPaddy2011

6 ай бұрын

@@utubewatcher806 You believe wrong.🤣

how do you get a 10 year old rock?

@earlclep1

6 ай бұрын

You obviously have never seen liquified molten lava before it cools and becomes what is called a rock 😮😉. But yea the magma that forms the "rock" was already present at the creation of the earth on the first day, confusing for MANY, huh. Hang in there the questions get tougher to answer without the Good Teacher, and as you know there is only one that is Good. 😉

It is pretty shocking the assumptions that go into these measurements sometimes

Its hard to keep in mind that the part nonbelievers play in Gods plan is seemingly as important as nonbelievers, if that makes any sense.

I can see that if lava has daughter elements in it already you can't date the solidification time.

I think it is always important to look at both sides of an argument. When investigating into this claim I found that the dating method the investigator used was a dating method used for dating things millions of years old. Anyways, I dont think that me explaining the problem with using the wrong kind of test will give inaccurate results, but it is worth investigating rather than hearing only this one side of the story. This comment coming from an old earther creationist who follows the likes of William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Frank Turek and others. Best of luck to everyone in their journey for truth

I have never heard of a mutation actually being beneficial to any creature on earth. Usually the mutated critter dies off or no other critter will mate with it because it will get killed or doesn’t get the attention to find a breeding mate

@pmp2559

6 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 it’s a different skin color but it’s still a moth. Mammals generally don’t drink milk when adults but it brings money. When does a mutated rat turn into a tiger? Why aren’t humans being born from monkeys or apes? Why aren’t fish coming out of water and turning into amphibians? I’m just saying when an animal is mutated it doesn’t have a chance to mate. I’m just not convinced to that idea I am open to it tho but nothing is evolving as in tuning into something else all in all it’s still the same animal or bug. But to be fair bugs are mutants anyway I’m talking more about the animals.

@rizdekd3912

6 ай бұрын

And I've never heard of anyone observing new species being created much less two at a time which would be needed if a new sexually reproducing species were to have been created. So it must happen a different way. Species become sexually reproducing gradually...a whole populatoin at a time. Likely it started when a species only reproduced asexually and then some within the gene pool shared their reproductive cells with another and the offspring from those became dominant in the population. Then after some time, the lost the ability to clone and because a truly sexually reproducing species. So the male and female component was already there when they lost the cloning capability. IOW no 'new female' and 'new male' had to pop into existence simultaneously. They were already in the gene pool.

@jounisuninen

5 ай бұрын

"I have never heard of a mutation actually being beneficial to any creature on earth." - A mutation is a two-edged sword at best. Usually they are only destructive. In their concocted mutation theory, evolutionists try to hide the problem of DNA not being able to generate (macro)evolution. In their scientifically unproven theory, mutations allegedly bring new information to the genome thus creating new body plans i.e. evolution. This theory is against everything that science knows of mutations. Scientists know this well: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Science doesn't know any evolutionary beneficial mutations that could transform the body plan of a given organism i.e. generate evolution and new life forms. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria, metabolic changes, colour changes etc. These are subjectively beneficial only in right conditions: Sickle-cell mutation wards off malaria but if both parents have it, the child dies. Wingless fly survives only on windy island. Antibiotic resistant bacteria doesn't survive outside of hospital environment etc. When we add the fact that DNA has the mechanism that deletes ALL mutations it finds, we understand the impossibility of mutations generating new life forms i.e. generating (macro)evolution.

@MatthewZelek-iv8tb

4 ай бұрын

Exactly. They claim advantageous mutation yet needing two sexes is an obvious disadvantage. A genetic exchange mechanism could be beneficial but that would be what we see not two sexes.

Here is my two cents. God did not create Adam as an infant or a child. He is described as a man and instantly has those attributes. Let's just say Adam was created to be 30 years old, when in fact he was just 1 day old. In the same way, the Earth could appear much older than it is because God made it that way. How old was the first mountain when God created it? It would 1 second? 1 hour? Yet, if we test the age of the rocks, what would the answer be?

Wow, a ten-year-old rock. Knowing rocks as I do, I wonder how such a miracle could happen.

@jounisuninen

5 ай бұрын

Volcanoes do those "miracles" all the time.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Well.....face turns slightly red.....that is true.🥵

@dp1381

5 ай бұрын

This exchange perfectly exemplifies this debate, and specifically the arrogance of those who blindly accept the popular narrative about geology. Good on you for at least admitting you were wrong.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

@@dp1381 Of course you do realize that fresh lava rock in no constitutes a rejection of evidence of well-documented old stones and the things found there.

@physiocrat7143

4 ай бұрын

@@jounisuninen Volcanoes chuck out masses of old stuff.

This is why we can make diamonds nowadays because it’s just pressure and temperature

I have seen branches & leaves fossilize in 75 years with the right minerals & conditions in a mine shaft.

@klouis1886

19 күн бұрын

No you haven't

The way they are dating it compared to how old it really is, it doesn't even exist yet...lol

Isn’t the 10 year old made from other older materials that have been conjoined to create a “new” rock? Otherwise where did the material come from for the “new” rock to be created?

@MatthewZelek-iv8tb

4 ай бұрын

@smithsmithsonacoustics The dating methods are based on the idea that we can measure the formation of the new rock made from old materials. They can’t date items that are made from materials compressed together due to what you stated. I don’t want to give the wrong names for the types of rocks they claim to be able to date or not but I looked in to it a while back because I had the same question.

I’ve already known this by the Spirit, my whole life

They put 10 different dates on a wheel and spin it like Vanna White. Then they tell you whatever gets them paid.

The method measures the age of the substance, not the formation. E.g. if you create a sculpture today, and send a piece to a lab, you'll get the age of the material, not the sculpture.

Dr. John Morris and Steven Austin video.

Hey, but how can a rock be 10 years old, when all matter got created 6000 years ago. Even the lava which created the rock if I understood that right.

Repel with power cables

Though I believe in a young earth created as a fully aged planet, just as plants, animals, and the original humans were on day one of their creation, they were still created mature or old enough to reproduce after themselves. However, one can’t say this rock didn’t have an age of more than 10 days, such as millions of years, since it consisted of molten materials within the earth, within the bowels of the volcano. That material could have been created to be thousands or millions of years or older. Whether right or not, just my thought on it.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

5 ай бұрын

When did he asteroids hit Earth? Theia, Deniliquin, Vredefort, and Chixculub are the biggies (that geologists have found). These were massive and likely dwarf the Flood - Curious that they appear in God's timeline, but not references in the Genesis timeline...

@creationministriesintl

5 ай бұрын

The rock is dated since the time the molten rock solidifies. The idea is that in the molten form, all the argon gas should have boiled away, so when it solidifies, the only argon that is found inside the rock has to come from the radioactive potassium that decays into argon. So when the rock solidifies, that 'clock' is reset. As Dr Tas Walker explains, it doesn't work. This particular rock sample comes from the lava dome in that forms in the months after the eruption. So it is new rock and we know how long it has been since it solidified.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

5 ай бұрын

@@creationministriesintl When you melt something, the elements do not boil away. We know this from spectroscopy. My own field analyses steels to determine elements present in a steel to determine suitability for welding- Elements can be lost and remain but gases still contaminate the alloy and cause problems as diddolved impurities. Can you show me your experimental results on Potasium/Argon containing rock that shows all Argon is lost during a melting and resolidification process? Seems a simple experiment to undertake...

If I have a bowl of ice cream and it melts and I refreeze it, it doesn't suddendly become younger or older

@klouis1886

6 ай бұрын

@@joefriday2275 It doesn't work that way.

@klouis1886

6 ай бұрын

@joefriday2275 I teally don't care what you think. The earth is billions of years old and evolution is fact

Why people argue over this is plain silly to me, we don't know!

how do you know the age of this fossil? by the rock layer it was found in. how do you know the age of the rock layer? by the fossils we find there.

@slik00silk84

5 ай бұрын

Showing your ignorance, we see !

@lepton31415

5 ай бұрын

@slik00silk84 I started out college as a geology major. this is literally what we were taught.

@slik00silk84

5 ай бұрын

@@lepton31415 Good that you left geology if that is all you got out of it. Didn't you learn about Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating which are techniques used to date materials such as rocks and some artifacts.

@KenJackson_US

5 ай бұрын

That Slik guy doesn't like the truth, therefore you must be ignorant, @@lepton31415.

How old was the magma that created the rock

@MatthewZelek-iv8tb

4 ай бұрын

That not how it works. Think about it as figuring out how fresh a cookie is, the age of the flour doesn’t matter (it probably will have an effect but for the analogy we will exclude it), you can check the moisture content of the cookie and compare it to other samples that we have an approximate age of to determine how long it’s been since it came out of the oven. If it worked how you think they wouldn’t be able to date anything Sir.

Looking for the verse that shows the earth is 5k years old, thanks!

@creationministriesintl

6 ай бұрын

Here. We list all the verses that give us a genealogy with numbers. The Bible explicitly tells us the age of each father when he has his next in line, giving us a chrono-genealogy. creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies

@richardcampbell7055

6 ай бұрын

Ive read the geneologies and there are several parallel lists of ancestors, but each one leaves out several people that the other includes. The geneologies have gaps, then how can we use that to calculate the age of the earth. We dont know how long the gaps are. Is there somewhere else in scripture were its more iron clad and indisputable? Thanks!

@thomasmaughan4798

6 ай бұрын

@@creationministriesintl "We list all the verses that give us a genealogy with numbers." That gives you an estimate of how long ago great-great...grandfather lived. Now, about the age of the Earth...

@esthr2317

6 ай бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798 The first man was created with Earth what do you mean

@thomasmaughan4798

6 ай бұрын

@@esthr2317 "The first man was created with Earth" Your reading varies. The Earth was in the beginning, Adam was 6th day if I remember right (and the sun itself 4th day!). However, you would be correct to claim that the dust from which Adam was formed was created from Earth and thus as old as the Earth.

Ive read the geneologies and there are several parallel lists of ancestors, but each one leaves out several people that the other includes. The geneologies have gaps, then how can we use that to calculate the age of the earth. We dont know how long the gaps are. Is there somewhere else in scripture were its more iron clad and indisputable? Thanks!

@thomasmaughan4798

6 ай бұрын

"Is there somewhere else in scripture were its more iron clad and indisputable?" It's a BOOK. Words on paper or parchment.

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798you mean like “science” reports?

@richiejourney1840

6 ай бұрын

Genealogies are not really reliable as to actual dating purposes. What was important was two things: the culture of the ANE in genealogy was to establish a simple line of birthright. Numbers were usually exaggerated and used symbolically. The pattern in the Bible simply is to show (or symbolically show) a decreasing age in human life span showing the transition from an immortality state to a mortal state…”…dying, you shall die” is the literal translation of the consequence of selfish disobedience toward God. To allow sinful mankind to live long lives produces severe sin in us-imagine an immortal bad person with power-like an undying judge or Stalin, etc.,…Hence the need of Noah and Babel. The genealogy does also show that it is possible to “walk with God” in such a “pure” way that one can avoid “death”, but this was a one off exception and so theologically it is really a foreshadowing of the Christ to come, and although Enoch was not perfect, he was chosen to be the one for the example because he did walk with God better than any naturally sinful person. So, no, I would not rely on genealogies as a perfect dating method because God is not really concerned that we have one. It’s not crucial to salvation. Correct Theology is. “Time” is relevant to the natural “book” and the realization that one only has a very short amount of it to get right and love God who made us and saved us from ourselves.

A few hole in your story, water stains in highest part of pyramids, when was the last time there was floods in the deserts ?

@coolhawk2003

6 ай бұрын

How do they get the dates?

@thomasmaughan4798

6 ай бұрын

"when was the last time there was floods in the deserts ?" Last week comes to mind.

I’m gonna be honest, I grew up a science geek learned studied, whether people are taking auto shop and playing football. I was studying, geology and chemistry and zoology. I went to school in the 70s and 80s and we were taught the scientific method question everything to understand what a theory was, but even then, they were pushing unfounded theories as fact, and because I was educated by the system, I just took it as fucked. We go to museums and we see statues and animations of “Lucy“ and how all the scientist agree. But then you go to look at the data and you realize what you have as a tiny piece of an old skull, that about three dozen scientific agencies globally have looked at and most of them seem to think it’s a recess monkey skull a bunch of them say they have no way of telling and some say they don’t know what it is so they assume it’s probably the missing link or humanoid. Then you look the rest of the evidence and you realize there’s almost none. We have some animal bones with some symmetrical scrapes in them, which they say Kim from canine type teeth about the size of what would be a small or pygmy humanoid as if that’s somehow scientific like different size, cats or dogs wouldn’t have teeth that far apart and happen to be eating off of some bones as well. There are no missing links and it’s not the missing link. It’s thousands of them. Darwins theory of evolution should’ve been called Darwin’s theory of adaptation. Animals change a bird will grow a longer beak because it can get crabs out of cracks when other birds can’t and therefore it will have more food and Breed further and create those genetics but it’s always gonna be a bird, the same kind of bird with a longer beak it’s never gonna turn into a pony or a lawyer, or a pumpkin. Sadly, much of what we call science is fiction. It seems a couple hundred years ago universities started taking over the scientific community started using them to create wonderful stories that kings and politicians liked and put into the education system to be taught as fact, even though they still say theory . Almost nobody evolution, almost nobody questions, quantum physics, because the truth is most people can’t even understand it. I looked at Quan physics, and it seemed like a bunch of Star Trek nerds, making up stories without any justification other than their other stories talked about evidence that could never be proved, and was justified by looping two or three of these stories around That it existed to raise money for universities. I wasted years studying. I got a job at an NA facility the jet propulsion laboratories in Pasadena and talked to literal rocket scientist and physicists, and would have great conversations with them, but it always let up to the same thing. That our science is not very accurate, and that our schools and universities teach, random unprovable theories as fact in many cases and people trust the science. When you go back and read the actual data and the science, it tells you they don’t really know that it might be something and if the story is cool enough, they’ll use it to make money, and pretend it’s fact and proven. It’s sad and it’s been very politicized and used to attack religions and spiritual beliefs. It’s been used to push political agendas and make money and take away peoples rights and control people it’s been used deceptively and unfortunately we have almost religions like atheism, where people believe in science, religiously, and it’s turned into a religion of hating Religions or God and nature as he created it. The real scientist out there who show us the evidence and don’t make up a story telling us that it’s backed by some imaginary evidence are still doing that work, but it’s not very profitable, but they preach this narrative, that science and the story of creation and biblical history are in contrast or don’t support each other, but it seems like every year or two they uncover new geological sites and proof it again. I just found ancient Egyptian writing with the word Yahweh written in it talking about the nomadic followers, the Israelites. I don’t know why but much of the scientific community has become so political and religious, or anti-religious, that we’ve thrown the scientific method out the window, and turned it into some sort of game of pulling up a bunch of random information and theories and twisting them in the narratives to promote Financial endeavors or political endeavors to manipulate people. Our pharmaceutical industry is turning out garbage. Most of it doesn’t even work if they tell people it does, and they have taken over modern medicine and turn Drs into essentially a franchise of sales people for the pharmaceutical industry, who basically council you on what drugs to buy instead of healing you they don’t know nutrition And don’t understand the things that heal people people that just don’t produce profit for the medical industry under there to sell your products not heal us, and they spend millions a year attacking non-pharmaceutical medical theory and holistic medicine and religion and actual nutrition that is proven scientifically to heal people. The demonize things like red meat and animal fats so they can tell you garbage byproduct of grain processing that are incredibly toxic and cause disease and massive amount of inflammation, which is the root of 95% of what we call disease. It’s sad. I remember talking to the scientists at the La Brea tar pits about carbonating when I was probably 12 or 13 years old, and he told me flat out it just was not accurate and it was open to opinion and that there were things that could change it like the presence of fire, another chemicals, and that you might find remains from where animals were grilled in a fire that might read 200,000 years old when they 50 years old but you talk about this in a scholastic setting and they tell you know you’re crazy and act like carbonating is an absolute perfected science that should never be questioned and then they just tell us these things in the world are millions or billions of years old and we all just accept what they tell us when the truth is I don’t really have much science to back it up. It’s basically a guess Largely predicated on a bunch of other guesses that are most likely incorrect. I love the scientific process and true science and discovering in research but what I don’t like is the political and marketing aspects of it and the universe is taking it over and turning it into some sort of fictional story. Time to raise money from alumni I’d like to sit around and talk to people like Stephen Hawking, and hear made up stories that are not backed by any legitimate science or anything provable and really not much better than Star Trek episodes from the 60s. I like that we’re researching these things and exploring them, but the fact that they teach them as fact and pretend that they’ve made great milestones when they’ve done nothing and the fact that political and financial organizations will conduct testing and then about the data and give you conclusions and preview published studies that say something completely different and is often just opinion, especially around things like nutrition. You look at scientist, like Ansel who’s considered one of the grates in the nutrition area, and the guy did some epidemiological studies where he handed out questionnaires to sick people and picked out the foods. He didn’t like and told us they were the devil so he could appease a demand from the public because the president had a heart attack so he said red meat is the devil go eat a bunch of vegetable oils and grains and sugary foods and the truth is that’s exactly the opposite because this science was horrible, and for some reason, the government gets involved in ratifies this in the medical community gets involves make drugs, like statins that are useless, but very profitable and push them on us like we’re all gonna die without it, many of the vaccines, they taught polio is the greatest vaccine. Success story in the world, but other countries were they didn’t have the vaccine polio, went away at the same rate, as it did in fully vaccinated countries. The last couple hundred years science has become very manipulative and controlling and deceptive intentionally and is almost to the point where we just can’t trust it anymore. I would love to see an alternative scientific community pop up and get back to the science instead of trying to profit from it and promote political and corporate agendas. :/

Absolutely right. And don’t even get me started on the mathematical imp probability of life beginning accidentally. Creation is everywhere.

@edbaird7687

6 ай бұрын

@@lizd2943 the controversy which some people would call an argument is between roughly 6000 years old 2 billions of years old. It’s day and night we don’t need to discuss or argue in fractions. The gap between the truth is astronomically large. We can know the truth. Or choose to believe a lie. Billions and billions of years is like pixie dust on a frog. If you sprinkle enough pixie dust on the frog it will become a prince every time you mathematically prove the improbability of evolution they are prepared to sprinkle trillions and billions of proven years to support the religion of old earth. It is a religion. Because if you do not believe in old earth, then you must accept not only scientific fact, but consider intelligent design.

@Casual_Cthulhu

5 ай бұрын

Are you doubting the power of God?

I understand that this “rock” was a lava released from an erupting volcano - isn’t this the same matter changing appearance?

350,000 years is way longer than 6,000 years 7:50

He is wrong about saying it was the worst natural disaster in the US. Hurricanes that killed thousands in Galveston TX, hundreds of children killed in New London TX from a natural gas explosion. What else is he wrong about?

Might want to look into Graham Hancock’s and Randall Carlson’s work in explaining the Great Flood. That is one catastrophe that geologists like to avoid like the plague

@klouis1886

3 ай бұрын

Because there is no evidence of it

@TheChadPad

3 ай бұрын

@@klouis1886 there is a lot of evidence for it

@sinjinbritt3371

2 ай бұрын

Is there a lot of evidence for the existence of fire breathing water dragons?

@TheChadPad

2 ай бұрын

@@sinjinbritt3371 like the Leviathan from the Bible? No

@sinjinbritt3371

2 ай бұрын

@@TheChadPad Exactly. Any evidence of giant multiheaded, fire breathing water dragons outside of the bible or other mythologies? And while you're pondering whether or not it would be wise to claim leviathan was real, when was Isaiah written? 7th Century BCE. When was the Ba'al Cycle written? 14th Century BCE. Your leviathan is a plagiarism of a 700 year old (at the time) Canaanite myth (Lotan). Now, back to the flood... when was the Genesis story written? 3rd-5th Century BCE. When was the Eridu Genesis (Sumerian Flood Myth) written? earlier than the 20th Century BCE. Your Noah flood story was a plagiarism of a 1500+ year old (at that time) Sumerian flood myth. To claim it really happened is to admit the earlier story is closer to the story's origin, but out yourself as intellectually dishonest if you want to claim the Sumerian story is a myth, but not the Noah story, when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove that claim/assumption. And before you try and say the Sumerian myth is the real copy, and the Noah version was the original, and that the Hebrews just hadn't bothered to write it down yet…. don't forget that Yahweh was a lesser Canaanite god when the Canaanites worshiped El as their Chief deity. Yes, they were originally Henotheistic. And remember, Jews are the descendants of the Canaanites. Besides, it's just silly to say the Sumerians copied the Hebrews, when the Sumerian culture begin to collapse in 1750 BCE at the same time of the earliest known mention of the Canaanites. It’s just silly to suggest their flood myth was a copy of one that was from a people who hadn't been mentioned yet ANYHERE for another 250+ years, who originally worshiped El, and hadn't written their flood story until another 1250 years had passed.

Hello! Since we theorize from the Bible that the universe and the earth are young, around 6000 years or so, can’t this amount of time be used as a test to determine the age of things? For example, there is a problem with the billions of years because they don’t know when to start the stopwatch. But we young earth believers know that you start the stopwatch at around 6000 years. So can this is be used to bring anything in the geological data into focus and shed light on the truth of the young earth? Blessings to you all in the name of the Lord!

The earth is 4.7 billion years old . Young earth creation is so easy to debunk its existance it does not warrant an arguement.

The disproven methods should not ever be used as evidence.

I always thought that one can only date carbon en not rock itself 😅 Argon is stil depleting from the rock also if it is remolten a lot of Times over the life span of the Earth

I did not know that we could measure the age of rock!? I thought it had to be organic material....

@fadya3901

4 ай бұрын

And still I guess it could have been an older rock that had been launched during the eruption...

Who dated it and how many times was it sent to different labs for testing and how do you know it was a 10 year old rock?

@BoutDatFitLife

6 ай бұрын

I believe he said the rocks were collected 10 years after the lava bubble occurred...?

@rickvann3489

6 ай бұрын

@BoutDatFitLife that was the answer I was waiting for. So the material that was molden lava coming out of the ground was only 10 years old. That's like having a 50 year old can of play-do and making something out of it and calling it new. The isotopes in the material would definitely ring up millions of years after being melted down a reformed. Slight of hand misinformation.

@user-sy4ov7tb3q

6 ай бұрын

@@rickvann3489 The argument is that there should not be any argon in the rock from pre-lava decay. While in lava form, the argon should all escape from the rock, resetting the 'clock'. From the Nature Journal "For example, when potassium is incorporated into a mineral that forms when lava cools, there is no argon from previous decay (argon, a gas, escapes into the atmosphere while the lava is still molten)."

@rickvann3489

6 ай бұрын

@@user-sy4ov7tb3q gotcha, but guess what I proved my earth science teacher and alot of others wrong. The Earth's Mantle is in fact exposed. So science can get it wrong on all levels. But I already did a big write up under this topic on another one of there videos. Can't remember but it talk about the samething age of the earth and I explained it all about Adam etc.

@rizdekd3912

6 ай бұрын

@@user-sy4ov7tb3q Thanks, that was the missing piece in my understanding of how they think radioisotope dating works. The daughter products cannot exist in the molten rock so they escape leaving only the parent material. So when the rock rehardens, it should only contain the parent material and the clock has been reset. But I imagine there is a lot of difficulty knowing for sure if the sample one is analyzing had totally melted thus releasing all the daughter products. If it hadn't, then you might get erroneous readings. It doesn't mean the method is unreliable, but if one is not careful and uses the wrong technique and makes the wrong assumptions you could get a rock that supposedly 'formed' 10 yrs ago appearing to be older because in reality, the entire rock sample may not have melted leaving a bit of already aged material in the rock that SEEMED to have formed more recently. It appears they used a kind of 'gotcha' result without factoring in possible errors.

13:56 Wait a minute, if this method can only determine the age of ancient rocks, which means millions of years old, then your pre-determining in your scientific method, that your conclusion that the Earth is very very old is correct you’re not looking for truth you’re looking for confirmation at that point, and if you want confirmation of what you believe, you can always find it