Why Radioactive Dating CANNOT Be Trusted 

I went on a few radioactive dates years ago, but the LORD had mercy on me and sent my husband. Seriously, though, I love this channel. Thank you for presenting these wonderful experts.

It's great to add this saint verse because it fit perfectly in ehat he just said: Job38: 4Where were you when I established the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who fixed its dimensions? Certainly you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 What supports its foundations? Or who laid its cornerstone 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Scientists are like meteorologists. They can predict and be wrong and still keep their jobs.

It is my experience that in most fields of learning, we don't know as much as experts in those fields would have us believe.

Back in the early 1990's I read several academic papers on paleontological discoveries that basically said, right in the study, (paraphrasing) We had the rocks radio-carbon dated and the result was an age of between X and Y hundred thousand years ago, but when comparing these fossils with fossils in strata above and below, we realized that that dating must be incorrect, so we sent samples out to a different lab, and got different results which ere more inline with what we expected, so they must be the correct figures. I saw papers where samples had been sent to up to 10 labs for analysis before the researchers got 'acceptable' results. That is NOT science.

Dating methods used by scientists to determine the age of objects can be broadly categorized into two main types: relative dating methods and absolute dating methods. Relative dating methods provide the age of an object relative to another, while absolute dating methods provide a numerical age estimation. Here's a comprehensive list of some common dating methods: Relative Dating Methods: 1. Stratigraphy: Examining the layering of sedimentary rocks or archaeological remains to determine their relative age based on their position in the sequence. 2. Law of Superposition: A principle stating that in undisturbed rock layers, the oldest rocks are at the bottom, and the youngest are at the top. 3. Seriation: Arranging objects or events in chronological order based on changes in style or design over time. 4. Cross-cutting relationships: Analyzing features like faults or intrusions that cut across rock layers to determine their relative ages. 5. Fluorine dating: Comparing the accumulation of fluorine in bones or fossils to determine relative age, assuming that older materials contain more fluorine. 6. Biostratigraphy: Correlating and dating rock layers based on the fossils found within them, using the known age ranges of specific fossil species. 7. Palynology: Studying and dating ancient environments based on the analysis of pollen and spores preserved in sediments. 8. Tephrochronology: Dating volcanic ash layers (tephra) by matching their unique chemical compositions to known volcanic events. Absolute Dating Methods: 1. Radiometric dating: Using the decay of radioactive isotopes in minerals to determine the absolute age of rocks and fossils. Common radiometric dating methods include: - Carbon-14 dating (for organic materials up to about 50,000 years old). - Potassium-argon dating (for volcanic rocks and minerals). - Uranium-lead dating (for rocks and minerals containing uranium and lead isotopes). - Rubidium-strontium dating. - Samarium-neodymium dating. - Argon-argon dating. 2. Dendrochronology: Analyzing tree-ring patterns to establish the age of wooden objects or to reconstruct past environmental conditions. 3. Varve chronology: Counting annual layers of sediment in glacial lake deposits to determine the age of the sediments and associated events. 4. Thermoluminescence dating: Measuring the accumulated radiation dose in certain minerals to estimate the time since they were last heated or exposed to sunlight. 5. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating: Determining the time since sediment grains were last exposed to sunlight using light-sensitive traps in minerals. 6. Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating: Dating materials that have been exposed to natural radiation, such as tooth enamel and some carbonate deposits. 7. Fission track dating: Determining the age of volcanic glass and other materials by counting the tracks created by spontaneous fission of uranium. 8. Amino acid dating: Dating organic materials like bones by measuring the racemization of amino acids. It's important to note that the choice of dating method depends on the type of material being dated and the age range of interest. Different methods have varying degrees of accuracy and applicability, and often multiple dating techniques are used in combination to cross-validate results.

As a student of geology I always had my questions about isotopic dating. So I ended up calling myself an unconventional geologist! Nice presentation 👏

If toxic people are already an issue, I can just imagine how bad radioactive dating could get 😅

I hope someone is keeping precise and accurate track of the decay rates through time now (say from the 1950's onward). Because it would be fascinating to see if the decay rates change even the smallest amount over time. And if they're not lying about it staying precisely the same. I had someone online claiming to be an expert tell me that #1: They are keeping track of this. And #2: That the decay rates are exactly the same as back in the 1950's. But I have NEVER seen an actual chart or measurement of this. I've seen zero data. So I am very very curious -- but it seems like the scientific establishment just assumes or doesn't care to reveal any real data to the public. Which makes me suspect in the first place. It's very hard to even trust our academic institutions anymore since they've essentially been hijacked by ideologues.

Brilliant presentation! Difficult concepts were well illustrated. Thank you!

I’ve only done biology classes in junior and high school, never been in a college. So I didn’t understand every detail, but I do understand without using scientific stuff by what the Holy Bible says. But I do listen as best I can when watching all you videos. God bless.

I'm taking an Egyptian archeology class this semester and oh boy is it fun to know this. An interesting thing about Egyptian archeology is that a lot of the stuff looks very similar or doesent change much so its even harder to pinpoint where things happened.

It's also been discovered that measuring isotopes to find out when someone was buried is completely because different foods making up their bones store different levels of isotopes. Very interesting stuff! But they still use it as a reliable dating method 😐

🔥 content bro!

Well done!!

When Bill Nye visited, he didn't answer any of these points he just ranted on about how he's proud he knows nothing......and he calls himself a scientist

Walter Veith questioned Radioactive Carbon Dating by asking are you dating a rock from the time it became a rock or when it was molten before becoming a rock and how long was it molten before becoming that rock.

Love the video! I wish the thumbnail wasn't clickbait. I often wish to share these with my friends but "Evolutionists hate when you tell them this" is not a helpful first impression for someone I wish to have a candid/honest conversation with.

Thank you so much

The statement on the age of a rock from Mount St Helens is misleading because the rock was formed from existing rock and would therefore inherit the same approximate age as the rock it was formed from. The rock isn't an organic life form that generates a whole new corpus from an initial "seed" of rock material the way a new life form does.

Great video AIG! Thanks for posting. I read in ARJ how they found the decay rates decreasing in Uranium. They have no steady decay rates. Therefore, radiometric dating is flawed. Everything in it relies 100% on multiple assumptions being absolutely true. Fortunately they are finding that simply isn't the case. 🙂✝️🙏

This carbon dating has been proven to be wrong

Their are so many difficulties in dating. You need to know a lot about the environment where the sample is being taken. It's best to always use multiple dating methods and comparisons. Luckily you can get a lot of information from studying the area.

Wonderful stuff

Take two banana peels the same age and put 1 outside in the sun protected from wild life and put 1 inside the fridge. The one outside 5 days is slmost gone, whithered away to nothing but the one in the fridge is still there. Then ask an expert to tell you which one is older.

Thank you Dr. Snelling, That's amazing!!

Australian accents abound at AiG....always good to hear , thank you .

Spittin facts brother!

Thank you for your work. This has helped explain to me something I've always wondered about.

About the crand canyon. There were people there when it formed. The natives of that area have stories passed down of the the canyon being form by the sudden draining of huge lakes at the top of it. They were shouted down for decades until science of it couldn't be denied any longer. And the experts still refuse to give them credit because "happened way too long ago".

This would be great explained using a more relatable subject, like “Radical Dating”. Give each person characteristics of atoms and see if by logic people come up with matches based on the core assumptions of old or young earth

In your own RATE paper, it said if radioactive decay was fast enough to match a YEC age, the heat generated would have melted the earths crust. Yep self debunk.

Thank you and God bless your good work.

This problem exists in all indirect measurements. We assume light speed is constant, but that is an assumption based on direct measurements on earth and if you want to be generous the voyager probe. We assume physical properties are constant because so far it works for things like cell phones, computers, cars and such. To say "we know" is fundamentally not a scientific statement.

Belief based on faith, faith based on belief. I was raised believing, then I rejected "faith" when I understood scientific reasoning. I support your right to believe anything you wish, but don't expect or require me to follow your faith.

If the universe is billions of years old, we would have reached equilibrium long long ago.

TLDR: But, 5 minutes in, and I can tell you already that geologists don't have to make any of those assumptions that the presenter has claimed. Geologists aren't stupid, and they know about all these objections, but they also know how to solve all the problems that they raise. Radiometric dating is very reliable, and is corroborated by other dating methods as well. Assumption 1: "you have to assume there were no daughter elements present when the rock formed." This is false. As igneous rock forms in cooling magma, different elements react differently. So there are ways to determine whether or not daughter elements have been included alongside the parent element. In some cases, the type of crystal formation can only trap daughter isotopes after they have formed, so no initial contamination can occur. In other cases, there is a string of decays that occurs before the stable daughter isotope is formed, and so there can be 1 or more unstable daughter isotopes in between the parent and the stable daughter isotope. If the ratio of these 3+ elements doesn't line up with the prediction based on known decay rates, then scientists can know that there was contamination at the time the rock formed. Sometimes that means the sample can't be dated, and sometimes there are calculations that can determine the amount of contamination and a date can still be determined. In short, nobody ever assumes that there was no daughter isotope present. There are multiple ways to determine whether there was or was not, and whether or not that makes the sample unusable. Assumption 2: "no extra parent or daughter isotope has been added since the rock was formed." This is really quite a ridiculous point to make, because rocks aren't literally an hourglass with a lid that anyone can just tamper with. In some cases, gases can permeate porous or cracks rocks, which could alter the chemistry of the rock, but there are so many other cases where this is just not possible. When you find a crystal that contains uranium, you don't have to make any wild assumptions to know that the uranium got there before it crystallized. solid metals don't just difuse themselves through solid rock. Assumption 3: "decay rates are constant" um, ya, they are. We've been measuring them on earth for somewhere around 100 years and they don't change. Scientists have tried to change them with heat, pressure, cold, vacuum, electrical current, blasting them with radiation, etc. They don't change. And guess what, the same basic technology that we use to measure radioactive decay in tiny samples on earth can also be adapted to measure radioactive decay on distant stars, which allows us to look millions of years into the past, where we measure exactly the same decay rates as on earth.

AMEN. Excellent explanation!!

Thanks!

Ernest Rutherford invented radiometric dating in 1905 as a way to determine the age of the Earth. In 1904, Rutherford first discussed the possibility of using radioactivity to measure geologic time. In 1906, he began calculating the rate of radioactive decay of uranium.

The biggest problem with carbon 14 is it only works if the carbon 14 from the item your dating matches that of today. There is no way, I repeat, no way they are anywhere close to anywhere near right.

Thanks! Love your channel.... saved a Cuban like me! Keep up the great work.

30:08 comets are very polarized and highly energized , not just ice

I DID find some articles from 2018 and 2022 that question the accepted decay rates, so you’re not alone Doc!! Even the Smithsonian 😂👍🏻

Useful information, thank you

There's a big difference between formed rock, and gases lava. In lava many processes are occurring before it erupts. So when it solidifies, these trapped processes can have a gigantic effect on daughter to parent ratios. If the daughter product is more enriched relative to the parent, it makes the rock appear older. If parent is enriched relative to the daughter, it makes the rock look younger. This is why radiometric dating is not accurate. Also, as he says about contamination. Can anyone really prove there is absolutely no contamination that occurs over 'billions' of years? Or even 'thousands' of years?

I would think that the flood also created dramatic contamination as well.

This is very timely for me. I am teaching the topic Cosmic Arena at present, and have been searching for something like this. Thank you, God bless.

Beautiful

Carbon-14 cannot be used for samples older than 60,000 years old

I'm so glad I saw this video because I can really help clarify a few points. The speaker as well as many of you here will be very interested in learning that there are several situations in which the amount of the daughter isotope is known!! For example, any lead (a daughter isotope of uranium) found in a zircon crystal must have been produced by the radioactive decay of uranium. This is because it is a well known fact that zircon, when crystallized, completely excludes lead. Thus, here's one situation where the exact amount of the daughter isotope (which is lead) is known with certainty (the crystal begins with 0% lead). There are also methods that can be applied to determine a rock's age whereby knowing the initial amount of the daughter isotope is unnecessary!! Look up the "isochron" method. Some rocks consists of two parent isotopes and two corresponding daughter isotopes. Thus, the rock can be dated by obtaining the ratio of either of the two parent-daughter systems. If both systems give the same age, which is frequently the case in this situation, scientists can be confident in the result. Lastly, the accuracy of radiometric dating is also confirmed by dating meteorites, the age of the Earth, and through the use of different dating methods on the same sample (where possible) and comparing the results. Perhaps now a follow-up video can be produced which includes this information!! A simple acknowledgement of my comment would be nice, but not entirely necessary. In the meantime, if you the moderator could keep my comment toward the top, it could help lots of people.

very interesting

It's interesting to consider how many of the fundamentals I presumed were proven (or within scientific consensus), without digging into any further. Given the complexity of many of the discoveries, there's often a distilling of the details for broader audiences, but it's a shame when something is discussed as being 'certain' or 'known', when it actually falls within consensus, has a high likelihood of being accurate or has an acceptable confidence interval. Any true scientist would never suggest something is 100% accurate and representative of reality.

Faith building

I think radioactive dating is useful as a tool within certain parameters but its not as precise as its often portrayed and usually has a very wide rage of possible times. And, personally I suspect that in time we'll discover how incorrect it was.

reminds me of highschool physics when they simply give you some of the formulas without showing the calculations made to arrive at the formulas. I remember when we studied gravitational forces and we used a specific formula for the gravitational force on earth, but used a very different formula to calculate gravity in space. I called it out as wrong, and asked if this is truly the most up to date scientific method since it was clearly incomplete, since both formulas for gravity should be the same no matter where the calculation is applied, then it would be a true formula. my teacher agreed and also said this was the current scientific method to find the force of gravity. What I learned from that experience is that science still had a long way to go. It's amazing that so many people will just tag along and assume science is correct, such as with this radioactive rock dating methods. Like not 1 scientist had the humility to admit they were wrong or didn't know, they'd rather assume they are right than have to ask difficult questions that test their hypothesis'.

29:26 what's with the highlighted items?

Some one once said: "Those who control the past control the future, and those who control the future control the present." Think about it.

There are only two choices in life. We listen to God or we listen to the devil. Mankind is under the influence of the devil.

There is this book, Buried alive, written in 70s, about a forensic orthodontist (those people who identify you by dental records) who borrowed his mentor's xray prototype machine (the actual guy who identified Hitler's remains from teeth) and studied Neanderthal skulls with it. What he found was fascinating, that their enlarged brows and skulls matched a pattern of growth we see in humans, that as you age your brow and jaw grows bigger and ears lower due to pressure of chewing. Brow he said grows bigger because the cheekbones re direct that force around eyes to brow, as he claimed his teachers said, like flying buttresses in architecture. But it matched those known models of growth placing them on his charts, being at 300 years old humans. This also lines up with neanderthal graves being above previous homo sapien graves in middle east.

We Don’t Know !!!!

If you want a young Earth, it's not enough to suggest that radionuclide half lives were orders of magnitude shorter in the geologically recent past than they are today. You also have to believe in tremendously accelerated sediment deposition, lickety-split erosion, ice ages that come and go within decades, continental drift you can actually see, geomagnetic pole reversals every other century, etc. etc. Honestly, by this point if I were a young Earth creationist I'd just say that the Earth (and our universe) was supernaturally created pretty much "as is" in the recent past and be done with it. Our planet just LOOKS old because this supernatural force is testing our faith in it.

Still waiting to see those “miraculous” papers that change everything we know.

What no one is looking at is that solar flares are known to accelerate the aging of atoms. Radiocarbon dating relies on measuring the decay of carbon-14 isotopes in organic materials. Solar flares can cause fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere by interacting with nitrogen atoms, which affects the accuracy of radiocarbon dating to some extent. So those dinosaur bones have also been aged by solar flares. So even if the measurement is accurate and no contamination happened, the artificial aging of atoms because of solar flares were not taken into consideration. How many solar flares happened throughout the history of the planet? Uncountable already.

Radiocarbon dating is based on the decay of carbon neutrons. While we're still alive we absorb carbon atoms that have extra neutrons (called isotopes) throughout our lives. When we die, we stop taking in this type of carbon and the extra neutrons are slowly lost, making the carbon closer and closer to normal. To find how old something is, the idea is to see how many of the extra carbon neutrons are left. The problem is there are too many assumptions. We assume that each living thing had the same amount of extra neutrons when they died, and we assume that the extra neutrons leave at the same rate regardless of conditions. Also, after a certain point of time, there wouldn't be enough of the extra neutrons to tell how old a sample is. The other problem is that it's not accurate or precise. Every time a test is run on a sample it comes up as a different age, and the older the sample the greater the difference in age that each test shows. They have to run multiple tests of a sample and make an average, which becomes the official age of that sample. Anything found near the sample is also assumed to be that age.

What a wonderful, well-spoken breakdown of truth and human assumptions. Great work! Keep it up. ❤

Could some one please get an old earth scholar to refute this with evidence? I'd love to hear a rebuttal.

No human being operates without a bias, a predisposition to believe one idea over another. In religious terms we would call that bias “faith.” The naturalist believes that there is no supernatural force in existence and that man has reached the stage in eternity where he is able to direct the evolutionary development of the universe. The creationist believes that a Creator God exists and that the creatures of that God must seek to understand the Creator’s will. (ICR)

Addressing his three assumptions. 1. How do you know how many daughter atoms existed at the beginning? Formation of igneous rock ensures there are zero daughter atoms. Look it up and ask a geologist. 2. What about contamination? Measurements are taken using completely different radioactive nuclei to corroborate the dating and ensure there is no contamination skewing the measurement. Proper analysis relies on the concordance of evidence and not merely one factor. Examination of only one variable creates inappropriate confidence or doubt. 3. Rates have changed over time. Ensuring that the laws of physics behaved in the past as they behave now is a high probability and fits many calculations that have been tested. I suppose the splitting of the atom would still have occurred given all the radically observed variation as described by the speaker. #3 has to do all the lifting for this argument. But it is a "Get out of logic free" card.

Dang. Profound. Screw the Big Bang Theory. Praise the Lord and Genesis 6 scripture!

So useful to know. Well donr answers in genesis. I used to side with Bill Nye on the Ham-Nye debate. How blind I was.

before listening I went to college (geology) sites info matches New to me.

I remember studying radioactivity in high school and something called "chain reaction" where radioactive decay was kind of a snowballing effect. If you wanted it to blow up, you wanted this chain reaction to run wild and uninhibited. If you wanted a more controlled reaction to generate power, you would introduce a moderating substance to slow the reaction down. Here's my question: are these radioactive isotopes used for dating self-moderating? When they decay into more stable elements, do these stable elements act as a moderator in the sample and slow the decay rate down. If so, this seems like it would cause the rate of decay to slow down as the decay progresses and the percentage of the stable moderating substance being produced becomes more abundant and making decay rates in the present time slower than in the past and hence the sample appear older than it is.

Thanks a lot for sharing truth

Evolution is of the religion of Humanism. Out of all the stardust in the universe, some of the stardust is special for no other reason than that it declares itself to be special. It elevates chemical and electrical reactions occurring in its grey matter above the reactions occurring in the grey matter of every other evolved stardust that doesn't look like it, going so far as to give those reactions objective meaning. It declares itself the pinnacle of evolution; the master of its destiny; with such hubris that it believes it can even save entire planets. It seeks to keep itself from the frivolity of faith, and free itself from the notion of a superior being to whom it is accountable. "Be free," it says, even as it enslaves its fellow stardust with its own arbitrary laws and fear of punishment! "Live your best life free from a God who can grant you immortality you don't deserve," it proclaims, as it promises nothing but death. The stardust consequently finds itself forlorn, for everything it does, everything it believes, everything it hopes for...is utterly futile and meaningless. Sign me up. 😏

I have to disagree with you on decay rate. I see no reason why decay rates would be different in the past, and the evidence you presented to prove otherwise can be explained by the other assumptions being wrong where it's been contaminated/formed with daughter atoms. because one daughter atom could have lots of it giving a date of billions of years, another could have been contaminated to give millions of years where it otherwise would have only gave thousands of years, and another could have formed without any daughter atoms giving an age of only hundreds of years. Also I don't see how rapid water could change the decay rate

Because it's something that can not be done

Not long ago a person called me a science denier. I was shocked into silence and was greatly offended. I consider myself to have good discernment and remain ready to learn new ideas and processes. I remain convinced that earth is about 6000-7000 years old. The new DNA studies coincide and support this age range for man. Bottom line, I believe Genesis is perfectly accurate in literal interpretation.

Great video. Keep it up AIG!

This list will be going over the problems with anything he says. Just for reference, im not a scientist, just a guy with a lot of time to research stuff so please correct me if im wrong about anything First off, those 3 assumptions. I did the third assumption first because I started writing this when he mentioned it at 0:32. 3. 0:32 Assuming these radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate isnt an assumption. Now im sure there are more ways to find out why, but one ive found is called supernova light decay, where astronomists are able to find out the decay of certain atoms over billions of years has stayed relatively constant with little variability. 1. 3:17 Yes we do assume the parent daughter ratio, sometimes, kind of. But theres good reason, for example in zircon crystals, uranium atoms are the right shape to fill in spots for zirconium atoms but lead is not and is excluded while forming, so until that crystal has cooled and became a closed system, its safe to assume there's no lead in there, but we still check to make sure. Of course thats not the same for all minerals but it shows that there is a foundation for these assumptions. Also there is the isochron method which doesnt require the parent daughter ratio at all. 2. 4:10 Okay so this pertains to the contamination problem. First off, I just want to mention he made contamination sound way bigger than it actually is, its only rare places can contamination actually cause a big problem, rainfall isnt going to do much of anything. And now im not sure how, but with proper preperation and good samples, we can account for most contamination, and even if we really screw up, we can still compare it to similar samples and if it doesn't line up with them then we just say something went wrong and measure again or simply call it a bad sample. 4. 10:23 Okay, first off a bigggggg problem. K40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years, and since you need at least a little argon to measure, the K40 - Ar method is only useful for anything over 2 million years old, anything lower and you get terribly inaccurate results. What theyre doing is like measuring a bacteria with a yard stick. So this is really just bad testing. 5. 12:40 This was actually explained a year later. There just so happened to be an argon rich fluid that was trapped inside of the diamonds while they were forming, which really screwed up the measurement. This was just an experiment that went wrong, proves nothing other than accidents happen. 6. 13:32 The flood didnt happen, it would've caused mass exctinctions and would've decimated most life thats on land, there would be obvious evidence of the flood if it actually happened Im skipping over the canyon thing, Im tired and dont feel like researching that. 7. 17:28 Granite is a rock, rocks are an aggregate of minerals, those minerals can have separate ages. 8. 19:24 Then you're reading the wrong textbooks because they don't claim that so that invalidates what he says up until 23:21 9. 25:7 Ima be real, trying to understand this one confused the hell out me. But there are methods for it, and one of those are that if you think the half life is 10^32 seconds, then take 10^32 atoms (or protons, I don't remember), and if atleast one of those decay within a year, that's your half life, its called the theory of probability. There is another one using equations, but I didnt really understand it and I couldn't possibly explain it here. If your curious just look up how we find half lifes, there is a way and it's scientifically sound. 10. 26:39 because humans monitor these computers and computers make less errors, not trusting machines isnt a reson to not believe radiometric dating. 11. 27:00 "The 'natural abundance' of potassium-40 is extremely low, about 0.012%. (In a sample containing 100,000 atoms of potassium, 12 will be potassium-40.)" - Flinn Scientific Canada 12. 27:10 "Potassium-40 undergoes three types of radioactive decay. In about 89.28% of events, it decays to calcium-40 (40Ca) with emission of a beta particle (β−, an electron) with a maximum energy of 1.31 MeV and an antineutrino. In about 10.72% of events, it decays to argon-40 (40Ar) by electron capture (EC), with the emission of a neutrino and then a 1.460 MeV gamma ray.[Note 1] The radioactive decay of this particular isotope explains the large abundance of argon (nearly 1%) in the Earth's atmosphere, as well as prevalence of 40Ar over other isotopes. Very rarely (0.001% of events), it decays to 40Ar by emitting a positron (β+) and a neutrino.[1]" - Potassium-40 wiki page. 13. 29:38 Did you actually read that list? because those dont prove much of anything. 14. 30:26 Comets are just rocks in space, and we've got a fuck ton of them, of course we haven't run out 15. 31:38 You don't use carbon dating on fossils, only on organic matter. You're purposely using a specific method to get a certain answer to fit your view of the world. Bad science doesn't prove anything. 16. 32:17 Fossils only form under certain conditions, that's why its so rare to find complete fossils. Most people who died were left on the ground, maybe buried under a thin layer dirt and their remains were eaten and decomposed, not everyone gets fossilized. People, come on. This guy is a preacher who knows nothing about science, he's just taking advantage of the fact that y'all don't either. You cant reject science just because you don't understand it. You gotta remember these are people who have commited their entire life to finding answers, if they could tally it all up to god, they would, we would all love to be able to say that god is the answer because it solves all of our questions. But we can't, the bible has no evidence, it's historical fiction filled with fairy tales. So instead of believing in a book with no evidence written by people you dont know, why not believe in something proven? Something you can actually verify? Besides, even if today we found out all of radiometric dating is completely and utterly wrong, there are still other forms of dating that invalidate the idea of a young earth.

1. It is possible to know with extreme certainty how much of a parent atom must have existed in a sample. If you know the conditions which require a certain rock or crystal or fossil to form, you can easily calculate which elements are present and in which proportions. 2. The best radiometric dating methods are those whose daughter elements are not found in nature in any more than the slightest trace quantities. That way you can be sure your daughter elements ONLY came from the parent elements in the sample. 3. Decay rates are constant throughout time because they are dependent entirely on the fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, the strong & weak nuclear forces, and gravity), among multiple other constants. In order for the decay rates to change you have to change one or more of these values, which we KNOW would literally either tear the entire universe apart atom by atom, or crush the entire universe into a black hole, or any number of other complete disassembling of reality. Creationists love using this Fine Tuning of the universe to argue for a creator. You can't have a fine tuned universe at the same time as a universe with wavering atomic decay rates. Finally, "you weren't there" isn't an argument. You weren't there to see Adam and Eve, so you can't know they existed. By your logic we should let basically all murderers roam free because the judge and jurors weren't there when the crime was committed.

I want a personal apology from all of my science teachers.

When you call them out on their flawed method they say they don't use it. It's another method that they used.

Man, that ending! Mic drop moment right there! Jesus is King!

It's quite hilarious how scientists never think twice about the possibility of daughter isotopes originating from any source other than radioactive decay of the material around them, particularly if the prevailing model of planet formation involves lots of rocks, dust, and gas accumulating into a (very hot) larger mass through violent collisions. How do people believe planets formed in such a chaotic manner but simultaneously put so much faith in a method of dating material that seems to assume the sample was initially 100% pure?

The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions. Satan is also called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. To say, for example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in it. This is not to say that he rules the world completely; God is still sovereign. But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world within the boundaries God has set for him. When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, we must remember that God has given him domain over unbelievers only. Believers are no longer under the rule of Satan (Colossians 1:13). Unbelievers, on the other hand, are caught "in the snare of the devil" (2 Timothy 2:26), lie in the "power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19), and are in bondage to Satan (Ephesians 2:2). (GQ)

When C14 dating is so off, why do we still accept it when dates line up with the Biblical timeline? Why do we agree that the shroud of turin is dated to Jesus's time now? Why aren't we completely dismissing C14 dating?

I wonder if a massive amount of pressure applied over thousands of years alters radioactive decay rates?

The old earth interpretation also harmonizes with the Genesis narrative. To accuse those who believe it of lacking faith is a mistake.

Another amazing video from Answers in Genesis! Now I can help prove that carbon dating is infact false.

"We actually have a birth certificate for the earth. It's called the word of God."

Let's simplify even further. In mathematics you cannot take multiple variables and not use a true constant to come up with an answer that is accurate to anything constant. You must have a true constant to factor in any variable.

Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) was nominally Anglican Christian. He was married in an Anglican church and buried in Westminster Abbey.

I’ve always maintained decay rates have never been constant. They change based on environment, heat, cold, contamination, and time. There is also a chance in the beginning decay rates were much faster and have been getting slower over time, but in the limited time we have measured they appear stable but truthfully are getting slower

very good video

The decay constant is the probability of radioactive decay within a given amount of time. These are probabilities and given that one mole of atoms is roughly 6 x 10 raise to the 23 the probabilies are over time going to be accurate say uranium 238 with a 6.4 billion year half life means that there is a 50% chance or decay within 6.4 billion years. so roughly speaking that one mole of Uranium atoms will become a half mole over the next 6.4 billion years you can reduce that to a rate per second and it will be fairly constant.this is like flipping 6 x 10 to the 23 coins and every one that comes up heads is a decay. and it takes you 6.4 billion years to flip all those coins. now, while we don't know whether some unforeseen issue may change this rate, we has of yet not seen any long term changes in the 100+ yrs of this research. While on any given second more or less decays may occur, due to fact of random probability, we don't look at second to second, but over millions and billions of years. Say we flip 2 coins by probability 1 will be head and one tails, but occasionally we may get 2 heads in a row or 2 tails in a row. But as you go up in count hundreds thousands million billions the number of same heads coming up over and over averages out. Now get back to Genesis 1 God says before he even starts that there is already an earth of unknown billions or trillions of years old. Earth already exists. And it was desolate and void so Genesis 1 doesn't start with ex nihilio creation of the universe.

3:40. That's why radiation dating comes with an estimated +/- range of age not a specific date. In case the estimates are off either way.

This is a very valid discussion. My problem also is if each layer in sediment represents a period of time how do they explain fossils going through the different layers. I also have my own theory about the Pangea continent idea spouted as fact , in the bible it says that pre flood that people live almost 1000 years. My theory involves the change of molecular density, we all know gold and lead are more dense than sandstone or aluminium. I believe the whole world was more dense pre flood then as the earth expanded the continents drifted apart exposing people to more radioactive sun rays through the weakening of our magnetic field.

This makes a lot more sense than those ridiculous billions of years some scientists claim. Nice video. Thank you.

Can we get links to those articles about the volcanoes?