All his questions can be answered with one simple explanation: Geological history is not static, the Earth is a dynamic system that is constantly in motion. Hence, it is constantly changing
The other thing not static about geological history... our understanding of geological timeframes and the amount of time it takes for things to happen. Regardless there would need to be catastrophic revelations in geology to explain a 6,000 year old Earth. Even so as many Christians have stated already, they claim the Bible does not provide an age for the Earth. We don't have to bicker about the minutiae, we know Eric is very wrong.
A simpler explanation: lack of education with critical thinking process. The new religious problem is coupling stupidity with cherry picked tidbits of science. It used to be just faith but they started loosing that because, well, how many endtimes have come and gone now, lol?
You sir are correct. This is exactly the opposite of what evolutionists teach. They look at how slowly a particular rock is eroding and conclude it must be millions of years old because of how much has eroded. They do not consider that perhaps conditions may have been extremely different in the past.
This is about on the level of "well if there's people breathing for like thousands of years, why is there still oxygen!?" I feel like these people need handlers to not be a danger to themselves or others.
Unfortunately this is an example of the death throes in religion. The old ones cannot be persuaded by science or logic or evidence. The young ones still have enough critical thinking skills to doubt. Yet they so desperately want to believe, a result is peoppe desperately trying to have SOMETHING they can use to support their beliefs. This is why were seeing a mass exodus of religion around the world. It doesnt hold up to the science we do know, and continues to be disproven further and further as we learn more science. All religion will have left are the elderly and those who don't have critical thinking skills.
Indeed, these people are very much a danger to others. Many creationists took part in the January 6th attack on the capital. Of course, not everyone who stormed the capital was a creationist, and there were definitely creationists who openly and genuinely condemned the actions of Trump and the January 6th mob, but I'll bet creationists were well over represented among known January 6th rioters. The problem is that creationism is a conspiracy theory, and once you believe one conspiracy, it's easy to believe more. For example, if you believe the Smithsonian is hiding evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, it would be easy to also believe the 2020 election was stolen and lots of other right-wing fake news.
One of these fools once claimed that if life had been here for more than 6,000 years, we would have used up all the water already... He doesn't understand the Hydro-cycle...
Yeah, but it’s always the same argument with the biblical literalists. If you can’t actually SEE it in real time (evolution, erosion, expansion of the universe, etc) then it can’t possibly be happening that way because it conflicts with my holy book.
“I either don’t understand the information or I don’t know the information. So it can’t be true.” This is the underlying basis for all their arguments.
@Trevor Brannon The "Acasta Gneiss" is a rock from Canada that scientists have proven without a shadow of a doubt is 4.03 billion years old, so that gives us a pretty good baseline
@Trevor Brannon OK speaking as a Christian you're being a moron. Young Earthism relies on taking the Bible to such a literal degree it relies on treating pretty much everything else as an evil conspiracy (never forget: the Bible was penned by fallible humans, and humans are notorious for garbling messages. Throw in the fact the Book of Job is OLDER than Genesis, and I'm not going to take Genesis as strict historical fact). As for how they can prove it? Potasium-40 dating and Rubidium-87 dating. The half life of Rubidium-87 is 49 billion years, so measuring the ratio of rubidium in rock samples (of which there is a lot, it's about as common as zinc) lets is know how old they are, and this method will remain reliable for roughly a trillion years
@Trevor Brannon Dude just say you don't understand, because NOBODY has provided any evidence Cain and Abel existed outside of the bible or "dead sea scrolls" until someone can find ADAM AND EVES Gravesite and prove it with concrete irrifutble evidence itll be true, oh also when Jesus got crucified the romans had records about all that crap, last I checked a guy named Jesus was never at all in those documents, so either jesus went' by a different name, or he flat out did not exist.
As a geologist and geochronologist (and nominally a Christian I may add), this just irritates me beyond belief. The so-called facts that the creationist states are wrong through and through. All radioactive (parent) isotopes decay exponentially, and therefore can never reach zero in any mineral. Even 14C , which has a half-life of 5730 years, will never reach zero content. Dan mentions K-Ar, but we have U-Pb which is much more reliable for studies of deep time. IN U-Pb dating We have two long-lived, radioactive isotopes (238U and 235U) which decay at different rates to give two separate isotopes of Pb (238U -> 206Pb and 235U -> 207Pb). Minerals such as zircon and monazite have high-U contents (hundreds of ppm to wt% levels) and contain no initial Pb to begin with. Therefore, all of the Pb present in these minerals is due to radioactive decay. Thus, we have two radiometric dating "clocks" in a single mineral. The oldest zircons dated on Earth are 4.404 billion years old. These are detrital zircons, i.e. grains of sand, from the Jack Hills formation in Western Australia. The oldest rock dated on Earth is the Acasta gneiss, NWT, Canada which is 4.031 billion years old. We also have ages of lunar anorthosites that are about 4.3 to 4.4 billion years old, and chondritic meteorites have been dated at 4.567 billion years old, which are the oldest objects in the solar system. In short, the Solar System is about 4.6 billion years old.
I only understood 1/3 or so of that, but hearing similar arguments from various other sources helps with the validity. Isn't it just hilarious how people who say "carbon/radiometric dating is flawed" have no idea how that dating system works?
@@jasonsabbath6996 When he was small, sure. But he's had ample opportunity to correct his misunderstanding now. He only professes that position because the scam worked for his dad and now it works for him.
Eric clearly doesn’t understand how half life works. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5,730 years. Why would he expect all the C14 in diamonds to be gone in 10,000 years?
@@Brett-yq7pj the concept of cycle kinda implies that something within it causes it to start again. Unless that something is a finite resource, the cycle is self sustaining pretty much by definition. In the case of the erosion cycle, the rock that gets eroded, eventually goes on to become new rock. And, as the old rock erodes, the new rock gets exposed. Thus, self sustaining.
And that tiny thing we could do already in 1960s ... For six months in the summer and fall of 1969, Niagara's American Falls were “de-watered”, as the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a geological survey of the falls' rock face, concerned that it was becoming destabilized by erosion ... we can "repair" the edge of that waterfall if we want to , its not in natural state anymore ... other time Niagara falls was without water was in 30 March 1848 by a massive pile up of ice in the river .
The amount of times he forgets that not everything was formed at the very beginning of the earth is mind-blowing to me. Diamonds and rock arches both formed after the earth
Reminds me of a recent post by McToon, featured a flerf who spent 2 bucks on a superchat to show he doesn't understand how math works(it was about spherical excess)
As a Christian, these people are SO EMBARRASSING. There is literally no point in having this argument. For people seemingly looking for the truth, they are working backwards. They have an idea and look for evidence to support it when it should be the other way around. They seem to take it as if discerning the nature of our reality is a direct attack against their beliefs. If so, those beliefs should change because they are false. A friend of mine worded this beautifully and I have to use her exact words as to why faith and science DO NOT NEED TO BE at odds with each other. And should not be: "Science tells us the how, faith tells us the why." Or, in other words, science can tell us the nature of creation, and faith tells us the nature of the creator. Because, listen. You do not have to believe in what I do. But, I do want to make clear that these people who claim you can't be religious and believe in science or something to that nature, are simply wrong. They make it seem as if there are only two types of people out there: religious and ignore science or non-religious and accept science. "Oh, but the Bible says--" It's the BIBLE. It's not a scientific text nor was ever meant to be! It is a RELIGIOUS text.
Well, thank you for being somewhat sensible. Bravo. I have to disagree, though, that "Science tells us the how, faith tells us the why." I would posit that faith doesn't TELL us anything. It's a license to believe things without evidence. A quick look at the massive variation (contradictory to boot) in what people have "faith" in informs us of that. Yes, "faith" may give, to some people, hope and comfort. I personally don't really understand that (why does believing in things without evidence "comfort" anyone?), but if that's the case, great. Enjoy the hope and comfort that unsubstantiated belief gives you. I'll stick to what can be shown true, and not just believe something 'cause it makes me feel good.
Thank you for this! Our last pastor was convinced that evolution was some evil lie of the devil or something and my parents always get after me whenever I use the word "evolution". Fortunately, I do not let their behavior turn me away from God, or a more sensible view of the world. Science itself is very important in understanding the world we live in, but should not be seen as being at odds with Faith. This leads to a more modern view of science which was taken over by people who wanted to use it as a weapon to "disprove" God (and indeed, any religion at all).
Blame his dad. "Son, don't believe anything you learn in, and out of, school. It's all lies. I will tell you the truth and you will believe me no matter what."
Is not it a cornerstone of any religion? Religious beliefs won't stand if they were not backed by an absolute confidence and total disregard to facts and reason. This one is just far too obvious, but every single believer on Earth is guilty of the same.
I wonder if 6000 years ago people were claiming the earth was created yesterday, and their parents who had been around for many years and had to birth that fool were just like, sure it was son….sure it was…
@Trevor Brannon I will say this once, then ignore every silly reply you make. Prove your god exists and we can discuss how it created everything. Otherwise, have a good one.
@Trevor Brannon If you say a God exists, then you will gladly provide the proof. He didn't prove any point of yours. There is definitely evidence that the earth is billions of years old, you just don't bother to do the research because you don't believe it. Nobody has to prove this to you when you can look it up yourself. Ice core samples, carbon dating, etc. And to say the dinosaur bones we dug up were all put there for photos after making them out of plaster.....that's just shit you're making up that nobody here actually believes. Maybe prove that too since you made the statement. I'm not making any kind of statement fyi, besides the fact that evidence exists online for everyone's eyes. Ignoring your silly arguments doesn't prove you're right about anything.
I think he's confusing the limitation of carbon 14 dating with carbon 14 not existing beyond that limitation. It's just that the numbers are too small once you hit a certain date to reliably measure the age, not that they have disappeared completely.
Eric and Kent are not confused about how isotopes decay. They deliberately use any results of C14 isotopic analysis to further their 6000 year young earth. Is it a coincidence the half life of C14 (~5700 years) is about the same length of time as the young earth?
I don't think he's confusing anything. It's actually a common tactic among YECs. They misrepresent almost everything about C14 dating, then use that misinterpretation to cast doubt among their followers.
Tiny amounts of C14 are also effected by other elements decaying and converting small amounts of C12 into C14, for millions of years. These radioactive elements are also part of why C14 radiometric dating is limited.
In diamonds, C14 decays into N14. That N14 stay trapped into the diamond. Later, some external radiation or cosmic rays can convert that N14 back into C14. That, if there is a neutron source nearby, C12 and C13 atoms can capture them and get changed into C14. So, the C14 can get refreshed and new C14 can form in existing diamonds that are over a billion years old.
This is interesting. A Christian relative tried to debate with me at a family Thanksgiving dinner about creation and he said that the Earth is 6000 years old. I asked him why certain geological features of our earth are older than 6000 years old, and he said that when God created the earth, he made some things look older than they were. So I asked him how can he be sure that creation began 6000 years old and not 5 minutes ago, and he didn't have an answer
To answer your question, as a Christian, the reason why we calculate to 6,000 years and not 5 minutes is because if you were to add up all the years in the genealogy from Adam to Abraham is 2000 years, then Abraham to Jesus is another 2000 years and Jesus then to today is another 2000 which adds up to 6,000 years. I believe the young earth theory is very silly, and believe the science behind the age of everything, BUT I do believe God’s plan for mankind is 7000 years. So not saying the earth is 6,000 years old, I’m saying I believe mankind has been around for 6,000 years, but I’m gonna bet you don’t believe that. That’s just what I believe. So that is the answer as to what your relative should have probably answered during your thanksgiving dinner. Good question btw.
@@Michael-p8z6o thats innacurate the geneaologies dont teach that also not to mention the Days can be taken as periods because the word used yom can mean a period + Adam was not the first human
@user-mb8wq3kr6i If God is omnipotent and could have created fossils, etc. to make the Earth appear order, then He could have created all of human history - including the Bible - five minutes ago, and we'd never know. That's absurd, of course. But so is the notion that the Earth and the plants and animals existed for hundreds of millions of years and humans suddenly appeared 6000 years ago. One would have to assert that the first six days in Genesis 1 lasted millions of our years, while He created humans only in the very last instant on the sixth day. It's much more likely that those genealogies are fictitious or highly incomplete.
@@Michael-p8z6owell it’s talking about the creation of humanity with human souls in Genesis, Adam is the first human with a human soul and as we see, we see civilizations forming and lots of human life happening over 5k years ago so it aligns about well, Genesis never suggests the earth however is 6k years old, the 6 day creation account in Genesis one is referring to stages of creation of how the earth came to be in stages and it uses days to reach the 7th day and emphasize the holiness and important of the sabbath day, it would have been way harder to get that message out there if God was mentioning billions upon billions of years, it was unnecessary for the Israelites at the time In Exodus 20:8-11 it does a pretty good job emphasizing this importance and why specifically the creation account is outlined in 7 days, it isn’t suppose to be taken literally how the earth was created in a literal 24 hour time frame for 7 days
@@corporatecapitalism it isn't nature it's nurture and as he he was brought up in an actual cult compound it was almost impossible that he would turn out sane.
"We know the Earth is 6,000 Years old because we have this Rock that is 100,000 Years old, this clearly proves the Earth is 6,000 Years old". I am not sure if I did Mathematics correctly, but if I remember rightly, 100,000 is BIGGER than 6,000, I mean I might be wrong but I do not think I am.
"Why do 'they' say Niagara Falls has been eroding for 12,300 years when Earth is supposedly billions of years old? This proves that Earth is 6,000 years old." 😵💫
Those diamonds were put there to test your faith. An all knowing creator can make anything appear any age... Even though it's definitely 6000. It says so in the bible... I read it in the marginal notes 😉
@@luetheler8867 see im a christian right, when i was younger, about 10 years old or so, i believed in a young earth and pretty much saw kent hovinds word as the gospel itself rofl, but then at about 14-15 i actually decided to compile a bunch of different opinions and figured that it is far more logical that the earth, and even the universe are far older than the young earth model, (that the days in the bible in hebrew doesn't only translate directly to days, but has other meanings such as 7 'long periods of time'. Now i look back on videos like these glad that i decided to actually challenge my views. Although im still a christian, not all of us are illogical radical fanatics.
I’m glad you specify young earth creationist. Just because a lot of people would click bait this, “Christian says” or “Creationist says”. But that doesn’t properly represent those groups. Many people believe there is a God behind science and the laws of nature and creation of the universe. But don’t believe the earth is young.
@@gryph01 there was a TH-camr named Nephlilim Free who really said dinosaur fossils were holograms invented by Lucifer to "tempt man away from his creator" And that his prayers to god "cured" his wife's multiple sclerosis
Imagine the gentle, yet turbulent, waters of "the flood" not disturbing the many layers of sediment laid down by the same flood responsible for carving the Grand Canyon in a week.
The solar system has gone though a oxygen cloud and then a hydrogen cloud. This makes the sea-level rise fast without precipitation. Still need to figure something out to have it al disappear and go back to the initial situation. 😁
@@MaeljinRajah There was a land breach around that time, leaving the Bosporus. But I might be mistaken. It's probably highly obfuscated verbally spread history, like Gilgamesh. Nobody could read. In 1000 years, there's not much left of any local event in tellings.
@@manuell3505 Hydrogen and oxygen priduce a lot of heat when they combine, and exothermic reaction. That's what I meant to say. If you ignite hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you produce water. But you need a lot of heat to make the reaction fast enough (not thousands of years).
A friend from the Indian subcontinent answered one of the " 6000 yr old earth " people that was bugging him by saying " my family and cultural has existed and has written records to show for it .
Please edit to make sense. I think you're saying that the 6,000 year supposed age of Earth is actually shorter than written history, which is very true. I've read the inscription on a piece of pottery more than 12,000 years old.
@@RockinRobbins13 nah we could certainly not write 12 thousand years ago. The earliest scrolls or clay tablets we have are from 5 thousand years ago. Or a bit older. But still. Fossils disprove young earth instantaneously.
@@Just-a-Orion-on-the-internet. Again, I personally read the inscription on a vase more than 12,000 years old. It wasn't a sentence, it was an idea. But it WAS a meaningful inscription. That day a philologist blew my mind and even pronounced the symbol.
So many of humanity's problems in one man. You can debunk the things these people say all day, they can even see that the debunk is correct, and they will still cling to their "belief". It's not about what they actually believe, it's about tribalism. They have a team, saying they believe something is how they show their loyalty to their team, and they want to feel that their team is special. It's not about fact, it's about feeling.
that creationist is the kind of person who becomes a manager and tells employees he hires "we are a family here" then proceeds to underpay them and treat them like sub humans
@@2511jeremy The guy who believes his imaginary friend created the earth and all people ignores the consequences and great harm this childish story perpetuates,and has done for centuries.When your god created the people of earth,why are there Muslims,Hindus etc.?Why are you right,and the majority of the earths population wrong?PS:nothing blew up and created life?Wow!What a display of total ignorance.Only a mind like that could go from a stolen corpse of an executed criminal,and conclude that the man had actually come back to life and presumably flown up to a magic happy place in the sky.What a shame it all took place in a child's imagination.
As someone who has lived near Niagara Falls my whole life, and lived half a century, I can tell you they have moved. A lot of other things have, but on the Canadian side, they have had to build new walls to keep people from leaning over.
Once again , and as always It's a classic example of someone talking , very confidently , about a topic , of which they know either very little or nothing . The less the know , the more confident they are . And this guy is confident OK. Yes... Dunning Kruger...
Hopefully he only inherited the bad science and con artistry of his dad (since that was all he was taught) and won't continue the abusive, criminal, exploitative, and enabling grossness his dad did...
Well, this guy introduced me to a couple of new terms - "creation rock" and "judgement rock" (or as I might call it, "Dammit I made a mess of creating those humans; I need a do-over before I get recalled for incompetence" rock) He also introduced a novel (mis)pronunciation of "bioturbation."
Erich von Daniken has a lot to answer for. He popularised the idea that asking questions and challenging accepted ideas was the same as being intelligent. This fella proves that the reverse is often true.
To be fair, for any given level of accepted knowledge, sceptics have always existed. Which is why we have modern science, not just religious dogma and fairytales. The idea that the Earth goes around the sun was heretical at the time, like so many other things we now accept as the truth. But people can always twist things to fit their ideas and beliefs. It's not intelligence that is missing, it's the willingness to consider what you believe may be wrong.
I went to church with this guy and his father. They are crazier in person! BUT they did teach me how to shoot a rubber band pretty far so that's cool I guess.
These people think the Earth is just a static ecosystem, never changing and nothing ever forming or be g destroyed. That kind of thinking takes more energy to reject logic than it does to just use it and it shows just how little they were taught or learned growing up, it’s more sad than anything.
@@seasonedbeefs wrong again mate. Opinions put out as "facts" have caused more trouble than just about anything else ( see the holocaust for example) and take gullible and or stupid people in until they end up voting for a piece of shite like Trump.
I think some percentage of human teenagers are genetically programmed (by evolution) to reject their parents indoctrination and believe the opposite. This is essential for the survival of human civilization. Otherwise we'd all mindlessly accept the Grand Wazoo or something and society would stagnate. In other words some of us are born to think for ourselves and question authority, and to hide that fact until we are old enough to form our own tribe.
@@mrpositronia he was more than academically abused by his dad... I have no idea why he would want to follow in his dad's footsteps but it might be the only thing he knows.
@@mrpositronia Yeah as CelestialAnamoly said, he was absolutely verbally, emotionally and physically abusive to his children - he tells a tale of beating Eric for being scared at the dentist and squirming in the chair, rather than comforting, so he was more scare of Kent if he didn't sit still than he was of what the dentist was going to do. And he LAUGHS at it. He thinks it's a funny story of parental discipline. And he's committed DV on his partners too so yeah. Daddy Grifter is the worst.
Great of him to admit that he has a problem, it seems mostly a mixture of personal incredulity and cherry picking. Oh he also has a good smattering of not knowing his arse from his elbow. Thanks Dan and keep up the good work.
It never ceases to disappoint me the way that some folks want to leverage certain aspects of science to support their claims, but only those certain aspects, basically putting on a pretense of science while using what they want in the least scientific way possible. As I was listening to him go on, I also caught the "in a steady state" wording. Good catch. Growing up around the Great Lakes, we learned very early about the fact that many of these features were a direct result of the glacier advancing and then receding all ending at about less than 20,000 years ago (which seems to fit the erosion for 12,000+ years pretty well.) Then he goes on about erosion, but completely ignores tectonic activity (as well as using the bogus claim that North America could be eroded completely in 10,000 years. One wonders just where he got _that_ figure.) Then he goes into Carbon 14 in diamonds. You were right to be skeptical of this claim, some research on my part shows that Carbon 14 is _not_ found in diamonds. Where did he get the idea that it was? I suspect he heard this from someone else who heard it from someone else. Sometimes these folks sound like the results of a really bad game of telephone. Ultimately, I think it all comes down to that "steady state" fallacy from the first part. He assumes that the arches have always existed instead of being formed some lesser time ago by the erosion process. He fails to show any evidence that they're older than they should be, simply saying that they are. One minor beef: You said at one point, "12,000 years is still twice as long as what the Bible claims as the age of the Earth." What should be said is "12,000 years is still twice as long as the particular reading of the Bible these folks are using claims as the age of the Earth." (And you did say just that later on.) Why parse words? Well, the Bible really doesn't make the claim. Modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of science generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older. The fault really lies with James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armag, who wrote a "chronology" in 1650 which fell into disrepute in the 19th century except in the minds a small set of later fundamentalists. The 6000-year-old claim requires both absolutely literal interpretation of the times actually given and some very specific interpolation when times are not given.
@@kidwave1 Where did you come by this information and why do you consider it credible? One notable problem with what you said is obvious if you know Latin. Lucifer means "light-bearer" while lucis simply means "light." Thus, the two are related by only because one is a root of the name. So, A.L. means "in the year of light" not "in the year of Lucifer."
@@2511jeremy As opposed to the people who believe that their imaginary friend in the sky could feed thousands of people with some loaves of bread and a few fish.On top of which we are asked to credit the notion of a dead man coming back to life,for what purpose who can say?
@@2511jeremy this year is 2023 in christian based calendars,the highest selling books are generally works of fiction,enjoyed so widely perhaps because they provide an imaginary outlet for their fears and anxieties,an escape from reality.I would imagine it could be extremely damaging for people to transfer their fictional concepts into reality,day to day lives.If the book that eventually sells more copies(not much of a guide to their accuracy)is,say,a harry potter fairy story,the number sold will not change that fairy story into an accurate representation of history.
Like all of these types of people, his entire belief system is built on: 1) "It doesn't make sense." 2) Using science incorrectly and saying "Then how come...."
YEC can’t agree on which rocks are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood. Different groups will look at the same rock layers and claim they were laid down different ways. At least one of the groups will disagree that the uncomformity he showed was created by the flood (eg, the bottom layer was created, the top layers were natural deposition (not flooding), and flood deposition doesn’t occur till you get into macrofossils). The groups contradict each other and their claims fail based on their own internal logic. It reminds me how two main YEC institutes independently made charts showing which hominid fossils were fully ape and which were fully human. When the charts were compared it showed what one group said were fully ape the other said were fully human, and vice-versa. That’s a slightly ironic way of confirming the fossils showed intermediate features of both ape and human, the very thing they were disputing.
Best video I watched today. I love it when people make videos about something, but have no idea what they are talking about, but think they know it all. Thanks for doing this video and showing "real" science. Stay safe
Oh for F's sake... I have only taken freshman classes in geology and is by no means an expert but every thing this creationist questions are easily answered. So all he shows is that he hasn't actually read any geology books at all.
I don't feel bad for them at all. It is far to common to find, upon scraping of the top layer, they are despicable to the core. cf. Matt What"sHisName of inflatable banana fame. Calling him despicable is to praise him with faint damnation.
You feel bad for people who don't believe nothing came into nothing and blew up to create life.... and the only reasoning you have is billions of years what a ignorant veiw you clowns will believe anything
Takes alot more faith to believe nothing came into nothing and blew up and created life then it does to believe theres a god but be ignorant and think that sets you free
@@2511jeremy Well then, glad most atheists don't believe in that, either. We are perfectly capable in admitting that we simply don't know some things. That's what it means to have as little faith as possible. But at least I'm glad you admit that having faith in things isn't reasobable.
@@2511jeremy lol. Wtf. Like, wtf. Truly, wtf. Think about what you are saying. You believe a magic sky daddy snapped his fingers and literally *willed* everything we know in to existence. Step back and think about THAT, before you claim "something came from nothing".
He literally disproved his own theory in the first min. The level of ignorance flat earthers and people alike have is unmatched. It is truly fascinating.
It's been a while but if I remember correctly, c14 in diamonds can be a decay product. Can't remember what from but it's probably from one of the many impurities they contain. It's formation is probably triggered by a nearby radiation source sometime after the diamonds have formed.
Radioactive decay can send Neutrons careening through matter and it might stop inside the dense lattice of a diamond causing impurities like C14. Alternatively C14 can be created by ionizing radiation, the result of high energy photons reconfiguring the Carbon lattice of a diamond. That makes radiocarbon dating diamonds fairly useless in my opinion. It is more interesting using other forms of radioactive dating when looking at crystalline structures thought to be formed far away from radioactive decay and not easily affected or created by ionizing radiation.
There three probable causes that I’m aware of. Local radiation in the diamond environment converts nitrogen in the diamond to C14. Secondly some C14 measurements measure decay particles rather than C14 directly, these can be confused by other atoms than C14 decaying. Finally C14 have a base background measurement due to equipment limitations.
Ouch. They cherry pick pretty much everything. I don't engage with these types any longer. Avoid religious fantasy at all costs. Their faith is a badge of honor they'll never give up. That's how cults work.
@@Patrik6920 that's actually a quote from the classic 1960s film 'Inherit the wind'. A great film based on the Scopes 'Monkey' trial. Brilliant cast and acting....
@CD Character in the Eric with Erica videos he said he was home schooled, but I guess for the anecdote he was using at the time it only had to be a year or two of home schooling...
People groomed into this bizarre belief are often open to other untruths. YECs tend to have deeply unpleasant right wing views because their pastor and their media tells them to think that way. Hope your friend can escape the cultish elements.
"partially fossilised and partially not fossilised, sometimes within the same bone..." That is a sentence by a person who really loves the sound of their own voice(s).
Yeah, I feel stupid just listening to the guy in this video. I know how to debunk everything he says, but I know it would just fall on deaf ears. It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled. He just needs to be sent back to middle school, because he seems confused by topics even little children are easily able to comprehend.
Ever heard of "they a dragging you down to their level and beat you with experience"? That's meant not only for one debate, they are working on dragging you down for the rest of your life.
@GeologyNick actually does a great job explaining the "Great Unconformity" layer in his geology lectures. I highly recommend watching his lectures for a dive into North American geology - specifically as it relates to the Pacific Northwest.
To be fair to the bible, nowhere in the text does it state the age of the earth. That was a 17th Century literalist called James Ussher who 'calculated' the age at 6,000 years.
Sir Isaac Newton attempted to calculate the age of the Earth using Biblical genealogies. Calculating the age of the Earth was a "thing" in those days. Kepler also engaged in such calculations. These were times when people treated the Bible as a historically accurate record. I believe Newton reached a date about 4000 B.C.
@Michael Eco Actually, this was mostly a guessing game where you look at the genealogies in the Bible, guess how long each generation lived, taking into account the rather long lifetimes attributed to some celebrated Old Testament characters, and assorted other bits and pieces from what was thought to be known of the history of the Near East, and then total up everything and keep your fingers firmly crossed. Of course you have a problem right off the bat with the rather uncomfortable fact that the Bible gives two different genealogies for Jesus. Lame attempts to reconcile this with the idea that one is his paternal and one his maternal fail for the simple reason that the Jewish people did not make any use of a maternal genealogy, oops. BTW, Usher gave his result down to the day and time of day, October 23, 4004 B.C. on the evening preceeding that first day.
@@someolddude3858 It's a guessing game because the Bible has different genealogies and it contradicts itself in many places. This is not a good argument for the Bible. Taking the most liberal interpretation of the Bible, it's still only a few thousand years, and proven wrong by basic science.
By the very definition of half-life, exponential decaying isotopes will always be there. Dividing by 2 will get you closer and closer to zero but never hit zero.
The behavior of individual unstable atoms is not predictable. Create two atoms of C14. One could break down in a tenth of a second. The other could last a million years. Statistically, half of it will be turned to other things in it's half-life. But you can't predict the behavior of any one atom. No, he wouldn't understand half-life and wouldn't accept it if he did understand.
"Niagara Falls should have eroded more!" Hand that fool a piece of dolomite rock* and a garden hose and tell him to get "eroding". - * the stone in the Niagara gorge is dolomite over shale (Dolomite is a 3.5 to 4 on the Mohs scale, harder than marble. Shale is at 3 on that scale)
@@paulasmith9881 Last time I checked... 6000 was a LOT less than 100,000. And he didn't give a single reason why 6000 was correct, except just a magical "flood story" which makes no sense whatsoever...
@@2511jeremy Creationist be like, a magical sky daddy got bored one day, created and entire universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago, despite mountains of evidence that the earth is 6 Billion years old, and we can see light millions of light years away, despite the universe being 6000 years old. And we haven't talked about the 950 year old farmer that built a boat, and took 12 million animals on a cruise for 6 months...
i wonder what his thoughts on plate tectonics are? that sounds like a pretty entertaining way to spend some time... As they say, no such thing as a stupid question, unless you're a young earth creationist.
I hope you're sitting down. At least some young earth creationists ( yec ) believe that the last super continent broke apart during the year of Noah's flood, resulting in the present configuration of the continents. Scientifically this belief raises a few problems. For in- depth discussion and debunking of this yec nonsense I recommend looking up 'Gutsick Gibbon.' She does a good, entertaining job. Spoiler alert if you haven't fallen down the yec rabbit hole. Did you know that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark? Good luck, stay alert, and keep your tin foil hat ready at all times.
well im one of those nutbags because i dont believe in a flat earth, believe nasa are faking all content, not a tak toker app user (whatever its called) and I lack critical thought . . according to a peer of mine. wait . . .am i the nutbag here?
Not sure there's a direct correlation between Dan's likes per video and creationist or flat earth content. If anything, wouldn't his videos getting less likes or attention be better for crazies like Hovind?
All his questions can be answered with one simple explanation:
Geological history is not static, the Earth is a dynamic system that is constantly in motion. Hence, it is constantly changing
The other thing not static about geological history... our understanding of geological timeframes and the amount of time it takes for things to happen.
Regardless there would need to be catastrophic revelations in geology to explain a 6,000 year old Earth. Even so as many Christians have stated already, they claim the Bible does not provide an age for the Earth.
We don't have to bicker about the minutiae, we know Eric is very wrong.
also, rock and stone are both being created and destroyed from older rocks
Why did I read this with the voice of Prof. Dave? 😂
A simpler explanation: lack of education with critical thinking process.
The new religious problem is coupling stupidity with cherry picked tidbits of science. It used to be just faith but they started loosing that because, well, how many endtimes have come and gone now, lol?
You sir are correct. This is exactly the opposite of what evolutionists teach. They look at how slowly a particular rock is eroding and conclude it must be millions of years old because of how much has eroded. They do not consider that perhaps conditions may have been extremely different in the past.
He says we’ve lost half a billion years of rock, but the world is only about 6000 years old. There’s a lot of fools out there.
He means half a billion if you were believing what science says about how old the layers are
@@sarasmith6707 so how does he explain the radiometric dating which can go back 100,000 years? 🤔
@@cornellkirk8946 Isochron dating can go back billions of years.
In all fairness he said "half a billion years of geologic years". Implying "years inferred from geology as geologists would calculate it".
One thing he missed completely: Where does the eroded matter go? It doesn't simply vanish. It would settle down somwhere else.
This is about on the level of "well if there's people breathing for like thousands of years, why is there still oxygen!?" I feel like these people need handlers to not be a danger to themselves or others.
Unfortunately this is an example of the death throes in religion.
The old ones cannot be persuaded by science or logic or evidence. The young ones still have enough critical thinking skills to doubt. Yet they so desperately want to believe, a result is peoppe desperately trying to have SOMETHING they can use to support their beliefs.
This is why were seeing a mass exodus of religion around the world. It doesnt hold up to the science we do know, and continues to be disproven further and further as we learn more science.
All religion will have left are the elderly and those who don't have critical thinking skills.
If ppl and animals have been farting for millions of years, why isn't the atmosphere made up of farts?
@@capusvacans ooh nice one 😁
Indeed, these people are very much a danger to others. Many creationists took part in the January 6th attack on the capital. Of course, not everyone who stormed the capital was a creationist, and there were definitely creationists who openly and genuinely condemned the actions of Trump and the January 6th mob, but I'll bet creationists were well over represented among known January 6th rioters. The problem is that creationism is a conspiracy theory, and once you believe one conspiracy, it's easy to believe more. For example, if you believe the Smithsonian is hiding evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, it would be easy to also believe the 2020 election was stolen and lots of other right-wing fake news.
One of these fools once claimed that if life had been here for more than 6,000 years, we would have used up all the water already... He doesn't understand the Hydro-cycle...
I love the rock arch erosion logic. "If a car goes from point A to point B in a hour, how can there be cars on the road after 2h?"
Very good one, lol
..mind boggling ...😁😁😁😁
I love how his entier argument can be debunct by just saying “new one can form”.
Ignorant evolutionists be like dude nothing can blow up and when this nothing blows up it creats life duh
Yeah, but it’s always the same argument with the biblical literalists. If you can’t actually SEE it in real time (evolution, erosion, expansion of the universe, etc) then it can’t possibly be happening that way because it conflicts with my holy book.
“I either don’t understand the information or I don’t know the information. So it can’t be true.”
This is the underlying basis for all their arguments.
Which gets really depressing when they start applying it to socioeconomic politics
Evolutionists be like nothing can blow up bro and when this nothing blows up it creates life bro like i have 3 stds but theres no way there is a god
@Trevor Brannon The "Acasta Gneiss" is a rock from Canada that scientists have proven without a shadow of a doubt is 4.03 billion years old, so that gives us a pretty good baseline
@Trevor Brannon OK speaking as a Christian you're being a moron. Young Earthism relies on taking the Bible to such a literal degree it relies on treating pretty much everything else as an evil conspiracy (never forget: the Bible was penned by fallible humans, and humans are notorious for garbling messages. Throw in the fact the Book of Job is OLDER than Genesis, and I'm not going to take Genesis as strict historical fact).
As for how they can prove it? Potasium-40 dating and Rubidium-87 dating. The half life of Rubidium-87 is 49 billion years, so measuring the ratio of rubidium in rock samples (of which there is a lot, it's about as common as zinc) lets is know how old they are, and this method will remain reliable for roughly a trillion years
@Trevor Brannon Dude just say you don't understand, because NOBODY has provided any evidence Cain and Abel existed outside of the bible or "dead sea scrolls" until someone can find ADAM AND EVES Gravesite and prove it with concrete irrifutble evidence itll be true, oh also when Jesus got crucified the romans had records about all that crap, last I checked a guy named Jesus was never at all in those documents, so either jesus went' by a different name, or he flat out did not exist.
As a geologist and geochronologist (and nominally a Christian I may add), this just irritates me beyond belief. The so-called facts that the creationist states are wrong through and through. All radioactive (parent) isotopes decay exponentially, and therefore can never reach zero in any mineral. Even 14C , which has a half-life of 5730 years, will never reach zero content. Dan mentions K-Ar, but we have U-Pb which is much more reliable for studies of deep time. IN U-Pb dating We have two long-lived, radioactive isotopes (238U and 235U) which decay at different rates to give two separate isotopes of Pb (238U -> 206Pb and 235U -> 207Pb). Minerals such as zircon and monazite have high-U contents (hundreds of ppm to wt% levels) and contain no initial Pb to begin with. Therefore, all of the Pb present in these minerals is due to radioactive decay. Thus, we have two radiometric dating "clocks" in a single mineral. The oldest zircons dated on Earth are 4.404 billion years old. These are detrital zircons, i.e. grains of sand, from the Jack Hills formation in Western Australia. The oldest rock dated on Earth is the Acasta gneiss, NWT, Canada which is 4.031 billion years old. We also have ages of lunar anorthosites that are about 4.3 to 4.4 billion years old, and chondritic meteorites have been dated at 4.567 billion years old, which are the oldest objects in the solar system. In short, the Solar System is about 4.6 billion years old.
What is nominally christian?
Yeah you lost me at geologist. Hahaha
@@nickNcarNon-practising Christian I believe..
I only understood 1/3 or so of that, but hearing similar arguments from various other sources helps with the validity.
Isn't it just hilarious how people who say "carbon/radiometric dating is flawed" have no idea how that dating system works?
Brilliant!
Eric's video should be titled, "how to tell you I don't know squat about science, without actually telling you I don't".
To be fair to Eric, he probably learned science from his ridiculously unintelligent father Kent. Might not be all his fault.
@@jasonsabbath6996 When he was small, sure. But he's had ample opportunity to correct his misunderstanding now. He only professes that position because the scam worked for his dad and now it works for him.
"Where to buy the best burgers in NA" doesn't get as many views i spose
Eric clearly doesn’t understand how half life works. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5,730 years. Why would he expect all the C14 in diamonds to be gone in 10,000 years?
Just when I thought tiktok catch phrases wouldn't make it in TH-cam I was proven wrong, and not by a flat earther.
I think his biggest failure is to understand that erosion is a cycle and that cycles tend to be self sustaining.
exactly - erosion creates the arches as well as destroys them.
I have had a few cycles that definitely weren't self sustained
@@Brett-yq7pj the concept of cycle kinda implies that something within it causes it to start again. Unless that something is a finite resource, the cycle is self sustaining pretty much by definition.
In the case of the erosion cycle, the rock that gets eroded, eventually goes on to become new rock. And, as the old rock erodes, the new rock gets exposed. Thus, self sustaining.
Eric would ask where the pedals, chain and wheels are on the erosion cycle.
And that tiny thing we could do already in 1960s ... For six months in the summer and fall of 1969, Niagara's American Falls were “de-watered”, as the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a geological survey of the falls' rock face, concerned that it was becoming destabilized by erosion ... we can "repair" the edge of that waterfall if we want to , its not in natural state anymore ... other time Niagara falls was without water was in 30 March 1848 by a massive pile up of ice in the river .
The amount of times he forgets that not everything was formed at the very beginning of the earth is mind-blowing to me. Diamonds and rock arches both formed after the earth
Formed from what?
@@tomislavnovakovic4798 diamonds from carbon and rock arches from rock, what kinda question even is that?
People will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate their ignorance.
And don't forget the huge amount of mental gymnastics necessary to justify the absurdity of the belief in their "god(s)".
i mean yeah. Trump became president.
Reminds me of a recent post by McToon, featured a flerf who spent 2 bucks on a superchat to show he doesn't understand how math works(it was about spherical excess)
Narcissists will go to extraordinary lengths in order to get some attention. Ignore what they say or do, it's attention they want/ crave/ need.
@@beemixsy the hovids are like the ickes, sociopaths!
If the earth is 6k years old, we advanced real quick to build the Pyramids!!
exactly
That was aliens
The earth is older. Im Christian and beleive God has no form of time, if 6 days took to create the universe...
That's because the creation was perfect right away 😂
Was a speed run bruh, not that hard to understand
As a Christian, these people are SO EMBARRASSING. There is literally no point in having this argument. For people seemingly looking for the truth, they are working backwards. They have an idea and look for evidence to support it when it should be the other way around. They seem to take it as if discerning the nature of our reality is a direct attack against their beliefs. If so, those beliefs should change because they are false.
A friend of mine worded this beautifully and I have to use her exact words as to why faith and science DO NOT NEED TO BE at odds with each other. And should not be: "Science tells us the how, faith tells us the why." Or, in other words, science can tell us the nature of creation, and faith tells us the nature of the creator.
Because, listen. You do not have to believe in what I do. But, I do want to make clear that these people who claim you can't be religious and believe in science or something to that nature, are simply wrong. They make it seem as if there are only two types of people out there: religious and ignore science or non-religious and accept science.
"Oh, but the Bible says--"
It's the BIBLE. It's not a scientific text nor was ever meant to be! It is a RELIGIOUS text.
Absolutely 👍
Love the comment ❤
Well, thank you for being somewhat sensible. Bravo. I have to disagree, though, that "Science tells us the how, faith tells us the why." I would posit that faith doesn't TELL us anything. It's a license to believe things without evidence. A quick look at the massive variation (contradictory to boot) in what people have "faith" in informs us of that.
Yes, "faith" may give, to some people, hope and comfort. I personally don't really understand that (why does believing in things without evidence "comfort" anyone?), but if that's the case, great. Enjoy the hope and comfort that unsubstantiated belief gives you. I'll stick to what can be shown true, and not just believe something 'cause it makes me feel good.
Thank you for this! Our last pastor was convinced that evolution was some evil lie of the devil or something and my parents always get after me whenever I use the word "evolution". Fortunately, I do not let their behavior turn me away from God, or a more sensible view of the world.
Science itself is very important in understanding the world we live in, but should not be seen as being at odds with Faith. This leads to a more modern view of science which was taken over by people who wanted to use it as a weapon to "disprove" God (and indeed, any religion at all).
The dunning-kruger effect is strong in this one.... The way he's getting everything wrong with absolute confidence is a shameful sight to see.
Blame his dad. "Son, don't believe anything you learn in, and out of, school. It's all lies. I will tell you the truth and you will believe me no matter what."
Believers are very good at that. they've done their own research.
Pffft! Dunning Kruger is a movie myth.
You can die in real life if someone kills you in a dream, that's just stupid.
😉
I wonder if dunning-kruger effect is connected with narcissism
Is not it a cornerstone of any religion? Religious beliefs won't stand if they were not backed by an absolute confidence and total disregard to facts and reason. This one is just far too obvious, but every single believer on Earth is guilty of the same.
Young Earth Creationists: misunderstanding science for 6,000 years.
😆😆😆🤪😆
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 & the Bible
@Nic B 🤔I wonder if on the 7th we had the first use of intelligent people replying to their STOOPIDITY with "I wasn't born Yesterday"
Reply of the day!
I wonder if 6000 years ago people were claiming the earth was created yesterday, and their parents who had been around for many years and had to birth that fool were just like, sure it was son….sure it was…
I think what sucks about these and flat earthers is they ask really good questions but don’t bother to listen to the answers.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence ... Christopher Hitchen (sadly missed).
Hitchens the actual GOAT. I really miss that guy, he would have a field day and a gigantic youtube channel if he was still kicking it. RIP
My favourite thing is watching people try and use science to disprove science
I love how people think that not understanding something is an argument against it!
@Trevor Brannon Thank you for proving my point.
@Trevor Brannon I will say this once, then ignore every silly reply you make. Prove your god exists and we can discuss how it created everything. Otherwise, have a good one.
@Trevor Brannon If you say a God exists, then you will gladly provide the proof. He didn't prove any point of yours. There is definitely evidence that the earth is billions of years old, you just don't bother to do the research because you don't believe it. Nobody has to prove this to you when you can look it up yourself. Ice core samples, carbon dating, etc. And to say the dinosaur bones we dug up were all put there for photos after making them out of plaster.....that's just shit you're making up that nobody here actually believes. Maybe prove that too since you made the statement. I'm not making any kind of statement fyi, besides the fact that evidence exists online for everyone's eyes. Ignoring your silly arguments doesn't prove you're right about anything.
I love how you can't tell a Christian anything , almost like a narcissistic girl
Something something greytillion sex fantasy
I think he's confusing the limitation of carbon 14 dating with carbon 14 not existing beyond that limitation. It's just that the numbers are too small once you hit a certain date to reliably measure the age, not that they have disappeared completely.
Eric and Kent are not confused about how isotopes decay. They deliberately use any results of C14 isotopic analysis to further their 6000 year young earth. Is it a coincidence the half life of C14 (~5700 years) is about the same length of time as the young earth?
I don't think he's confusing anything. It's actually a common tactic among YECs. They misrepresent almost everything about C14 dating, then use that misinterpretation to cast doubt among their followers.
Tiny amounts of C14 are also effected by other elements decaying and converting small amounts of C12 into C14, for millions of years. These radioactive elements are also part of why C14 radiometric dating is limited.
In diamonds, C14 decays into N14. That N14 stay trapped into the diamond. Later, some external radiation or cosmic rays can convert that N14 back into C14. That, if there is a neutron source nearby, C12 and C13 atoms can capture them and get changed into C14. So, the C14 can get refreshed and new C14 can form in existing diamonds that are over a billion years old.
Diamonds occur naturally much more easily than people commonly think.
This is interesting. A Christian relative tried to debate with me at a family Thanksgiving dinner about creation and he said that the Earth is 6000 years old. I asked him why certain geological features of our earth are older than 6000 years old, and he said that when God created the earth, he made some things look older than they were. So I asked him how can he be sure that creation began 6000 years old and not 5 minutes ago, and he didn't have an answer
To answer your question, as a Christian, the reason why we calculate to 6,000 years and not 5 minutes is because if you were to add up all the years in the genealogy from Adam to Abraham is 2000 years, then Abraham to Jesus is another 2000 years and Jesus then to today is another 2000 which adds up to 6,000 years.
I believe the young earth theory is very silly, and believe the science behind the age of everything, BUT I do believe God’s plan for mankind is 7000 years.
So not saying the earth is 6,000 years old, I’m saying I believe mankind has been around for 6,000 years, but I’m gonna bet you don’t believe that. That’s just what I believe.
So that is the answer as to what your relative should have probably answered during your thanksgiving dinner.
Good question btw.
@@Michael-p8z6o thats innacurate the geneaologies dont teach that also not to mention the Days can be taken as periods because the word used yom can mean a period + Adam was not the first human
@user-mb8wq3kr6i
If God is omnipotent and could have created fossils, etc. to make the Earth appear order, then He could have created all of human history - including the Bible - five minutes ago, and we'd never know.
That's absurd, of course. But so is the notion that the Earth and the plants and animals existed for hundreds of millions of years and humans suddenly appeared 6000 years ago. One would have to assert that the first six days in Genesis 1 lasted millions of our years, while He created humans only in the very last instant on the sixth day.
It's much more likely that those genealogies are fictitious or highly incomplete.
@@Michael-p8z6owell it’s talking about the creation of humanity with human souls in Genesis, Adam is the first human with a human soul and as we see, we see civilizations forming and lots of human life happening over 5k years ago so it aligns about well, Genesis never suggests the earth however is 6k years old, the 6 day creation account in Genesis one is referring to stages of creation of how the earth came to be in stages and it uses days to reach the 7th day and emphasize the holiness and important of the sabbath day, it would have been way harder to get that message out there if God was mentioning billions upon billions of years, it was unnecessary for the Israelites at the time
In Exodus 20:8-11 it does a pretty good job emphasizing this importance and why specifically the creation account is outlined in 7 days, it isn’t suppose to be taken literally how the earth was created in a literal 24 hour time frame for 7 days
Imagine having Kent Hovind as your pops. I bet no one could come out of that being a normal adult with a functioning brain.
Exactly he didn't have a chance of being sane.
That makes me feel sorry for him. He never had a chance
@@phillipharrison886 exactly why the YEC indoctrination centres should be closed down.
@@dogwalker666 he did have a chance considering personality isn’t hereditary. Just wish he was taken away or something.
@@corporatecapitalism it isn't nature it's nurture and as he he was brought up in an actual cult compound it was almost impossible that he would turn out sane.
"Where the creation rock meets the judgement rock".
High end science right there.
'High" indeed
I wonder if creation rock is similar to Fraggle rock.
@@jimnora1705 No. That has not yet been put there. We will all meet the Creator at Fraggle Rock when Armageddon comes.
@@veganbutcherhackepeter Cool, I always wanted to meet Jim Henson.
@@jimnora1705 Or Rock and Roll...
This dude's logical gymnastics skills are Olympic class. Dan found another live one.
"We know the Earth is 6,000 Years old because we have this Rock that is 100,000 Years old, this clearly proves the Earth is 6,000 Years old".
I am not sure if I did Mathematics correctly, but if I remember rightly, 100,000 is BIGGER than 6,000, I mean I might be wrong but I do not think I am.
🤪🤪🤪
"Why do 'they' say Niagara Falls has been eroding for 12,300 years when Earth is supposedly billions of years old? This proves that Earth is 6,000 years old." 😵💫
100,000 years old or LESS, I think that's what's tripping everybody up when trying to debunk him
@@paulasmith9881 Less is maybe a factor of 2-5, but we are talking about a factor of 16, that's not "less", that's off by a complete universe
Those diamonds were put there to test your faith. An all knowing creator can make anything appear any age... Even though it's definitely 6000. It says so in the bible... I read it in the marginal notes 😉
I’ve seen Eric’s videos off and on for at least the last decade. He’s amazing in that he’s apparently learned nothing in all that time.
I think he learned how to present; he isn't half as obnoxious as his father
( but half of a lot is still a lot)
Thats exactly the problem with those religious fanatics, they seem to be allergic to progress
Most of his arguments were plagiarized from his dad.
Of course he hasn’t learned anything, he already “knows” everything.
@@luetheler8867 see im a christian right, when i was younger, about 10 years old or so, i believed in a young earth and pretty much saw kent hovinds word as the gospel itself rofl, but then at about 14-15 i actually decided to compile a bunch of different opinions and figured that it is far more logical that the earth, and even the universe are far older than the young earth model, (that the days in the bible in hebrew doesn't only translate directly to days, but has other meanings such as 7 'long periods of time'. Now i look back on videos like these glad that i decided to actually challenge my views. Although im still a christian, not all of us are illogical radical fanatics.
I’m glad you specify young earth creationist. Just because a lot of people would click bait this, “Christian says” or “Creationist says”. But that doesn’t properly represent those groups.
Many people believe there is a God behind science and the laws of nature and creation of the universe. But don’t believe the earth is young.
Exactly
Got to love how he ignores the inconsistency in his own arguments.
Gotta love how ignorant you have to be to believe nothing blows up and when nothing blows up it creates life
With him bleating about the dinosaur bones, and the general disbelief that they existed, maybe he should be told that the devil is playing tricks.
He runs the ark encounter, they have several 🦕 on the ark.
@@steveharrison3007 But aren't they plastic?
His dad must be disappointed.... Kent believes that humans existed with dinosaurs and in "fact" a Jackson's Chameleon is actually a baby triceratop..
You joke, but some creationists have used that exact excuse.
@@gryph01 there was a TH-camr named Nephlilim Free who really said dinosaur fossils were holograms invented by Lucifer to "tempt man away from his creator"
And that his prayers to god "cured" his wife's multiple sclerosis
Dan, if you're open to it let's have a discussion about YEC. I have some more information that would intrigue you and your audience.
"erosion happens therefore everything should be gone " LMAO
while clearly ignoring plate tectonics
Imagine the gentle, yet turbulent, waters of "the flood" not disturbing the many layers of sediment laid down by the same flood responsible for carving the Grand Canyon in a week.
The solar system has gone though a oxygen cloud and then a hydrogen cloud. This makes the sea-level rise fast without precipitation. Still need to figure something out to have it al disappear and go back to the initial situation. 😁
@@manuell3505 we're making up shit now? The flood never happened quit making up shit
No thanks, I need my brain cells for useful things.
@@MaeljinRajah There was a land breach around that time, leaving the Bosporus. But I might be mistaken.
It's probably highly obfuscated verbally spread history, like Gilgamesh. Nobody could read. In 1000 years, there's not much left of any local event in tellings.
@@manuell3505 Hydrogen and oxygen priduce a lot of heat when they combine, and exothermic reaction. That's what I meant to say. If you ignite hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you produce water. But you need a lot of heat to make the reaction fast enough (not thousands of years).
A friend from the Indian subcontinent answered one of the " 6000 yr old earth " people that was bugging him by saying " my family and cultural has existed and has written records to show for it .
Please edit to make sense. I think you're saying that the 6,000 year supposed age of Earth is actually shorter than written history, which is very true. I've read the inscription on a piece of pottery more than 12,000 years old.
Good point. And fwiw I understood you perfectly
@@RockinRobbins13 nah we could certainly not write 12 thousand years ago. The earliest scrolls or clay tablets we have are from 5 thousand years ago. Or a bit older. But still. Fossils disprove young earth instantaneously.
@@Just-a-Orion-on-the-internet. Again, I personally read the inscription on a vase more than 12,000 years old. It wasn't a sentence, it was an idea. But it WAS a meaningful inscription. That day a philologist blew my mind and even pronounced the symbol.
@@RockinRobbins13 could you may be tell me the name or what kind of vase it was?
So many of humanity's problems in one man. You can debunk the things these people say all day, they can even see that the debunk is correct, and they will still cling to their "belief". It's not about what they actually believe, it's about tribalism. They have a team, saying they believe something is how they show their loyalty to their team, and they want to feel that their team is special. It's not about fact, it's about feeling.
You know how sometimes someone says something so stupid you can't even comprehend what they're getting at? This creationist just did that for me.
Now I understand why NASA is searching for intelligent life in outer space
Awesome comment🤣🤣
Cause there's not much of it on earth is there? 😅
How does he think such delicate arches survived a flood that was supposedly able to carve out the Grand Canyon in a few hours?
Don’t ask stupid questions
that creationist is the kind of person who becomes a manager and tells employees he hires "we are a family here" then proceeds to underpay them and treat them like sub humans
U good?
The guy who believes nothing blew up and created life will do anything to believe theres no consequences
@@2511jeremy The guy who believes his imaginary friend created the earth and all people ignores the consequences and great harm this childish story perpetuates,and has done for centuries.When your god created the people of earth,why are there Muslims,Hindus etc.?Why are you right,and the majority of the earths population wrong?PS:nothing blew up and created life?Wow!What a display of total ignorance.Only a mind like that could go from a stolen corpse of an executed criminal,and conclude that the man had actually come back to life and presumably flown up to a magic happy place in the sky.What a shame it all took place in a child's imagination.
@@2511jeremy yeah, that sounds pretty crazy. What's it supposed to mean? Who says that?
As someone who has lived near Niagara Falls my whole life, and lived half a century, I can tell you they have moved. A lot of other things have, but on the Canadian side, they have had to build new walls to keep people from leaning over.
Once again , and as always
It's a classic example of someone talking , very confidently , about a topic , of which they know either very little or nothing .
The less the know , the more confident they are .
And this guy is confident OK.
Yes...
Dunning Kruger...
ok, but how much did Dan make on this video, you have to tell me because communism or something.
@@SilverDragonJay
Thousands of course
@@SilverDragonJay Communism? What are you on about?
12,300 years ago North America was in an Ice Age
Nice pseudonym...
They claim Earth is about 6000 years old, yet this guy is around 45 years old. How can that be? Shouldn't we expect people to be 6000 years old also?
The apple didn't fall far from the tree with Eric.
I think you'll find that it has yet to land.
Rotten tree, rotten apple.
Hopefully he only inherited the bad science and con artistry of his dad (since that was all he was taught) and won't continue the abusive, criminal, exploitative, and enabling grossness his dad did...
It fell into cow manure
The hardest thing on earth is his ability to learn.
Well, this guy introduced me to a couple of new terms - "creation rock" and "judgement rock" (or as I might call it, "Dammit I made a mess of creating those humans; I need a do-over before I get recalled for incompetence" rock)
He also introduced a novel (mis)pronunciation of "bioturbation."
Stryper was creation rock, wasn't it?
Erich von Daniken has a lot to answer for. He popularised the idea that asking questions and challenging accepted ideas was the same as being intelligent. This fella proves that the reverse is often true.
To be fair, for any given level of accepted knowledge, sceptics have always existed. Which is why we have modern science, not just religious dogma and fairytales. The idea that the Earth goes around the sun was heretical at the time, like so many other things we now accept as the truth. But people can always twist things to fit their ideas and beliefs. It's not intelligence that is missing, it's the willingness to consider what you believe may be wrong.
As well as ignoring inconvenient evidence that spoil your personnel narrative. I don’t call him Von danidikhed for nothing.
So confident his crowd will never, ever, fact check him. And he's right...sadly
I went to church with this guy and his father. They are crazier in person! BUT they did teach me how to shoot a rubber band pretty far so that's cool I guess.
These people think the Earth is just a static ecosystem, never changing and nothing ever forming or be g destroyed. That kind of thinking takes more energy to reject logic than it does to just use it and it shows just how little they were taught or learned growing up, it’s more sad than anything.
He cannot admit land can be rising, since that would cast doubt on his claim the Grand Canyon was the result of a sudden rush of flood water.
Unfortunately many of these same oxygen thieves apply the same failed logic to climate change and insist that nothing is happening.
9:33 funny that he thinks the flood layed down thousands of different layers in 1 flood😂🤦♀️
That's what I always think about when they make that claim.
Apparently insects are better at mixing up layers than a catastrophic worldwide flood I guess?
@@Waniou137 mixing up layers.... yet they are nicely organized...
This video is yet another example of social media giving a voice to those who should not be heard.
Everyone is allowed an opinion, whether it's true or not is another matter
@@seasonedbeefs wrong again mate. Opinions put out as "facts" have caused more trouble than just about anything else ( see the holocaust for example) and take gullible and or stupid people in until they end up voting for a piece of shite like Trump.
He's a chip off the old block, an example of the indoctrination method of teaching.
He's a chip off the old blockhead.
@@Mandelbrot_Set Lmao, very good, very good.
I think some percentage of human teenagers are genetically programmed (by evolution) to reject their parents indoctrination and believe the opposite. This is essential for the survival of human civilization. Otherwise we'd all mindlessly accept the Grand Wazoo or something and society would stagnate. In other words some of us are born to think for ourselves and question authority, and to hide that fact until we are old enough to form our own tribe.
@@Mandelbrot_Set Errant Blowind, a morsel of the turd Kant.
I love that he has to learn a little bit of science in order to half-arse "debunk" it using his biblical myths.
My mom told me bioturbation could make me go blind 😮😊
Ohhh joy. Eric Hovind. LOL First Daddy Grifter, now the son...!
Poor son having been academically abused by his damaged dad.
@@mrpositronia he was more than academically abused by his dad...
I have no idea why he would want to follow in his dad's footsteps but it might be the only thing he knows.
@@mrpositronia Yeah as CelestialAnamoly said, he was absolutely verbally, emotionally and physically abusive to his children - he tells a tale of beating Eric for being scared at the dentist and squirming in the chair, rather than comforting, so he was more scare of Kent if he didn't sit still than he was of what the dentist was going to do. And he LAUGHS at it. He thinks it's a funny story of parental discipline. And he's committed DV on his partners too so yeah. Daddy Grifter is the worst.
@@CelestialAnamoly Money. Easy money at that.
Great of him to admit that he has a problem, it seems mostly a mixture of personal incredulity and cherry picking. Oh he also has a good smattering of not knowing his arse from his elbow. Thanks Dan and keep up the good work.
It never ceases to disappoint me the way that some folks want to leverage certain aspects of science to support their claims, but only those certain aspects, basically putting on a pretense of science while using what they want in the least scientific way possible.
As I was listening to him go on, I also caught the "in a steady state" wording. Good catch. Growing up around the Great Lakes, we learned very early about the fact that many of these features were a direct result of the glacier advancing and then receding all ending at about less than 20,000 years ago (which seems to fit the erosion for 12,000+ years pretty well.)
Then he goes on about erosion, but completely ignores tectonic activity (as well as using the bogus claim that North America could be eroded completely in 10,000 years. One wonders just where he got _that_ figure.)
Then he goes into Carbon 14 in diamonds. You were right to be skeptical of this claim, some research on my part shows that Carbon 14 is _not_ found in diamonds. Where did he get the idea that it was? I suspect he heard this from someone else who heard it from someone else. Sometimes these folks sound like the results of a really bad game of telephone.
Ultimately, I think it all comes down to that "steady state" fallacy from the first part. He assumes that the arches have always existed instead of being formed some lesser time ago by the erosion process. He fails to show any evidence that they're older than they should be, simply saying that they are.
One minor beef: You said at one point, "12,000 years is still twice as long as what the Bible claims as the age of the Earth." What should be said is "12,000 years is still twice as long as the particular reading of the Bible these folks are using claims as the age of the Earth." (And you did say just that later on.)
Why parse words? Well, the Bible really doesn't make the claim. Modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of science generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older. The fault really lies with James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armag, who wrote a "chronology" in 1650 which fell into disrepute in the 19th century except in the minds a small set of later fundamentalists. The 6000-year-old claim requires both absolutely literal interpretation of the times actually given and some very specific interpolation when times are not given.
Says the people who believe nothing blows up and created life
@@kidwave1 Where did you come by this information and why do you consider it credible?
One notable problem with what you said is obvious if you know Latin. Lucifer means "light-bearer" while lucis simply means "light." Thus, the two are related by only because one is a root of the name.
So, A.L. means "in the year of light" not "in the year of Lucifer."
@@2511jeremy As opposed to the people who believe that their imaginary friend in the sky could feed thousands of people with some loaves of bread and a few fish.On top of which we are asked to credit the notion of a dead man coming back to life,for what purpose who can say?
@@gavinjames8749 right its not like the year 2023 is based off of his death or that its the most sold book in the world
@@2511jeremy this year is 2023 in christian based calendars,the highest selling books are generally works of fiction,enjoyed so widely perhaps because they provide an imaginary outlet for their fears and anxieties,an escape from reality.I would imagine it could be extremely damaging for people to transfer their fictional concepts into reality,day to day lives.If the book that eventually sells more copies(not much of a guide to their accuracy)is,say,a harry potter fairy story,the number sold will not change that fairy story into an accurate representation of history.
“It seems to me…” That fool already lost the argument, right there.
The Niagara Falls proof is only proof of Niagara falls’ age, and he still got that wrong. 😂
Between two rock layers must be a blues layer!
I love how he refuses to understand how erosion works
He seems to be using some very big numbers to try to prove his young earth 🤣🤣
Like all of these types of people, his entire belief system is built on:
1) "It doesn't make sense."
2) Using science incorrectly and saying "Then how come...."
"OMG a thing started twice as old of the Earth!!! HOW?!" derp
YEC can’t agree on which rocks are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood. Different groups will look at the same rock layers and claim they were laid down different ways. At least one of the groups will disagree that the uncomformity he showed was created by the flood (eg, the bottom layer was created, the top layers were natural deposition (not flooding), and flood deposition doesn’t occur till you get into macrofossils). The groups contradict each other and their claims fail based on their own internal logic.
It reminds me how two main YEC institutes independently made charts showing which hominid fossils were fully ape and which were fully human. When the charts were compared it showed what one group said were fully ape the other said were fully human, and vice-versa. That’s a slightly ironic way of confirming the fossils showed intermediate features of both ape and human, the very thing they were disputing.
Best video I watched today. I love it when people make videos about something, but have no idea what they are talking about, but think they know it all. Thanks for doing this video and showing "real" science. Stay safe
I didn't think it was possible, but Eric proves that an empty cardboard box is smarter than a human.
Smarter than THAT human, anyway.
Oh for F's sake... I have only taken freshman classes in geology and is by no means an expert but every thing this creationist questions are easily answered. So all he shows is that he hasn't actually read any geology books at all.
It's a shame there is no experts that he could ask to answer all his queries. They'd be called "rockologists" or something.
9:46
Him pulling out the bible while rolling out that sentence physically knocked the wind out of me
I feel for these people, makes me sad but laugh hard at the same time.
Pray for them. They know not what they do. 🙏
I don't feel bad for them at all. It is far to common to find, upon scraping of the top layer, they are despicable to the core. cf. Matt What"sHisName of inflatable banana fame. Calling him despicable is to praise him with faint damnation.
You feel bad for people who don't believe nothing came into nothing and blew up to create life.... and the only reasoning you have is billions of years what a ignorant veiw you clowns will believe anything
I think it is just sad that people have to be right so much that they will go to great lengths to believe their own lie is the pursuit of being right.
Dan: You can't really argue with that.
Creationists: Hold my beer.
I suppose you can't REASONABLY argue with that. 😉
You can argue with anyone about anything, assuming they argue back. What *can't* be done is getting this type of person to believe the truth.
Takes alot more faith to believe nothing came into nothing and blew up and created life then it does to believe theres a god but be ignorant and think that sets you free
@@2511jeremy Well then, glad most atheists don't believe in that, either. We are perfectly capable in admitting that we simply don't know some things. That's what it means to have as little faith as possible. But at least I'm glad you admit that having faith in things isn't reasobable.
@@2511jeremy lol.
Wtf.
Like, wtf.
Truly, wtf.
Think about what you are saying.
You believe a magic sky daddy snapped his fingers and literally *willed* everything we know in to existence. Step back and think about THAT, before you claim "something came from nothing".
He literally disproved his own theory in the first min.
The level of ignorance flat earthers and people alike have is unmatched. It is truly fascinating.
Dunning Krueger in full display!
This is young earth creationists, not flat earth
@@zacattack32441 almost the same thing
I lost it at "partly fossilised and partly not fossilised - in the same bone"
Why do only young Earth creationists find radioactive carbon in diamonds? 🤔
How is that guy not 100years old? Seems like thats what he's asking.
It’s wild that the people who lived at gobekli tepe were around before the earth was created
It's been a while but if I remember correctly, c14 in diamonds can be a decay product. Can't remember what from but it's probably from one of the many impurities they contain. It's formation is probably triggered by a nearby radiation source sometime after the diamonds have formed.
Radioactive decay can send Neutrons careening through matter and it might stop inside the dense lattice of a diamond causing impurities like C14. Alternatively C14 can be created by ionizing radiation, the result of high energy photons reconfiguring the Carbon lattice of a diamond. That makes radiocarbon dating diamonds fairly useless in my opinion. It is more interesting using other forms of radioactive dating when looking at crystalline structures thought to be formed far away from radioactive decay and not easily affected or created by ionizing radiation.
There three probable causes that I’m aware of. Local radiation in the diamond environment converts nitrogen in the diamond to C14. Secondly some C14 measurements measure decay particles rather than C14 directly, these can be confused by other atoms than C14 decaying. Finally C14 have a base background measurement due to equipment limitations.
He accepts the geological science on erosion, then dismisses everything else.
Ouch. They cherry pick pretty much everything. I don't engage with these types any longer. Avoid religious fantasy at all costs. Their faith is a badge of honor they'll never give up. That's how cults work.
He is more interested in the Rock Of Ages than the age of rocks....
@@arbjful Brilliant lol...
@@Patrik6920 that's actually a quote from the classic 1960s film 'Inherit the wind'. A great film based on the Scopes 'Monkey' trial. Brilliant cast and acting....
🍒🍒
Ask a YEC why the theory of radioactive decay predicts nuclear power stations and atomic bombs suddenly fails when predicting the age of the Earth.
Kudos for this homeschooled Flerf... he can read
Fundamentalist Christian school.
He can't read anything that isn't the bible, so not any better than being illiterate.
@CD Character in the Eric with Erica videos he said he was home schooled, but I guess for the anecdote he was using at the time it only had to be a year or two of home schooling...
Is he a flerf? I tried to see if he says anything about it and I don't think he's a flerf
@@ceebee No, he's no flearth, just like his daddy is no flearth. His daddy is a conman, not a complete moron.
My best friend is a young Earth believer. We don't talk about it ever. He's a good dude but...
How on flat earth can you be friends with someone ignorant like that?
Ik the feeling. I have some friends/ family who believe this stuff too. It's better to not talk about it lol
@Jasmijn ariel he's been my friend for 20 years. No reason we can't be friends and disagree.
People groomed into this bizarre belief are often open to other untruths. YECs tend to have deeply unpleasant right wing views because their pastor and their media tells them to think that way. Hope your friend can escape the cultish elements.
@@drunkweebmarine9492 but ignoring evidence is a horrible thing
"partially fossilised and partially not fossilised, sometimes within the same bone..." That is a sentence by a person who really loves the sound of their own voice(s).
I was laughing the entire time because the guy doesn't know about how the tectonic plates factor against erosion of all land.
Did you send that tin foil hat to Planar Walk?
In order for a whole world flood that covered all the land would require 7x the volume of water that exists on earth.
Where did all that water go?
Good question
Only Eric explains to you that something indicated millions of years and think that's an argument in favor of YEC.
Everytime I talk to one of these crazy conspiracy people I lose IQ points
In the end you are one of them
The really sad part is that they don't gain any.
How? Did you believe them?
Yeah, I feel stupid just listening to the guy in this video. I know how to debunk everything he says, but I know it would just fall on deaf ears. It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled.
He just needs to be sent back to middle school, because he seems confused by topics even little children are easily able to comprehend.
Ever heard of "they a dragging you down to their level and beat you with experience"? That's meant not only for one debate, they are working on dragging you down for the rest of your life.
“…and that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped”
@GeologyNick actually does a great job explaining the "Great Unconformity" layer in his geology lectures. I highly recommend watching his lectures for a dive into North American geology - specifically as it relates to the Pacific Northwest.
To be fair to the bible, nowhere in the text does it state the age of the earth.
That was a 17th Century literalist called James Ussher who 'calculated' the age at 6,000 years.
Sir Isaac Newton attempted to calculate the age of the Earth using Biblical genealogies. Calculating the age of the Earth was a "thing" in those days. Kepler also engaged in such calculations. These were times when people treated the Bible as a historically accurate record. I believe Newton reached a date about 4000 B.C.
@Some Old Dude He also was in the habit of sticking needles in his eye, so looks like he was a flawed genius.
Except Ussher calculated it based on what the Bible says. So yes, it absolutely says the earth is 6000 years old.
@Michael Eco Actually, this was mostly a guessing game where you look at the genealogies in the Bible, guess how long each generation lived, taking into account the rather long lifetimes attributed to some celebrated Old Testament characters, and assorted other bits and pieces from what was thought to be known of the history of the Near East, and then total up everything and keep your fingers firmly crossed. Of course you have a problem right off the bat with the rather uncomfortable fact that the Bible gives two different genealogies for Jesus. Lame attempts to reconcile this with the idea that one is his paternal and one his maternal fail for the simple reason that the Jewish people did not make any use of a maternal genealogy, oops.
BTW, Usher gave his result down to the day and time of day, October 23, 4004 B.C. on the evening preceeding that first day.
@@someolddude3858 It's a guessing game because the Bible has different genealogies and it contradicts itself in many places.
This is not a good argument for the Bible. Taking the most liberal interpretation of the Bible, it's still only a few thousand years, and proven wrong by basic science.
How can something i can't understand possibly exist beyond my limited understanding!!?? It just doesn't make sense...
By the very definition of half-life, exponential decaying isotopes will always be there. Dividing by 2 will get you closer and closer to zero but never hit zero.
I'd lay odds he doesn't have a clue about how half-life works.
The behavior of individual unstable atoms is not predictable. Create two atoms of C14. One could break down in a tenth of a second. The other could last a million years. Statistically, half of it will be turned to other things in it's half-life. But you can't predict the behavior of any one atom. No, he wouldn't understand half-life and wouldn't accept it if he did understand.
This was funny especially when he really got going with his 💩😂😂😂
"This layer is found around the world." In Arizona AND Wisconsin!
"Niagara Falls should have eroded more!"
Hand that fool a piece of dolomite rock* and a garden hose and tell him to get "eroding".
-
* the stone in the Niagara gorge is dolomite over shale
(Dolomite is a 3.5 to 4 on the Mohs scale, harder than marble. Shale is at 3 on that scale)
Amazing how his mind can ignore that his reasoning actually accepts at least 100,000 years.
100,000 years OR less
@@paulasmith9881 Last time I checked... 6000 was a LOT less than 100,000. And he didn't give a single reason why 6000 was correct, except just a magical "flood story" which makes no sense whatsoever...
Give him time. He hasn't yet put the finishing touches on his strawman yet.
Evolutionists be like dude nothing can blow up and when this nothing blows up it creates life like we are so smrt
@@2511jeremy Creationist be like, a magical sky daddy got bored one day, created and entire universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago, despite mountains of evidence that the earth is 6 Billion years old, and we can see light millions of light years away, despite the universe being 6000 years old.
And we haven't talked about the 950 year old farmer that built a boat, and took 12 million animals on a cruise for 6 months...
Young Earth Creationists make my head hurt. They are hard to watch.
i wonder what his thoughts on plate tectonics are? that sounds like a pretty entertaining way to spend some time... As they say, no such thing as a stupid question, unless you're a young earth creationist.
I hope you're sitting down.
At least some young earth creationists ( yec ) believe that the last super continent broke apart during the year of Noah's flood, resulting in the present configuration of the continents. Scientifically this belief raises a few problems. For in- depth discussion and debunking of this yec nonsense I recommend looking up 'Gutsick Gibbon.' She does a good, entertaining job.
Spoiler alert if you haven't fallen down the yec rabbit hole. Did you know that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark?
Good luck, stay alert, and keep your tin foil hat ready at all times.
I guess he'd go to the kitchen and get some from the cupboard, sit and stare at them for 10 minutes, and he'd have proved that plates cannot move. 😁
I always struggle with hitting the Like-button. Your content is flawless as usual, but I always have the fear it also encourages those nutbags.
well im one of those nutbags because i dont believe in a flat earth, believe nasa are faking all content, not a tak toker app user (whatever its called) and I lack critical thought . . according to a peer of mine.
wait . . .am i the nutbag here?
Don’t worry - they don’t watch debunking content
Like Dan's content and don't watch the videos of the nutbags, simple.
Not sure there's a direct correlation between Dan's likes per video and creationist or flat earth content. If anything, wouldn't his videos getting less likes or attention be better for crazies like Hovind?