Does Contamination work as a sufficient means to solve this major challenge to evolution and an old earth? Definitely not. This rescue device has been thoroughly addressed. The critics have not done a good job to defend their contamination rescue device. Please see: Baumgardner DJ. Are the RATE Radiocarbon (14C) Results Caused by Contamination? Answers in Genesis. Published December 2007. answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/ Some critics have offered a paper by Taylor and Southon (2007) in a desperate attempt to support their already-debunked contamination rescue device. This proves the critics are not up to date on the literature pertaining to this issue. This paper has already been extensively responded to. See the above technical article by Dr. John Baumgardner for a full refutation of the arguments offered in the Taylor and Southon paper. What do the protectors of the old earth and evolutionary paradigms have left to offer? The truth is they have nothing left. All of their attempts to save the day for their viewpoint have been comprehensively demolished. The high C14 signal found in samples (diamonds, dinosaur bones, coal) that are supposed to be millions to billions of years old (all original C14 should have decayed away in this time) is one of the quickest and easiest ways to dismantle an old earth (and as a result--evolutionism). The critics really do have no good answer to this reality. As a matter of fact, C14 in samples where it should not be found precludes an old earth from being true. Sorry evolutionists! Videos by Standing For Truth on How Carbon-14 Dismantles Evolution and an Old Earth (the critics have failed to address these videos): PhD Astrophysicist Challenges an Old Earth | UNDENIABLE Evidence for Young Biblical Creation - th-cam.com/video/KU9pmbTpcwg/w-d-xo.html This Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creation is IRREFUTABLE - th-cam.com/video/fiVwlODyj1g/w-d-xo.html The Best Evidence for Biblical Creation (PART TWO) | Carbon-14 Debunks an Old Earth - Donny Budinsky th-cam.com/video/6P-3jxkTmbc/w-d-xo.html Amazing Evidence for Young Earth Creation: Carbon 14 (Demolishing the Critics) - th-cam.com/video/BJhjpwfy4iM/w-d-xo.html Carbon 14 and Missing Isotopes | Dr. Charles Jackson - th-cam.com/video/q0SECAGWGB4/w-d-xo.html The Truth About the Age of the Earth by Donny Budinsky - www.patreon.com/posts/truth-about-age-98023074
Awesome sampler to your video coming up, Donny! True, true. evolutionists lack any adequate response to this. Background radiation and false claims of contamination don't work. Can't wait for the video, God bless!
@@ToothbrushMan why not? They're good sources. AIG, ICR, CMI, Genesis apologetics, etc. are all good resources and anyone should take advantage of them.
Donny is literally kicking e-volution buttski. I am amazed at the detailed dismantling of e-volution. Both thumbs are WAY up for you, Donny. Just keep going and going. We love it
Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But, carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme.. ICR
You seem to be missing the point being made, that being that there should not be any C-14 in diamonds or dinosaur fossils or coal layers if they are millions of years old, but we find C-14 in all of those things. So, the most logical conclusion is that those things (diamonds, dino fossils, and coal layers) are not millions of years old, but only a few thousands of years old. They’ve already disproved contamination as a rescue device for that, as explained in the video and in the links on the pinned comment above.
@@ryans8081 Contamination is rediculously easy to get into these samples and sites as it can come from the site, storage or the tools used to investigate the sample. But no one is using carbong 14 dating to measure millions of year old diamond samples because again, carbon 14 dating is for living material and can only date back about 50 thousand years.
Carbon-14 dating is a method, based on unprovable assumptions about the past, used to date things that contain carbon (e.g. fossils). It can only give maximum ages of around 50,000 years and yet C-14 has been found in fossils and diamonds thought to be millions and billions of years old respectively.... AIG
@@ToothbrushMan they are dating the carbon that is being found within the living organisms themselves and they are not dating the rocks. They're dating the carbon being found in the fossils.
@ CMI has an article that deals with that issue and they specifically note that they did not use any contaminated samples in their work. Your point is moot
You don't use a sun dial for the 100 meter dash, and you don't use carbon dating for dating rocks that are millions or billions of years old... Every single one of these creationist arguments are from people that either don't understand how radiometric dating works, or they take some obscure edge case thinking that it undermines the whole thing... Creationists learn just enough about a subject to try and prove their forgone conclusions, but not enough to learn how it actually works..
@@inthelightofhisglory9614No they did not address the "issue". And there are better methods to date rocks other than C14. Why do you ignore these methods?
@paradigmbuster Not sure where you get your information from, but in this case you need to look elsewhere. From Physical Geology 8.4, "An important assumption that we have to be able to make when using isotopic dating is that when the rock formed none of the daughter isotope was present."
And they ASSUME there was no daughter element. Which is a ridiculously huge thing to assume. But rocks always form with an abundance of such elements, regardless of which radiometric test is used
@@StandingForTruthMinistries how many scientists have you talked to about your supposed challenge? Do you honestly think.. oh well, who am I kidding, of course you do.
Radioactivity in the earth's crust creates a low level of carbon 14 that we use to calibrate carbon dating, when you read something really low you get the base level of carbon 14 in the earth's crust. In some places near radioactive deposits this base level is higher.
@joefriday2275 also you should look into isometric dating methods. They have internal calibration tools to help determine if the sample is good or bad and if there is radioactive contamination. But I don't think you really care about evidence tbh.
C14 dating has a very specific set of things it can measure the age for. Using it outside of those senarios will get you a date but not a correct one by any means. If you start by mentioning valcanoes and dimonds, the only thing it says is you don't know what you are talking about.
15:00 This is the bit where Archeologists are stupid relying on C14 dating. I thought at the start of this nonsence video that he was Ok with carbon dating. The reason that Archeologists are happy with the dating within small error bars is down to calibration curves and it's all about correlation. And that correlation I'm talking about is called consilience. And no apologist has ever addressed it. They always attack individual parts and miss the forest for the tree. It has also been corroborated with dendrochronology, coral bands, speleothems, lake varves and ice cores all plotted against each other on the same graph. It's pretty cool. That's various dating methods (speleothems also use Thorium dating) with vastly different growth mechanisms. Not sure if they mentioned C14 in coal in this video, but it has been used before to indicate that coal can't be millions of years. If coal was
Maybe take just a pinch of your skepticism of science and turn it toward the Bible? Creationists not doing radiometric dating correctly isn't evidence of anything other than incompetence. Diamonds aren't dated directly, they're dated by the inclusions.
To my knowledge, "Creationists" don't control any chronology labs. Maybe you can name even one? Seems you're also mistaken in implying that Creationists collect all samples that have been incorrectly dated. Atheists have a huge problem conflating science with what you wish for.
@@joefriday2275 What does "chronology labs" have to do with anything? I never said anything about that so why would I have to name one? Do you even know what chronology is? It's the arrangement of historical events in proper order and sequence. Radiometric dating can be used occasionally in chronology but they are very different things. Just because errors can occur in radiometric dating doesn't mean that it is ALWAYS wrong. YEC love to point out studies meant to help eliminate error in dating methods as if that indicates that it doesn't work. That is dishonest. Young Earth creationists couldn't care less about almost every field of science; they undermine geology, radiometry, physics, archaeology, phylogeny, genetics, comparative anatomy, cosmology any time it contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible. YECs begin with the conclusion that science is wrong, and then go about trying to find evidence to support that conclusion. You label anyone disagreeing with you "atheists". Sorry, but a large portion of Christians disagree with YEC so that's dishonest as well.
@gametime2473 A radiometric chronology laboratory uses radioactive isotopes to measure the age of materials. This process is called radiometric dating.
2:21 ‘C14 is a friend of creationists, they ( Secularists) don’t like to talk too much about it’ Well I don’t mind, charcoal From the oldest known settlement at Göbekli Tepe have been C14 dated to just under 10kY. The oldest known human charcoal dated using carbon-14 is from the Boqueirao do Sitio da Pedra Furada painted rockshelter in Brazil, and dated at over 30kY 3:00 Carbon 14 in diamonds is caused by cluster decay. Fossils are usually mineralised and have to remaining original organic material. 4:00 The RATE team has been discredited by the vast majority of geologists. 6:00 You cannot contaminate a diamond because it’s really hard! Light and radiation will pass through it and radiation will cause C14. Diamonds come from graphite not organic carbon anyway. This guy is a joke!
If two wolves on the ark could become every subspecies of canine, black bear to grizzly, polar bear, etc, monkies to apes, baboons. If the animals change geneticaly, isnt that evolution? Another question i have if the flood waters caused mountains, canyons, the rock arches, then how can christians claimed to have found the garden of eden?
I asked multiple times in my debate with Kent; "How is "change within kind" not just evolution? It is exactly the same as evolution." Not sure if I got a clear answer on that. He said "they won't change kinds!" They won't in evolution either.
If you want to know if 'evolutionists' have a convincing answer, you should ask an 'evolutionist'! Asking a creatinist off course yields the predicted answer. What are you afraind of? Find an expert in C14 dating, prepare him/her that you will ask for explanations to C14 in Diamonds and Dinosaur fossils, and make sure that you can provide the relevant evidence. THEN you can have a relevant discussion.
@@StandingForTruthMinistries If a so called evolutionist has no answer, it would be an honest response. You don't get to supplant a God because of present unknown.
@@StandingForTruthMinistries When have you ever had a discussion with an expert in C14 dating or someone that works with an AMS system on a regular basis? I'd love to see the video of that.
It serves as good evidence that behemoth and leviathan that Job experienced in his day (Job 39,40) could be a couple of the dinosaurs in which scientists are finding C14 today. Also, it supports the creation timeline as presented in Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20:11.
@@petergouvignon8048 why wouldn't it be? Because unbelievers have said differently? Who should we trust? God or man? Personally, I prefer to trust God.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 First you would need to show/demonstrate/prove that your imaginary friend actually exists, then you would also need to show/demonstrate/prove that it poofed everything into existence from nothing, once you have done that, scientists might take you seriously.
@@VisshanVis science isn't the answer to everything and how exactly would you like us to "demonstrate" God? We can show you the signs God left behind in his creation. We can show you evidence that he came in the form of man 2000 years ago. We can show you many things but if you aren't willing to accept any of that, to what end and purpose? Do you expect to be able to put an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God in a lab under a microscope? Most problems in life cannot be solved through the lense of the naturalistic worldview.
Your spoiler alert is a religious faith position, given you weren’t there and no other human was either. Evolutionism and its assumptions is not going to help you answer the age of the earth question. Your position is not a scientific one, its a faith-based position.
@@CBessevolution is not meant to answer the age of the earth, these are two different topics. However its not correct to say that because someone wasnt there then its a faith based position. Faith is to believe without evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for both the age of the earth AND evolution. None of which requires the observer to have been there. That isnt how science works. Now we could argue that the OP has never taken the time to bother looking at that evidence this has taken a position on "faith". But that doesn't make neither the age of the universe nor evolution wrong so really doesn't matter. Better always to argue ideas instead of people
@@CBess You weren't there to witness any of the events in the Bible. It's all hearsay from anonymous authors. The Bible isn't any different than Greek or Norse myths.
@ I agree with some of your points, but I think you missed mine. Evolutionism requires long ages, beyond thousands of years. Unless you believe in some even more accelerated version of evolution. I branded long ages as unscientific and a faith-based position, primarily because it is not empirically confirmed. You cannot repeat or test millions of years ago, there are presuppositions (a priori beliefs) that color the picture of evolutionism. Do you believe you can use the scientific method (test, repeat, observe) on past events from supposedly millions of years ago? If not, then you’re arguing a point you can’t prove. Evolutionism has an illogical starting position.
As expected there was no creationist explanation for the INTCAL20 radiocarbon calibration data. Multiple independent non-radiometric dating proxies calibrating 14C dating back to 55,000 years before present. Oh well.
Been there done that. This once was Aron Ra's gotcha during debates because he knew that most doing creation research only get new ideas posited by evolution disciples only after the evolution camp is out peddling it for awhile. Example? ERV's. The ERV argument and story was pushed heavily, on cue, in unison by the EvoAtheist community until Donny Budinsky took the time to do actual research, write a paper to be peer reviewed, and ultimately a book explaining the slight of hand being employed to sell ERV's as evidence for cross population speciation. The phylogeny and eukaryotes argument preceded ERV's and the challenge was met and dismantled as unscientific quite easily which is why it and your question are old news. You're welcome!
Your are either lying about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or you are unable to understand it yet make absurd claims. The law states the energy available to do work can't increase in a closed system. It doesn't state matter breaks down over time, and our planet is not a closed system while the sun is still active.
@artax7664 no, I'm referring to entropy. If you discharge a battery in a closed system, that energy still exists (1st law), but you can't put it back in the battery without expending additional energy from a different source, which results in less energy available to do work (2nd law). The liar in the video claims entropy means matter in individual organisms breaks down, and as a result we and our DNA can only get worse. By his logic, magnetism and gravity are impossible and you could never arrange your bookshelf alphabetically.
@@jitagan first, never attribute malice to what can be explained by incompetence. Calling someone a liar means you’re attributing malice. It means you’re saying he’s intentionally misrepresenting an idea for whatever reason. I think he believes what he’s saying so I think liar is pretty harsh. Next, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things naturally move from order to disorder over time unless energy is added to maintain order. In other words, systems tend to “run down” or become less organized unless something actively works to keep them organized. Which is what you were saying but worded a little funny for context sake. A simple example would be if you leave a cup of hot coffee in a cold room. Eventually the coffee becomes cold. This principle explains why things like machines wear out or food spoils over time. It’s not impossible to create order, but it always requires energy to do so. So, with that being said, what are the absurd claims you think he made?
@@jitagan From information science, we do see that there is entropy of complex specified information as found in our DNA unless it is constantly maintained and infused from without. John Sanford - Genetic Entropy
Er. Nobody would use C14 to date the Earth. We do not find detectable amounts of C14 in geological samples. These are, quite simply, lies made by creationists.
As a young earth creationist I would have to agree with you, carbon dating isn't conducted on inorganic materials because the only way C14 can get into inorganic materials is thru contamination. I hate to say it but they're doing the exact same thing that scientists have been doing for decades by taking data from an unreliable method and interpreting it in favor of their position. I just want to say that not all young earth creationists do this.
@@mikewiththebluecar that's not true either. That's not the only way that carbon can get into samples and they test for contamination. Creation scientists would completely disagree with everything you just said
We will find detectable amounts of Carbon-14 in *some* geological samples because the decay chain of uranium can transmute Nitrogen-14 into Carbon-14, which then decays back into Nitrogen-14. Then the cycle repeats.
@StandingForTruthMinistries I know that carbon dating shows that the earth is older than 6000 years. I know the bible doesn't tell anything about the age of the earth. So there is no reason to believe in YEC.
Well, just the one that made me stop watching. Diamonds are really hard and used in cutting equipment like drills, it’s impossible to contaminate a diamond. Probably not the precise words. Well I’m sorry to tell you but no diamond is pure carbon. Anyone who’s purchased a diamond knows that even gemstone quality have inclusions and contaminants. Industrial diamonds are used for that purpose specifically because they contain the most contaminants and are not suitable as gemstones. The most common Impurity is nitrogen, the source of C 14 as well as oxygen and some metals. The ages obtained are always around 55,000 years which is at the limits of the equipment’s reliability but still more than 6000 years. This doesn’t prove there is no God or even that the Earth is millions of years sorry billions of years old. However, it does prove the presenters are lying and anyone with an above room temperature IQ whose brain hasn’t been turned into Swiss cheese can easily with a bit of time, research this for themselves.
There is a lot of fraud in the diamond industry. A lot of diamonds sold as "natural" are, in reality, synthetically made. These are much cheaper. The only apparent difference is the C14 content. The difference can be made even smaller by synthesise diamonds from very low C14 carbon. It is difficult to get rid of all C14, so it is expected that fake diamonds will still have a relatively young apparent age.
@runeaanderaa6840 Yes, it is. Take a look at the chart I show in the video. Feel free to track down all of the references. C14 is found in diamonds, coal, fossils, etc. Evolutionists have no good explanation for this. They've failed to answer the challenge.
@StandingForTruthMinistries Creationists are well known for distorting every fact and presenting impossible theories. I will be willing to bet 1 to 1000 that any fossilised pollen of modern species, like grass or certain trees, will never be found in samples from samlpes from the triassic. There are loads of other pollen that are currently extinxt. Why is this? Wasn't Noah's flood supposed to be the source of all sediments from this era? It is almost like modern plants didn't exist back there. And they didn't because they had not evolved yet. As I wrote, I'll be willing to bet 1 to 1000 that you won't find not even one single fossilised pollen of a modern plant among trillions and trillions of pollen from extinct plants. Would you take the bet, or is the odds too bad for you?
@@StandingForTruthMinistries Notice this critic makes the no true Scotsman fallacy with the words "real scientists" trying to imply YEC scientists weren't scientists. LOL! Critics like this, Donny, won't bother with checking out the facts and getting into these kinds of baseless allegations that the critics love to present without any reasons at all. The truth is they become a real waste of time bc they've already decided that we're "wrong" and their "right" regardless what the evidence shows. God bless!
As a young earth creationist myself i would have to point out that carbon dating isn't done on inorganic materials because C14 isn't absorbed by rocks except thru contamination. C14 is created in plants which is then transmitted to herbivores through the digestive system and is transmitted to carnivores the same way by eating herbivores. And the diamonds you're referring to in drill bits are man made, they're not natural diamonds. You even say yourself that carbon dating isn't accurate, the reason it isn't accurate is because of contamination. The decay rate isn't fluctuating, it remains constant so the only viable option is contamination. Carbon dating is pretty much obsolete now that everyone knows just how unreliable it is and because of it's unreliability it's inconclusive in supporting an old earth or a new earth. I hate to say it but it sounds like you're doing the exact same thing that scientists were doing by taking inconsistent data from an unreliable method and interpreting it in favor of your agenda. I mean lets just be honest and say that carbon dating is an unreliable dating method and leave it at that. You can't use an unreliable method to support either side of the argument. It doesn't matter how much C14 is in a material, or potassium argon, or uranium 238, or accumulated radiation, because nobody knows how much of these elements the material contained the day that it was created. Adam & Eve were created with age on day one. The wine Jesus created at the wedding in Cana was already aged the day He crated it. The problem with the dating methods is that people assume that at some point in time there were no signs of age in materials. So you don't have to get into this whole discussion about decay rates because they're pointless because it still requires making the assumption that at some point there was no decay in the materials, when nobody actually knows that.
You are correct in the fact that carbon dating is unreliable but creationists have pointed out those flaws. The flaws, if corrected, can be used to date things correctly but you would have to take things into account that secularists do not. For instance, the global flood. Creationists are not skewing the information like the secularists do. They are using the correct starting assumptions and using that to fill in the gaps. Hope that helps 🙂🙏✝️
@ but carbon dating is still useless in supporting YEC because there are numerous materials that have too many daughter isotopes to be 6000 years old or less. I believe it’s because these materials already contained daughter isotopes on day 6 of creation because you still have the other numerous dating methods to contend with that are showing much older ages. Imbedded age seems to be the most viable explanation.
If organic material in what you believe is flood layers is only 4400 years old then why isn't there irrefutable consistent large percentage of C14 remaining in every sample and also fully sequencable DNA? Your very small list of contaminated dino bones have widely varying so called dates even from the same bone in the 15kya to 30kya mark approx. indicating varying amounts of contamination, many of them due to the shellac preservative used in museum collections. Diamond "dates" is just background noise in the AMS which may produce spurious >40kya "dates". When we date ice age animal bones and teeth etc which is in the range of C14 dating we have very consistent data. This is supposedly post flood for you guys yet they dating older than your dino bone examples. Let's hear about your rescue devices.
(part 1/2) I'm not going to tackle all of your questions but I'll take a shot at your top one. ICR: According to information from ICR, researchers are finding measurable amounts of carbon (radiocarbon, specifically carbon-14) in nearly all fossil samples they test, with some reports stating that every sample they examined contained detectable levels of carbon, even in fossils considered to be millions of years old. They also did a report on soft tissue and found that all dinosaur fossils being found contain soft tissue within them.
(part 2/2) As far as DNA goes, do they find DNA in these soft tissue samples? Not sure but I would imagine after 4,000 years the DNA would be breaking down by that time. I think it would be irrational to expect full strands of DNA to still be intact after all of that time. Hope that helps 🙂🙏
@@Rob2000 Schweitzer discovered flexible collagen after dissolving away a T Rex femur bone, also remnants of blood cells. It is thought that iron from the blood plays a part in the preservation process. Also within the bone the material is sealed from bacteria etc.. But not all bones have any soft tissue remaining.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 only because of use of contaminated material, probably purposefully. Almost all dates are from the bioapatite portion of the bone rather than the collagen which cannot be reliably dated due to substitution of carbon atoms in the bone matrix from environmental carbonates. Collagen doesn't suffer from this and can be reliably dated unless preservation is very poor and this can be indicated by various tests. Many pleistocene ice age mammals have well preserved collagen yet the C14 falls below detectable limits thus are >50kya approx.
I'm interested in seeing the creationist explanation for the INTCAL20 radiocarbon calibration data. Over 20 independent non-radiometric proxies are used to calibrate the 14C data back to 55,000 years before present. Tree ring data, ice core data, lake varves, speleothems, coral growth bands, etc. Creationists have an excuse for each of the proxies separately (i.e trees grew 4-5 rings a year every year) but they can never explain why all the proxies agree with one another.
They don't. The oldest tree alive is less than 10,000 years old, so it doesn't correspond to C14 "dates" at all. What's more, all of these things assume uniformitarianism which means you'd have to argue in a circle. However, our arguments here assumes uniformitarianism, which is a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument, which shows that, even if this perspective is assumed, most of the evidence would agree with us. To prevent circular reasoning you'd have to assume our assumptions to disprove our position (global Flood, a young earth, the truth of the Bible, etc.), but there's one major problem with this for you: all of the evidence would be consistent with our claims once you assume a global Flood. But you guys can't claim the same thing. Ice core dating not only assumes uniformitarianism, but the further down you go the more impacted the ice become to the point where the layers become indistinguishable from each other, so they have to guess, speculate, and apply their deep-time assumptions to it, so this doesn't concur with the C14 dates either. Me and another critic named Graeme had this debate on the comments of one of my videos on my channel. Maybe you should check it out. In the meantime, the video's coming out in 8 minutes. Let's enjoy watch it. God bless!
Living organisms ignored the problems of passing on corrupted information for billions of years! Regardless of how secular science interprets anything, they can't explain that away. Life was never designed to last imaginary billions of years. Tell parents of disabled children their kids mutations are beneficial.
Why would that be a problem? I would think for a God that can create all things in 6 days AND flood the earth, preserving it so that it wouldn't be destroyed would be a simple thing.
It would be something that is beyond the natural, hence, supernatural. That is what we believe in the first place. God is able to affect the natural with the supernatural.
Why does this break Creationists brains? Every isotope has a HALF life. At what point can you divide by 2 enough times to get to zero carbon??? Lol. Simple answer, you cant lol. You guys can't even do gradeschool math 😂. Carbon still being in samples doesn't destroy old earth ideas, it just shows you fundamentally misunderstand, as with most things Creationists deny.
The oldest carbon that can be reliably detected using carbon dating (also known as radiocarbon dating) is roughly around 50,000 years old, as the amount of carbon-14 becomes too small to accurately measure beyond that point due to its half-life of 5,730 years. Carbon isn't math Bozo.
@joefriday2275 Yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm 100% certain you missed my point. They claim "there's still carbon in it, therefore science wrong" as if the carbon will ever reach zero. My point is that no matter how many half lifes occur, you mathematically can't reach zero carbon. I really don't know how you missed that point lol
@@joefriday2275 Did you actually just compare radiometric decay to water evaporation..? Yeah, maybe leave the science to people that don't think the Earth is a few thousand years old 🤦
@ of course, is that the same god you can’t prove exists ? 😂 . Maybe you should make a list of all the supernatural claims that have been proven true. Then make a list of all the natural claims, that have been proven true throughout history ! Compare the lists, we’ll see which is the most logical ? . Take all the time you need
Wow. So much BS. You’re like those scammers who deliberately put spelling mistakes in their pop-ups, so only the stupid go further. Seriously, go do something useful for the world.
Hey, many of us have trouble speling. lol Yet we have a spellcheck algorithm in our genetic code just from chance and necessity? That takes much faith to believe.
@@johnsmit5999 lol. So you think that those with faith can be wrong! Even you can see that faith is not a reliable path to truth. You can't see reality except through the pre-selecting lens of your faith. It's a needless waste of your 'god-given' (😜) mental faculties and will perpetually limit you. Nowhere in the bible is the age of the earth declared, so your entire worldview is predicated on the guesswork hypothesis of a Victorian vicar. Do you have a problem with Cell Theory, Atom Theory, Germ Theory?
Does Contamination work as a sufficient means to solve this major challenge to evolution and an old earth? Definitely not. This rescue device has been thoroughly addressed. The critics have not done a good job to defend their contamination rescue device. Please see:
Baumgardner DJ. Are the RATE Radiocarbon (14C) Results Caused by Contamination? Answers in Genesis. Published December 2007. answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/
Some critics have offered a paper by Taylor and Southon (2007) in a desperate attempt to support their already-debunked contamination rescue device. This proves the critics are not up to date on the literature pertaining to this issue. This paper has already been extensively responded to. See the above technical article by Dr. John Baumgardner for a full refutation of the arguments offered in the Taylor and Southon paper. What do the protectors of the old earth and evolutionary paradigms have left to offer? The truth is they have nothing left. All of their attempts to save the day for their viewpoint have been comprehensively demolished.
The high C14 signal found in samples (diamonds, dinosaur bones, coal) that are supposed to be millions to billions of years old (all original C14 should have decayed away in this time) is one of the quickest and easiest ways to dismantle an old earth (and as a result--evolutionism). The critics really do have no good answer to this reality. As a matter of fact, C14 in samples where it should not be found precludes an old earth from being true. Sorry evolutionists!
Videos by Standing For Truth on How Carbon-14 Dismantles Evolution and an Old Earth (the critics have failed to address these videos):
PhD Astrophysicist Challenges an Old Earth | UNDENIABLE Evidence for Young Biblical Creation - th-cam.com/video/KU9pmbTpcwg/w-d-xo.html
This Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creation is IRREFUTABLE - th-cam.com/video/fiVwlODyj1g/w-d-xo.html
The Best Evidence for Biblical Creation (PART TWO) | Carbon-14 Debunks an Old Earth - Donny Budinsky
th-cam.com/video/6P-3jxkTmbc/w-d-xo.html
Amazing Evidence for Young Earth Creation: Carbon 14 (Demolishing the Critics) - th-cam.com/video/BJhjpwfy4iM/w-d-xo.html
Carbon 14 and Missing Isotopes | Dr. Charles Jackson - th-cam.com/video/q0SECAGWGB4/w-d-xo.html
The Truth About the Age of the Earth by Donny Budinsky - www.patreon.com/posts/truth-about-age-98023074
I think Miranda, Lorraine and GG are Not Going To Agree, but What else is new..God bless you and yours brother SFT!
Awesome sampler to your video coming up, Donny! True, true. evolutionists lack any adequate response to this. Background radiation and false claims of contamination don't work. Can't wait for the video, God bless!
@@StandingForTruthMinistries YT videos and links to Answers in Genesis aren't going to cut it.
@@ToothbrushMan why not? They're good sources. AIG, ICR, CMI, Genesis apologetics, etc. are all good resources and anyone should take advantage of them.
@@ToothbrushMan what's wrong with AIG???
Donny is literally kicking e-volution buttski. I am amazed at the detailed dismantling of e-volution. Both thumbs are WAY up for you, Donny. Just keep going and going. We love it
Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But, carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme.. ICR
Most people don't think about it enough to come to this conclusion. Spot on, brother
Amen
@@avafury4584 That's awesome. But we don't only use carbon 14 dating to measure things.
Look up Uranium Thorium dating, or U-dating
You seem to be missing the point being made, that being that there should not be any C-14 in diamonds or dinosaur fossils or coal layers if they are millions of years old, but we find C-14 in all of those things. So, the most logical conclusion is that those things (diamonds, dino fossils, and coal layers) are not millions of years old, but only a few thousands of years old. They’ve already disproved contamination as a rescue device for that, as explained in the video and in the links on the pinned comment above.
@@ryans8081 Contamination is rediculously easy to get into these samples and sites as it can come from the site, storage or the tools used to investigate the sample.
But no one is using carbong 14 dating to measure millions of year old diamond samples because again, carbon 14 dating is for living material and can only date back about 50 thousand years.
Carbon-14 dating is a method, based on unprovable assumptions about the past, used to date things that contain carbon (e.g. fossils). It can only give maximum ages of around 50,000 years and yet C-14 has been found in fossils and diamonds thought to be millions and billions of years old respectively.... AIG
@@avafury4584 But there are natural mechanisms that will create C14 in rocks. But this background C14 cannot be used to date geological samples.
@@ToothbrushMan they are dating the carbon that is being found within the living organisms themselves and they are not dating the rocks. They're dating the carbon being found in the fossils.
@ CMI has an article that deals with that issue and they specifically note that they did not use any contaminated samples in their work. Your point is moot
You don't use a sun dial for the 100 meter dash, and you don't use carbon dating for dating rocks that are millions or billions of years old... Every single one of these creationist arguments are from people that either don't understand how radiometric dating works, or they take some obscure edge case thinking that it undermines the whole thing... Creationists learn just enough about a subject to try and prove their forgone conclusions, but not enough to learn how it actually works..
@@inthelightofhisglory9614No they did not address the "issue". And there are better methods to date rocks other than C14. Why do you ignore these methods?
Thanks for doing this, brother! Another one for the playlists!!! God bless you and praying for you 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you SFT ❤✝️ blessings
That is because igneous rocks don't necessarily start out at zero daughter elements.
@paradigmbuster
Not sure where you get your information from, but in this case you need to look elsewhere.
From Physical Geology 8.4,
"An important assumption that we have to be able to make when using isotopic dating is that when the rock formed none of the daughter isotope was present."
And they ASSUME there was no daughter element. Which is a ridiculously huge thing to assume. But rocks always form with an abundance of such elements, regardless of which radiometric test is used
Unprovable assumption @garry
@@garrygraham "An important ASSUMPTION......."
@@DevlinJones-h4z Not true. Lead physically doesn't fit into the lattice structure of a fresh zircon. hope this helps
Great presentation, brother. Some of these comments on here are ridiculous. From absurd to absolutely misinformed it pretty much runs the gamut.
Thanks brother! Yes--the comments demonstrate that the critics really don't have an answer to this challenge.
@StandingForTruthMinistries amen
@@StandingForTruthMinistries how many scientists have you talked to about your supposed challenge? Do you honestly think.. oh well, who am I kidding, of course you do.
Can't wait for you to change the world brother Dony.
Thank you
God bless, brother 🙏
I like these videos keep going Donny
Radioactivity in the earth's crust creates a low level of carbon 14 that we use to calibrate carbon dating, when you read something really low you get the base level of carbon 14 in the earth's crust. In some places near radioactive deposits this base level is higher.
Carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere and is only found in organic material there Einstein.
@joefriday2275 also you should look into isometric dating methods. They have internal calibration tools to help determine if the sample is good or bad and if there is radioactive contamination. But I don't think you really care about evidence tbh.
@@benjaminunruh7970The earth's crust does not create carbon 14.
Espectacular. Video recomendado.!
Do we find c14 in moon rocks ?
C14 dating has a very specific set of things it can measure the age for. Using it outside of those senarios will get you a date but not a correct one by any means. If you start by mentioning valcanoes and dimonds, the only thing it says is you don't know what you are talking about.
15:00 This is the bit where Archeologists are stupid relying on C14 dating. I thought at the start of this nonsence video that he was Ok with carbon dating. The reason that Archeologists are happy with the dating within small error bars is down to calibration curves and it's all about correlation. And that correlation I'm talking about is called consilience. And no apologist has ever addressed it. They always attack individual parts and miss the forest for the tree. It has also been corroborated with dendrochronology, coral bands, speleothems, lake varves and ice cores all plotted against each other on the same graph. It's pretty cool. That's various dating methods (speleothems also use Thorium dating) with vastly different growth mechanisms.
Not sure if they mentioned C14 in coal in this video, but it has been used before to indicate that coal can't be millions of years. If coal was
Maybe take just a pinch of your skepticism of science and turn it toward the Bible? Creationists not doing radiometric dating correctly isn't evidence of anything other than incompetence. Diamonds aren't dated directly, they're dated by the inclusions.
To my knowledge, "Creationists" don't control any chronology labs. Maybe you can name even one?
Seems you're also mistaken in implying that Creationists collect all samples that have been incorrectly dated.
Atheists have a huge problem conflating science with what you wish for.
@@joefriday2275 What does "chronology labs" have to do with anything? I never said anything about that so why would I have to name one? Do you even know what chronology is? It's the arrangement of historical events in proper order and sequence. Radiometric dating can be used occasionally in chronology but they are very different things. Just because errors can occur in radiometric dating doesn't mean that it is ALWAYS wrong. YEC love to point out studies meant to help eliminate error in dating methods as if that indicates that it doesn't work. That is dishonest.
Young Earth creationists couldn't care less about almost every field of science; they undermine geology, radiometry, physics, archaeology, phylogeny, genetics, comparative anatomy, cosmology any time it contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible.
YECs begin with the conclusion that science is wrong, and then go about trying to find evidence to support that conclusion. You label anyone disagreeing with you "atheists". Sorry, but a large portion of Christians disagree with YEC so that's dishonest as well.
@gametime2473 A radiometric chronology laboratory uses radioactive isotopes to measure the age of materials. This process is called radiometric dating.
@@gametime2473 If your knowledge matched your assertiveness, you'd be silent.
We have modern day living organisms that have evolved to thrive in their environment. 2 different groups of humans and animals, insects and plants.
2:21 ‘C14 is a friend of creationists, they ( Secularists) don’t like to talk too much about it’ Well I don’t mind, charcoal From the oldest known settlement at Göbekli Tepe have been C14 dated to just under 10kY.
The oldest known human charcoal dated using carbon-14 is from the Boqueirao do Sitio da Pedra Furada painted rockshelter in Brazil, and dated at over 30kY
3:00 Carbon 14 in diamonds is caused by cluster decay. Fossils are usually mineralised and have to remaining original organic material.
4:00 The RATE team has been discredited by the vast majority of geologists.
6:00 You cannot contaminate a diamond because it’s really hard! Light and radiation will pass through it and radiation will cause C14. Diamonds come from graphite not organic carbon anyway.
This guy is a joke!
If two wolves on the ark could become every subspecies of canine, black bear to grizzly, polar bear, etc, monkies to apes, baboons. If the animals change geneticaly, isnt that evolution? Another question i have if the flood waters caused mountains, canyons, the rock arches, then how can christians claimed to have found the garden of eden?
Easy answer. It's all nonesense!
I asked multiple times in my debate with Kent; "How is "change within kind" not just evolution? It is exactly the same as evolution." Not sure if I got a clear answer on that. He said "they won't change kinds!" They won't in evolution either.
@@creationismsuperthesisguy well, there's no such thing as 'kinds' in the context of biology so I don't know what you were expecting.
So when God turned dust in a dude, did this reset his carbon 14? I would like details on this...
More like when the flood happened. That would have changed everything.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 What flood?? there is zero proof that a worldwide flood has ever happened.
Test
And the award for the most ridiculous rescue device goes to….
If you want to know if 'evolutionists' have a convincing answer, you should ask an 'evolutionist'!
Asking a creatinist off course yields the predicted answer.
What are you afraind of?
Find an expert in C14 dating, prepare him/her that you will ask for explanations to C14 in Diamonds and Dinosaur fossils, and make sure that you can provide the relevant evidence.
THEN you can have a relevant discussion.
Except we've asked MANY evolutionists. And it looks like we can now add you to the list as yet another evolutionist who has no answer.
@@StandingForTruthMinistries If a so called evolutionist has no answer, it would be an honest response. You don't get to supplant a God because of present unknown.
@@StandingForTruthMinistries When have you ever had a discussion with an expert in C14 dating or someone that works with an AMS system on a regular basis? I'd love to see the video of that.
What's this topic got to do with scripture?
It serves as good evidence that behemoth and leviathan that Job experienced in his day (Job 39,40) could be a couple of the dinosaurs in which scientists are finding C14 today.
Also, it supports the creation timeline as presented in Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20:11.
@johnsmit5999 Genesis 1-2 are not a creation time line of the material world its the story of the creation of a covenant people
@@petergouvignon8048 why wouldn't it be? Because unbelievers have said differently? Who should we trust? God or man? Personally, I prefer to trust God.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 First you would need to show/demonstrate/prove that your imaginary friend actually exists, then you would also need to show/demonstrate/prove that it poofed everything into existence from nothing, once you have done that, scientists might take you seriously.
@@VisshanVis science isn't the answer to everything and how exactly would you like us to "demonstrate" God? We can show you the signs God left behind in his creation. We can show you evidence that he came in the form of man 2000 years ago. We can show you many things but if you aren't willing to accept any of that, to what end and purpose? Do you expect to be able to put an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God in a lab under a microscope? Most problems in life cannot be solved through the lense of the naturalistic worldview.
Spoiler alert: There is no carbon 14 "challenge." The Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years ago. Get over it already.
Your spoiler alert is a religious faith position, given you weren’t there and no other human was either. Evolutionism and its assumptions is not going to help you answer the age of the earth question. Your position is not a scientific one, its a faith-based position.
And why would we believe what you have to say?
@@CBessevolution is not meant to answer the age of the earth, these are two different topics.
However its not correct to say that because someone wasnt there then its a faith based position.
Faith is to believe without evidence.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for both the age of the earth AND evolution. None of which requires the observer to have been there. That isnt how science works.
Now we could argue that the OP has never taken the time to bother looking at that evidence this has taken a position on "faith". But that doesn't make neither the age of the universe nor evolution wrong so really doesn't matter.
Better always to argue ideas instead of people
@@CBess You weren't there to witness any of the events in the Bible. It's all hearsay from anonymous authors. The Bible isn't any different than Greek or Norse myths.
@ I agree with some of your points, but I think you missed mine. Evolutionism requires long ages, beyond thousands of years. Unless you believe in some even more accelerated version of evolution. I branded long ages as unscientific and a faith-based position, primarily because it is not empirically confirmed. You cannot repeat or test millions of years ago, there are presuppositions (a priori beliefs) that color the picture of evolutionism. Do you believe you can use the scientific method (test, repeat, observe) on past events from supposedly millions of years ago? If not, then you’re arguing a point you can’t prove. Evolutionism has an illogical starting position.
As expected there was no creationist explanation for the INTCAL20 radiocarbon calibration data. Multiple independent non-radiometric dating proxies calibrating 14C dating back to 55,000 years before present. Oh well.
When are creationists going to answer the Phylogeny Challenge?
Right after atheists demonstrate non life becoming life.
Now. The answer to the phylogeny challenge is species. Species are what was originally and separately created.
When are you going to answer the population paradox?
@@RobertA-oi6hw He isn't, he's just going to dodge again
Been there done that. This once was Aron Ra's gotcha during debates because he knew that most doing creation research only get new ideas posited by evolution disciples only after the evolution camp is out peddling it for awhile. Example? ERV's. The ERV argument and story was pushed heavily, on cue, in unison by the EvoAtheist community until Donny Budinsky took the time to do actual research, write a paper to be peer reviewed, and ultimately a book explaining the slight of hand being employed to sell ERV's as evidence for cross population speciation. The phylogeny and eukaryotes argument preceded ERV's and the challenge was met and dismantled as unscientific quite easily which is why it and your question are old news. You're welcome!
Your are either lying about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or you are unable to understand it yet make absurd claims. The law states the energy available to do work can't increase in a closed system. It doesn't state matter breaks down over time, and our planet is not a closed system while the sun is still active.
The second law deals with entropy. The first law is what you’re thinking of, dealing with conservation of energy.
@artax7664 no, I'm referring to entropy. If you discharge a battery in a closed system, that energy still exists (1st law), but you can't put it back in the battery without expending additional energy from a different source, which results in less energy available to do work (2nd law). The liar in the video claims entropy means matter in individual organisms breaks down, and as a result we and our DNA can only get worse. By his logic, magnetism and gravity are impossible and you could never arrange your bookshelf alphabetically.
@@artax7664i think it's sort of both?
@@jitagan first, never attribute malice to what can be explained by incompetence. Calling someone a liar means you’re attributing malice. It means you’re saying he’s intentionally misrepresenting an idea for whatever reason. I think he believes what he’s saying so I think liar is pretty harsh. Next, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things naturally move from order to disorder over time unless energy is added to maintain order. In other words, systems tend to “run down” or become less organized unless something actively works to keep them organized. Which is what you were saying but worded a little funny for context sake.
A simple example would be if you leave a cup of hot coffee in a cold room. Eventually the coffee becomes cold.
This principle explains why things like machines wear out or food spoils over time. It’s not impossible to create order, but it always requires energy to do so. So, with that being said, what are the absurd claims you think he made?
@@jitagan From information science, we do see that there is entropy of complex specified information as found in our DNA unless it is constantly maintained and infused from without. John Sanford - Genetic Entropy
Just go to st.Helen, take a sample and send it to lab to proper test it.
They have and they did!!!
@christtheonlyhope4578 i know, but try to repeat it with proper lab and honest samples
@michalp79 they did. In spite of the attempts by secularists to slander them.
@@christtheonlyhope4578 They did it once, can you repeat it?
@@michalp79 I believe that's happened more than once
Er. Nobody would use C14 to date the Earth. We do not find detectable amounts of C14 in geological samples. These are, quite simply, lies made by creationists.
As a young earth creationist I would have to agree with you, carbon dating isn't conducted on inorganic materials because the only way C14 can get into inorganic materials is thru contamination. I hate to say it but they're doing the exact same thing that scientists have been doing for decades by taking data from an unreliable method and interpreting it in favor of their position. I just want to say that not all young earth creationists do this.
Not true
@@mikewiththebluecar that's not true either. That's not the only way that carbon can get into samples and they test for contamination. Creation scientists would completely disagree with everything you just said
We will find detectable amounts of Carbon-14 in *some* geological samples because the decay chain of uranium can transmute Nitrogen-14 into Carbon-14, which then decays back into Nitrogen-14. Then the cycle repeats.
@@Rosyna You are quite correct, and I stand corrected.
Consistent ages of 70,000 years?
So the earth can't be 6000 years old.
@@georg7120 tell me you didn't watch the whole video without telling me.
@StandingForTruthMinistries I don't waste my time with such videos.
@@georg7120 exactly why you are incapable of refuting anything.
@StandingForTruthMinistries I know that carbon dating shows that the earth is older than 6000 years.
I know the bible doesn't tell anything about the age of the earth.
So there is no reason to believe in YEC.
Sorry, I had to give up after seven minutes once the lies got into double figures.
Can't handle the truth eh
Well, just the one that made me stop watching. Diamonds are really hard and used in cutting equipment like drills, it’s impossible to contaminate a diamond. Probably not the precise words. Well I’m sorry to tell you but no diamond is pure carbon. Anyone who’s purchased a diamond knows that even gemstone quality have inclusions and contaminants. Industrial diamonds are used for that purpose specifically because they contain the most contaminants and are not suitable as gemstones. The most common Impurity is nitrogen, the source of C 14 as well as oxygen and some metals. The ages obtained are always around 55,000 years which is at the limits of the equipment’s reliability but still more than 6000 years. This doesn’t prove there is no God or even that the Earth is millions of years sorry billions of years old. However, it does prove the presenters are lying and anyone with an above room temperature IQ whose brain hasn’t been turned into Swiss cheese can easily with a bit of time, research this for themselves.
@StandingForTruthMinistries you should rename your channel: "StandingForDeceptionMinistries"
@@markbrennan6684just looked this up and you’re right!
There is a lot of fraud in the diamond industry. A lot of diamonds sold as "natural" are, in reality, synthetically made. These are much cheaper. The only apparent difference is the C14 content. The difference can be made even smaller by synthesise diamonds from very low C14 carbon. It is difficult to get rid of all C14, so it is expected that fake diamonds will still have a relatively young apparent age.
Real diamonds have high levels of C14 in them. There is a strong C14 signal all throughout the geologic rock record.
@StandingForTruthMinistries This is not what real scientists say.
@runeaanderaa6840 Yes, it is. Take a look at the chart I show in the video. Feel free to track down all of the references. C14 is found in diamonds, coal, fossils, etc. Evolutionists have no good explanation for this. They've failed to answer the challenge.
@StandingForTruthMinistries Creationists are well known for distorting every fact and presenting impossible theories. I will be willing to bet 1 to 1000 that any fossilised pollen of modern species, like grass or certain trees, will never be found in samples from samlpes from the triassic. There are loads of other pollen that are currently extinxt. Why is this? Wasn't Noah's flood supposed to be the source of all sediments from this era? It is almost like modern plants didn't exist back there. And they didn't because they had not evolved yet. As I wrote, I'll be willing to bet 1 to 1000 that you won't find not even one single fossilised pollen of a modern plant among trillions and trillions of pollen from extinct plants. Would you take the bet, or is the odds too bad for you?
@@StandingForTruthMinistries Notice this critic makes the no true Scotsman fallacy with the words "real scientists" trying to imply YEC scientists weren't scientists. LOL! Critics like this, Donny, won't bother with checking out the facts and getting into these kinds of baseless allegations that the critics love to present without any reasons at all. The truth is they become a real waste of time bc they've already decided that we're "wrong" and their "right" regardless what the evidence shows. God bless!
As a young earth creationist myself i would have to point out that carbon dating isn't done on inorganic materials because C14 isn't absorbed by rocks except thru contamination. C14 is created in plants which is then transmitted to herbivores through the digestive system and is transmitted to carnivores the same way by eating herbivores. And the diamonds you're referring to in drill bits are man made, they're not natural diamonds. You even say yourself that carbon dating isn't accurate, the reason it isn't accurate is because of contamination. The decay rate isn't fluctuating, it remains constant so the only viable option is contamination. Carbon dating is pretty much obsolete now that everyone knows just how unreliable it is and because of it's unreliability it's inconclusive in supporting an old earth or a new earth. I hate to say it but it sounds like you're doing the exact same thing that scientists were doing by taking inconsistent data from an unreliable method and interpreting it in favor of your agenda. I mean lets just be honest and say that carbon dating is an unreliable dating method and leave it at that. You can't use an unreliable method to support either side of the argument. It doesn't matter how much C14 is in a material, or potassium argon, or uranium 238, or accumulated radiation, because nobody knows how much of these elements the material contained the day that it was created. Adam & Eve were created with age on day one. The wine Jesus created at the wedding in Cana was already aged the day He crated it. The problem with the dating methods is that people assume that at some point in time there were no signs of age in materials. So you don't have to get into this whole discussion about decay rates because they're pointless because it still requires making the assumption that at some point there was no decay in the materials, when nobody actually knows that.
It isn't about carbon in the rocks. It's about carbon that is in what is in the rocks. I.e. fossils, diamonds
Carbon isn't used to date rocks. It's used to date things that were once living
Diamonds are only drill bits? And the carbon that they are dating is not contaminated. Where in the world are you getting your information from???
You are correct in the fact that carbon dating is unreliable but creationists have pointed out those flaws. The flaws, if corrected, can be used to date things correctly but you would have to take things into account that secularists do not. For instance, the global flood.
Creationists are not skewing the information like the secularists do. They are using the correct starting assumptions and using that to fill in the gaps. Hope that helps 🙂🙏✝️
@ but carbon dating is still useless in supporting YEC because there are numerous materials that have too many daughter isotopes to be 6000 years old or less. I believe it’s because these materials already contained daughter isotopes on day 6 of creation because you still have the other numerous dating methods to contend with that are showing much older ages. Imbedded age seems to be the most viable explanation.
If organic material in what you believe is flood layers is only 4400 years old then why isn't there irrefutable consistent large percentage of C14 remaining in every sample and also fully sequencable DNA? Your very small list of contaminated dino bones have widely varying so called dates even from the same bone in the 15kya to 30kya mark approx. indicating varying amounts of contamination, many of them due to the shellac preservative used in museum collections. Diamond "dates" is just background noise in the AMS which may produce spurious >40kya "dates". When we date ice age animal bones and teeth etc which is in the range of C14 dating we have very consistent data. This is supposedly post flood for you guys yet they dating older than your dino bone examples. Let's hear about your rescue devices.
(part 1/2) I'm not going to tackle all of your questions but I'll take a shot at your top one.
ICR: According to information from ICR, researchers are finding measurable amounts of carbon (radiocarbon, specifically carbon-14) in nearly all fossil samples they test, with some reports stating that every sample they examined contained detectable levels of carbon, even in fossils considered to be millions of years old.
They also did a report on soft tissue and found that all dinosaur fossils being found contain soft tissue within them.
(part 2/2)
As far as DNA goes, do they find DNA in these soft tissue samples? Not sure but I would imagine after 4,000 years the DNA would be breaking down by that time. I think it would be irrational to expect full strands of DNA to still be intact after all of that time. Hope that helps 🙂🙏
@@newcreationinchrist1423 when will you YEC stop with this soft tissue BS in dino bones. THERE ARE NO SOFT TISSUES FOUND IN DINO BONES.
@@Rob2000 Schweitzer discovered flexible collagen after dissolving away a T Rex femur bone, also remnants of blood cells. It is thought that iron from the blood plays a part in the preservation process. Also within the bone the material is sealed from bacteria etc.. But not all bones have any soft tissue remaining.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 only because of use of contaminated material, probably purposefully. Almost all dates are from the bioapatite portion of the bone rather than the collagen which cannot be reliably dated due to substitution of carbon atoms in the bone matrix from environmental carbonates. Collagen doesn't suffer from this and can be reliably dated unless preservation is very poor and this can be indicated by various tests. Many pleistocene ice age mammals have well preserved collagen yet the C14 falls below detectable limits thus are >50kya approx.
I'm interested in seeing the creationist explanation for the INTCAL20 radiocarbon calibration data. Over 20 independent non-radiometric proxies are used to calibrate the 14C data back to 55,000 years before present. Tree ring data, ice core data, lake varves, speleothems, coral growth bands, etc. Creationists have an excuse for each of the proxies separately (i.e trees grew 4-5 rings a year every year) but they can never explain why all the proxies agree with one another.
They don't. The oldest tree alive is less than 10,000 years old, so it doesn't correspond to C14 "dates" at all. What's more, all of these things assume uniformitarianism which means you'd have to argue in a circle. However, our arguments here assumes uniformitarianism, which is a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument, which shows that, even if this perspective is assumed, most of the evidence would agree with us. To prevent circular reasoning you'd have to assume our assumptions to disprove our position (global Flood, a young earth, the truth of the Bible, etc.), but there's one major problem with this for you: all of the evidence would be consistent with our claims once you assume a global Flood. But you guys can't claim the same thing. Ice core dating not only assumes uniformitarianism, but the further down you go the more impacted the ice become to the point where the layers become indistinguishable from each other, so they have to guess, speculate, and apply their deep-time assumptions to it, so this doesn't concur with the C14 dates either. Me and another critic named Graeme had this debate on the comments of one of my videos on my channel. Maybe you should check it out. In the meantime, the video's coming out in 8 minutes. Let's enjoy watch it. God bless!
Living organisms ignored the problems of passing on corrupted information for billions of years! Regardless of how secular science interprets anything, they can't explain that away. Life was never designed to last imaginary billions of years. Tell parents of disabled children their kids mutations are beneficial.
@@apologetics-101you should write a scientific paper about it,I'm sure nature will publish this breakthrough...🤪
The Nobel prize awaits you 😂
So they calibrated the data to get the answers they all ready have assumed are 100% right.
@@KrisMaertens Yeah, bc we all know _Nature_ is unbias, right? That was sarcasm by the way, but I might be writing one for ARJ.
If you are asking a question, then answer it in the same title. I don't think you want to change your mind.
And how is that heat problem handling your 'Truth'?
feel free to answer the carbon 14 problem before bring up a whataboutism
@@mike16apha16 I don't see a problem, because you all assume that carbon 14 dating is the ONLY WAY WE CAN DATE MATERIALS.
Why would that be a problem? I would think for a God that can create all things in 6 days AND flood the earth, preserving it so that it wouldn't be destroyed would be a simple thing.
It would be something that is beyond the natural, hence, supernatural. That is what we believe in the first place. God is able to affect the natural with the supernatural.
There is no heat problem. We have a problem solving God.
Why does this break Creationists brains? Every isotope has a HALF life. At what point can you divide by 2 enough times to get to zero carbon??? Lol. Simple answer, you cant lol. You guys can't even do gradeschool math 😂.
Carbon still being in samples doesn't destroy old earth ideas, it just shows you fundamentally misunderstand, as with most things Creationists deny.
The oldest carbon that can be reliably detected using carbon dating (also known as radiocarbon dating) is roughly around 50,000 years old, as the amount of carbon-14 becomes too small to accurately measure beyond that point due to its half-life of 5,730 years.
Carbon isn't math Bozo.
@joefriday2275 Yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm 100% certain you missed my point. They claim "there's still carbon in it, therefore science wrong" as if the carbon will ever reach zero. My point is that no matter how many half lifes occur, you mathematically can't reach zero carbon. I really don't know how you missed that point lol
@fohrum4757 The half-life of water evaporating from the teapot is 1 hour. The teapot will go dry.
@@joefriday2275 Did you actually just compare radiometric decay to water evaporation..? Yeah, maybe leave the science to people that don't think the Earth is a few thousand years old 🤦
@fohrum4757 So, your math doesn't always apply? 🤣
Have you given a significant answer, for a mechanism for anything God has created ?
the mechanism was: poof
@ what mechanism?
@ the mechanism god use to create
Would that mean things composed of complex specified information?
@ of course, is that the same god you can’t prove exists ? 😂
.
Maybe you should make a list of all the supernatural claims that have been proven true.
Then make a list of all the natural claims, that have been proven true throughout history !
Compare the lists, we’ll see which is the most logical ?
.
Take all the time you need
Carbon is there, so it can.
Prove that it can't.
Wow. So much BS. You’re like those scammers who deliberately put spelling mistakes in their pop-ups, so only the stupid go further.
Seriously, go do something useful for the world.
Hey, many of us have trouble speling. lol Yet we have a spellcheck algorithm in our genetic code just from chance and necessity? That takes much faith to believe.
@ no faith required if you can see it happening.
@@richardcooper9167 Maybe no faith to see it happening now but yes faith to see it arising from natural processes.
@@johnsmit5999 lol. So you think that those with faith can be wrong! Even you can see that faith is not a reliable path to truth.
You can't see reality except through the pre-selecting lens of your faith. It's a needless waste of your 'god-given' (😜) mental faculties and will perpetually limit you.
Nowhere in the bible is the age of the earth declared, so your entire worldview is predicated on the guesswork hypothesis of a Victorian vicar.
Do you have a problem with Cell Theory, Atom Theory, Germ Theory?