Good analogy of radioactive decay... hourglass. Thank you. Very informative. I had questioned constant radioactive decay in nuc eng classes 30+ years ago..
You are very smart for questioning it and let me show you why. I am going to link you to three videos that are fossilized river of blood. Watch all three and if at the end of 3rd video you still believe it is volcanic in anyway,please present your evidence to support your theory like I did. This will blow your mind and put the fear of God in a man...It is real easy,all you have to do is prove my statement wrong. Thank you for your time looking into the truth...th-cam.com/video/2bDPzMlGQKc/w-d-xo.html
After days of researching how Genesis and the Great Flood story could provide an alternative explanation for Fossil records and Geology, it is evident that the main barrier for the acceptance of the theory is Timescales which are derived from Radioactive Decay methods. Until now, I have thought that it is unchallenged, but the alternative Helium leaching and Radio halos provide compelling evidence that contemporary timescales are not necessary the truth! Thank you!
Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. I do not understand how the D0 the number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition is determined? The D0 is not a product of the equation but a requirement for the equation. If there is any daughter element present at solidification then the equation does not work. What method is used to verify that the sample had no daughter isotope present at solidification?
I liked the explanation using the hourglass metaphor. I was wondering who defined what constitutes an hour in the first place. Than it crossed my mind we have the 24 hour cycle given to us by earth and sun. Assuming of course that these rates stay constant over millions of years. I never knew it was possible to date rocks. As I understand from your explanation several methods have been developed but they do not yield the same results. Will we ever figure out what the best method is? Thank you for telling us about your studies.
An influx of enough energy to excite the atoms in an extreme way will accelerate the decay of a sample, and probably not uniformly. I don't know why this isn't considered when thinking about the creation of parent ions in a sample. Have they ever observed a naturally formed parent sample without daughter ions?
This is just my theory. But I do believe that the radioactive decay can be influenced by external factors. We humans do it in a nuclear fission reactor to produce nuclear energy. In the case of Uranium, it is hit with a neutron making the cohesive forces in the nucleus weaker than the repulsive forces leading to nuclear fission. I think the way the decay rates could have been increased is this: as we know that the Earth's magnetic field is generated as a result of FLUID motions is the outer core. During the volcanic eruptions that led to Noah's food if much of the molten liquid was thrown out from volcanoes and it solidifies, the magnetic field of the earth could have dropped and the particles in the solar wind could increase the rate of radioactive decay just like it happens in a fission reactor. Just a theory.
Radioactive decay rates change over time? I guess that the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. maybe in grave error by using Cesium clocks (radioactive decay process) to establish the most accurate time possible. All other highly accurate clocks in the world are regularly synced to these clocks to make sure that all of our satellite and communication technologies are able to do their thing.
Thank you for your feedback @thomasballentine9496, Dr. Snelling is not arguing that radioactive decay rates are 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 changing over time. Rather, that they changed at one or more times in the ancient past (at least during Creation and the Flood). This makes sense considering that other geologic-associated processes were also occurring at a faster rate before gradually declining to modern day rates as well. For more, see here: newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-1/ newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-2/
although i am a Christian and 100% sure of the truth and existence of God and CAN NOT be convinced otherwise, i’d love to see/hear an evolutionist, scientist, or anyone else with a decent level of intelligence and civility, attempt to debate or debunk any of the many topics discussed on this channel. agreement doesn’t have to be a product of understanding. or learning for that matter. the brain food would be a buffet! whether it would further solidify my belief in the Genesis paradigm or it caused me to pop my science book back open with my bible app for a reference guide. either way.. im hungry! lol 📚✝️👨🏾🔬
If Cosmologist continues to measure different expansion everywhere they look in the universe then it would mean its not isotropic . If its not then carbon dating is wrong and decay isn't a consistent rate that could be estimated
Are you sure he said _secular_ research? There probably is for coal, but I'm not so sure about dinosaur bones. But lacking any other responses, I'd suggest that you look on creation . com (remove the spaces) or answersingenesis . com for information about it. They will typically have references to secular research with such things.
In 2005 paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found dinosaur soft tissue (red blood cells, collagen etc) intact in the fossilized bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex that was supposedly 65 million years old. There is no way red blood cells and collagen can last for 65 million years. Other scientists have since also found the same in other dinosaur fossils. The millions and billions of years is based on false assumptions and extrapolations from dodgy dating methods.
The couple frames flashed of the solar system, why did they exaggerate the density of and size of the asteroids? The total volume of all cataloged asteroids amounts to less than the size of our moon.
I had often wondered to myself, "How will the Lord clean up the mess that we have made here?" When we look at things like Fukushima and Chernobyl, along with many of our SuperFund sites, there are some terrible things that cannot be here for his 1,000 year reign. He said he will destroy this world with fire, but that does not clean up the whole problem. The "speed up of decay" can answer many of these questions for the past, as well as mine for the future.
I enjoyed this but I believe the time that the bible tells me i don’t worry about the time past but look to the future believing His return a future with him and then I will know how old the earth is
So let us get this straight: Darwin and Lyell challenged what was almost impossible to challenge during the time when church managed to have an iron grip on the minds of humanity, proposing that the history of time measured in millions not in fixed 6000 years. The scientists after them managed to prove that rocks are millions of years old and now these proofs are dogma? Can we really grasp the comicality of these statements?
Being a good odld Darwinist, I do not completely agree with you. But I very much like your work. As you do, I am quite sure that the mainstream story is wrong, but for different reasons. Your idea of evolution as a random process is a bit simple/naive. After a career in the field of genomics, I would say that the process of evolution has more in common with the process of solving differential equations than with casting dices. That means the solutions are out there and the molecular machinery, dirven by random mistakes, finds solutions. This approach is not that far away from "logos" which was in the begining. In the context of catastrophic floods you should have a look athe growing earth hypothesis. ( th-cam.com/users/nealadamsdotcom ) . Thank you very much for sharing your interesting work.
Like many, I'm still waiting to hear of any evidence that supports evolutionism, though I guess you'd need to define it first, as it is used as a slippery bait-and-switch campaign in textbooks and many websites, which go into the origin of the earth and the big bang theory dud being that life had to start somewhere. The leading lamestream narrative seems to be that it started from rocks that were rained on. I know I certainly don't have enough faith that you are related to lobsters and cabbage, and ultimately a rock. I know I'm not. There is not any actual evidence that any type of animal that changed from another, though I know many "believe" that to be true. No one has certainly ever seen it happen. Time is the one piece that the whole evolutionary theory is hinged on, but that is another can/scam of worms that conveniently keeps changing. If a frog turns into a prince quickly, we call that a fairytale. If a frog turns into a prince slowly (millions of years), you call that science. We know dogs and trees are related because they both have bark. And, female mammals and coconuts are related because they both have milk. I do have to level with you, though, and actually do agree with Darwin at least on one point. He surmised that because finch beaks were a crazy huge, whopping, mind-blowing ~5mm difference in size in dry versus wet years (as I recall), they all shared a common ancestor. I definitely agree, no doubt about it. He was onto something. It was a bird. Also very peculiar is that all of the leaders of the evilutionary theory, save for Jean Lamarck and Ernst Haeckel, were not trained as scientists, and both of them with anti-Christian agendas. Haeckel was a convicted fraud by his own school with the human gill slit propaganda that still to this day graces much literature and textbooks. The other evolutionary leaders, per Henry Morris: Erasmus Darwin (Charles' dad): doctor and poet Charles Darwin: theologian Charles Lyell: lawyer William Smith: surveyor James Hutton: agriculturalist John Playfair: mathematician Robert Chambers: journalist Thomas Huxley: medicine Alfred Russell: little formal education of any kind Herbert Spencer: virtually no formal education, except railroad engineering Thomas Malthus: theologian and economist Things that should make you go hmm. When you believe all physical matter, life, and our thoughts are a random happenstance, and where there are no absolutes, the powers that be who push the official narratives have not earned the right to be the arbiters of truth and define absolutes.
@@darrenk6616 the most impactful discoveries have been from polymaths, it isnt surprising that ground breaking advances come from many different sources looked under a new light
Did Robert Gentry get credit in this video for the radio halo discovery? I never heard of Snelling being part of the hard work and battle against the evolutionists geologists decades ago that he went through. I am not upset but just wondering. If anyone is interested in hearing Mr. Gentry there is a video interview here where he talks about his discoveries: th-cam.com/video/cJ00BC2iCTc/w-d-xo.html
Good analogy of radioactive decay... hourglass. Thank you. Very informative. I had questioned constant radioactive decay in nuc eng classes 30+ years ago..
You are very smart for questioning it and let me show you why. I am going to link you to three videos that are fossilized river of blood. Watch all three and if at the end of 3rd video you still believe it is volcanic in anyway,please present your evidence to support your theory like I did. This will blow your mind and put the fear of God in a man...It is real easy,all you have to do is prove my statement wrong. Thank you for your time looking into the truth...th-cam.com/video/2bDPzMlGQKc/w-d-xo.html
After days of researching how Genesis and the Great Flood story could provide an alternative explanation for Fossil records and Geology, it is evident that the main barrier for the acceptance of the theory is Timescales which are derived from Radioactive Decay methods. Until now, I have thought that it is unchallenged, but the alternative Helium leaching and Radio halos provide compelling evidence that contemporary timescales are not necessary the truth! Thank you!
I’m loving this channel
Thank you for a great production. It's going to help bring in more to the fold. May you continue to be blessed.
Great video. We need to share this.
Thanks for the hard work and well presented video.
Very good explanation for the layperson who may not understand the technical jargon. Looking forward to more informational videos. Thank you
Good job!
Much appreciated, William!
Great information
Cool, when is someone gonna turn this info into a thesis paper, submit it for peer review & then start to overturn the theory of evolution itself?
An open system proves that God’s word is living and that He can intercede at any point He needs to.
Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set.
D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)
t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt,
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2.
I do not understand how the D0 the number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition is determined? The D0 is not a product of the equation but a requirement for the equation. If there is any daughter element present at solidification then the equation does not work. What method is used to verify that the sample had no daughter isotope present at solidification?
D0 =faith It is the religion constant of the equation. NO ONE was there to know how many daughter isotopes were there to begin with.
Thank you. Great info!
I liked the explanation using the hourglass metaphor. I was wondering who defined what constitutes an hour in the first place. Than it crossed my mind we have the 24 hour cycle given to us by earth and sun. Assuming of course that these rates stay constant over millions of years. I never knew it was possible to date rocks. As I understand from your explanation several methods have been developed but they do not yield the same results. Will we ever figure out what the best method is? Thank you for telling us about your studies.
An influx of enough energy to excite the atoms in an extreme way will accelerate the decay of a sample, and probably not uniformly. I don't know why this isn't considered when thinking about the creation of parent ions in a sample. Have they ever observed a naturally formed parent sample without daughter ions?
Very good. Truth.
Informative lecture. Really like the polonium examples of the halos and the helium leakage equations
This is just my theory. But I do believe that the radioactive decay can be influenced by external factors. We humans do it in a nuclear fission reactor to produce nuclear energy. In the case of Uranium, it is hit with a neutron making the cohesive forces in the nucleus weaker than the repulsive forces leading to nuclear fission.
I think the way the decay rates could have been increased is this: as we know that the Earth's magnetic field is generated as a result of FLUID motions is the outer core. During the volcanic eruptions that led to Noah's food if much of the molten liquid was thrown out from volcanoes and it solidifies, the magnetic field of the earth could have dropped and the particles in the solar wind could increase the rate of radioactive decay just like it happens in a fission reactor. Just a theory.
What about the fact that radioactive elements decay at different rates depending on distance from the earth?
so if something external could change the binding of the nucleus then the decay rate would be thrown off. very interesting indeed
Radioactive decay rates change over time? I guess that the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. maybe in grave error by using Cesium clocks (radioactive decay process) to establish the most accurate time possible. All other highly accurate clocks in the world are regularly synced to these clocks to make sure that all of our satellite and communication technologies are able to do their thing.
Thank you for your feedback @thomasballentine9496,
Dr. Snelling is not arguing that radioactive decay rates are 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 changing over time. Rather, that they changed at one or more times in the ancient past (at least during Creation and the Flood). This makes sense considering that other geologic-associated processes were also occurring at a faster rate before gradually declining to modern day rates as well. For more, see here: newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-1/
newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-2/
although i am a Christian and 100% sure of the truth and existence of God and CAN NOT be convinced otherwise, i’d love to see/hear an evolutionist, scientist, or anyone else with a decent level of intelligence and civility, attempt to debate or debunk any of the many topics discussed on this channel. agreement doesn’t have to be a product of understanding. or learning for that matter. the brain food would be a buffet! whether it would further solidify my belief in the Genesis paradigm or it caused me to pop my science book back open with my bible app for a reference guide. either way.. im hungry! lol 📚✝️👨🏾🔬
If Cosmologist continues to measure different expansion everywhere they look in the universe then it would mean its not isotropic . If its not then carbon dating is wrong and decay isn't a consistent rate that could be estimated
Dr shilling refers to published secular research that found c14 in dinasaur bones and coal. I'd like to see the reference for skeptical family members
Are you sure he said _secular_ research? There probably is for coal, but I'm not so sure about dinosaur bones. But lacking any other responses, I'd suggest that you look on creation . com (remove the spaces) or answersingenesis . com for information about it. They will typically have references to secular research with such things.
In 2005 paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found dinosaur soft tissue (red blood cells, collagen etc) intact in the fossilized bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex that was supposedly 65 million years old. There is no way red blood cells and collagen can last for 65 million years. Other scientists have since also found the same in other dinosaur fossils. The millions and billions of years is based on false assumptions and extrapolations from dodgy dating methods.
The couple frames flashed of the solar system, why did they exaggerate the density of and size of the asteroids? The total volume of all cataloged asteroids amounts to less than the size of our moon.
It always goes back to a difference in worldviews; starting perspective. YEC scientists have the same evidence as the other scientists. 🤷♂️
I had often wondered to myself, "How will the Lord clean up the mess that we have made here?" When we look at things like Fukushima and Chernobyl, along with many of our SuperFund sites, there are some terrible things that cannot be here for his 1,000 year reign. He said he will destroy this world with fire, but that does not clean up the whole problem. The "speed up of decay" can answer many of these questions for the past, as well as mine for the future.
guys, thats a giant ant hill 😳
I enjoyed this but I believe the time that the bible tells me i don’t worry about the time past but look to the future believing His return a future with him and then I will know how old the earth is
So let us get this straight: Darwin and Lyell challenged what was almost impossible to challenge during the time when church managed to have an iron grip on the minds of humanity, proposing that the history of time measured in millions not in fixed 6000 years. The scientists after them managed to prove that rocks are millions of years old and now these proofs are dogma? Can we really grasp the comicality of these statements?
Being a good odld Darwinist, I do not completely agree with you. But I very much like your work. As you do, I am quite sure that the mainstream story is wrong, but for different reasons. Your idea of evolution as a random process is a bit simple/naive. After a career in the field of genomics, I would say that the process of evolution has more in common with the process of solving differential equations than with casting dices. That means the solutions are out there and the molecular machinery, dirven by random mistakes, finds solutions. This approach is not that far away from "logos" which was in the begining. In the context of catastrophic floods you should have a look athe growing earth hypothesis. ( th-cam.com/users/nealadamsdotcom ) . Thank you very much for sharing your interesting work.
Like many, I'm still waiting to hear of any evidence that supports evolutionism, though I guess you'd need to define it first, as it is used as a slippery bait-and-switch campaign in textbooks and many websites, which go into the origin of the earth and the big bang theory dud being that life had to start somewhere. The leading lamestream narrative seems to be that it started from rocks that were rained on. I know I certainly don't have enough faith that you are related to lobsters and cabbage, and ultimately a rock. I know I'm not. There is not any actual evidence that any type of animal that changed from another, though I know many "believe" that to be true. No one has certainly ever seen it happen.
Time is the one piece that the whole evolutionary theory is hinged on, but that is another can/scam of worms that conveniently keeps changing. If a frog turns into a prince quickly, we call that a fairytale. If a frog turns into a prince slowly (millions of years), you call that science.
We know dogs and trees are related because they both have bark. And, female mammals and coconuts are related because they both have milk.
I do have to level with you, though, and actually do agree with Darwin at least on one point. He surmised that because finch beaks were a crazy huge, whopping, mind-blowing ~5mm difference in size in dry versus wet years (as I recall), they all shared a common ancestor. I definitely agree, no doubt about it. He was onto something. It was a bird.
Also very peculiar is that all of the leaders of the evilutionary theory, save for Jean Lamarck and Ernst Haeckel, were not trained as scientists, and both of them with anti-Christian agendas. Haeckel was a convicted fraud by his own school with the human gill slit propaganda that still to this day graces much literature and textbooks. The other evolutionary leaders, per Henry Morris:
Erasmus Darwin (Charles' dad): doctor and poet
Charles Darwin: theologian
Charles Lyell: lawyer
William Smith: surveyor
James Hutton: agriculturalist
John Playfair: mathematician
Robert Chambers: journalist
Thomas Huxley: medicine
Alfred Russell: little formal education of any kind
Herbert Spencer: virtually no formal education, except railroad engineering
Thomas Malthus: theologian and economist
Things that should make you go hmm.
When you believe all physical matter, life, and our thoughts are a random happenstance, and where there are no absolutes, the powers that be who push the official narratives have not earned the right to be the arbiters of truth and define absolutes.
@@darrenk6616 the most impactful discoveries have been from polymaths, it isnt surprising that ground breaking advances come from many different sources looked under a new light
Did Robert Gentry get credit in this video for the radio halo discovery? I never heard of Snelling being part of the hard work and battle against the evolutionists geologists decades ago that he went through. I am not upset but just wondering. If anyone is interested in hearing Mr. Gentry there is a video interview here where he talks about his discoveries: th-cam.com/video/cJ00BC2iCTc/w-d-xo.html