Radiometric Dating Destroyed | Debunking Really Weak Counter-Arguments

Rocks of known age have been dated. The dates derived were ages ranging from 100s of thousands of years to millions of years old. These rocks were 10 years old. Why should we trust dates derived from rocks of unknown age if we can't even derive accurate dates for rocks of KNOWN age? Well--the critics have spoken. And the critics have failed again! Get ready for a good laugh: apparently (according to the critics) since the half life of Potassium 40 is fairly long, the potassium-argon method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6000 years old. According to the low-hanging fruit we so often deal with--thousands of years is not enough time for Argon 40 to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Is this really the best these critics got? They really have tapped-out. Anti-YECs have literally admitted that if the earth is only 6000 years old, their praised dating methods will give wrong dates of 100s of thousands to millions of years old. Seriously? I don't think they've realized just how horrible this line of reasoning is--and that they have literally conceded the entire debate. Way to go evolutionists!

Watch as we not only debunk radioisotope dating and deep-time--but also demolish these laughable counter-arguments. We have heard these counter-arguments from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, AND old earth creationists. Make sure to watch right to the end--because this video THOROUGHLY debunks arguments being put forth by the critics in this video:

Epic fail Science Side Up, Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale, and Gutsick Gibbon. Ouch! I would tell Dr. Dan to stick to biology--but he's failed there as well. An old earth creationist thought it would be wise to repeat these sad and easily-debunked arguments. Lesson for the night is: don't repeat already-debunked and laughable talking points.

Enjoy!

Standing For Truth Ministries OFFICIAL Website:
Support Standing For Truth:

Interviews Hosted by Standing For Truth:

Debates hosted/moderated by Standing For Truth:

[georgebond]

The GREAT Ian Juby strikes just in time.

[RedefineLiving]

20:12 game over! Great job on this one brothers, this is extremely thorough.

[LocalMachine]

All the dislikes are Aron Ra with different email logins.

[themeek]

It's even worse for them, because geologists just found a rare short half-life isotope of plutonium in the Earth's crust! It shouldn't be there if the Earth was old! They have to invent an out of this world solution to explain it away!

[LocalMachine]

Problems with carbon dating and why it's useless:

As an analogy, think of walking into a room in which you find a burning candle, after being in the room for a while the candle goes out. The only thing you can know (while the candle was burning) is the rate at which the candle was burning. You cannot know the length of the candle when it was lit. You cannot know if the atmospheric conditions in the room were constant before you entered the room (e.g. did the oxygen/nitrogen levels vary over time). Likewise with carbon dating, you do not know how much of the 'daughter' product (C14) was present in the specimen at the time of death. You cannot know how much of the 'parent' product (N2) was available in the atmosphere prior to the time of death (e.g. air pockets found in amber show that O2 levels were around 32% at the time the pine sap solidified). Further more, you cannot know if the levels of solar radiation (a major contributor in converting N2 -> C14) were different prior to the death of the specimen. This is just an excerpt of the things that would not be known to us. Carbon dating along with any other radiometric dating method are useless, and find their way into real science for the sole purpose of maintaining an evolutionary world view.

[TheHollywoodHino]

Love these relatively fast and informative vids

[JungleJargon]

Everyone needs to object to the flat earth tag! Click on the tag and voice your objections!

[dokidokisftfanclub]

these short ones are fun and informative 🙂 !

[coffeeman_andrew]

Epic new intro! 😎 love the quick videos. Easy to share with friends

[onethdasanayake]

Great video! Gave me a never-knew insight of these flawed dating methods.

[heeberman]

Engage: people with zero physics backgrounds attempting to speak physics.

[johnroemeeks]

Who is the chubby guy with the mustache in the last half of the video? I've never seen him before

[LocalMachine]

Why is the Flat Earth description in the bottom of SFT's videos lately??

[crazyeyedme]

I think their their theory is that these elements come into existence via multiple star life/death cycles..
They say that the more massive and dense a star is in its birth, the more the heavy elements are made through explosion and condensing-re..

This begs the question of why we seen stars in systems that don't conform to the deep time models.. similar to why galaxies formed and why they appear the way they do

[ashwilliams]

love the video ... atheist clearly don't want to believe and hate God ...that is why they cling to their sacred cow of evolutionism .... it is all that they have to comfort their guilty conscious

[SuppressedOfficial]

Holy shit, dude, I'm 3:19 in and you've already lost all credibility...

[WolvesHart]

Wow, so much badly misunderstood and misrepresented science in one video...amazin!

[Dagalism]

For me as a scientist, this video is complete cringe. They couldn’t have get more wrong packed in that short time. That’s actually truly an accomplishment.

[seen_machine]

Wasn't there a Oil Company that tried to use some method other than radiometric dating to find petroleum and never found any or went out of business?

Are these people Geologist or experts in a relevant field? If these claims are true they could up end many many fields of science. Here's hoping they submit and publish.

[thinboxdictator]

have you learned at least basics of what you're trying to object against?
... I know you haven't, so the question is .. why?

why are you willingly talking cr*p in public?