Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are a Complete LIE

Here’s why evolutionary dating methods are a complete LIE… In this video, Calvin Smith exposes what secular scientists don’t tell people about radiometric dating methods, and highlights their huge biases.

Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical videos every week.

_____________

_____________

SOCIAL MEDIA
_____________

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[AlexanderosD]

The biggest hindrance to the scientific fields, is the individuals' presuppositions, the inability to assess their error, and refusal to reevaluate their hypothesis.
The very things that are necessary to properly practice scientific methods.
They are bound by grants and funding and the demand for consensus to the presumptuous world view.

[RobotDude]

15:33 its a history book and a manual for life. It's jam-packed full of letters, songs, instructions and other documents. Its literally a giant pile of evidence that just keeps on being proven.

[BE_WERM]

1:35 Notes and Quotes from Scientist on C14 dating
3:26 Truth Behind Dating Methods and burning candle analogous.
5:55 More On C-14 Dating and Why Not to trust the Dating methods Blindly.
8:50 Good question for Evolutionists
10:16 Uranium Lead dating
11:35 Lava dome Of Mt St Helen Testing Grounds dating method results.
14:00 Carls bad Caverns Dating Results and Age Changes
15:23 Conclusion

[TheEndhasbeenWritten]

God is true and right 100% of the time...man is dust

[avgejoeschmoe]

Psalm 102:18
Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people YET to be created, may praise the Lord

[poliincredible]

The Bible provides us with a reliable dating method. Humanistic methods provide us with "once upon a time."

[carriestout]

The Mount Saint Helens rock being tested as very old, when they formed in 1982. This proves my conclusion that radio metric dating is suspicious.

[garyhempel]

what strikes me funny is when anyone, says we used to think that "blah blah" but that's not true anymore. When what they really mea n is, that never was true.

[MarlonFolden]

Candle diameter is also a contributing factor

[ronbyrd]

A rather recent doc film "Darwins Dilemma" conclusively and academically debunks darwins "species jumping" thru the Cambrian explosion of the geologic record. It's a tremendous witnessing tool .

[AaronBennett-in]

The Bible is the truth! I'm so glad that Answers in Genesis is holding evolutionists' feet to the fire when it comes to their distortions and falsehoods. Keep up the good work!

[paullovessoccer]

I read at least 15 years ago about how carbon dating was flawed.

[freedominion]

Fascinating arguments and thanks for posting 🙏✝️

[reneewauchula]

We call that cherry picking when I worked in the laboratory.
You get a major fine from the government if they found out you were doing that.

[roberthawthorne]

There is another crucial detail that contends with the accuracy of radioactive dating methods, Solar activity! In the paper, "Power Spectrum Analysis of Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Decay-Rate Data: Evidence for Solar Rotational Modulation", (P.A. Sturrock, et al., 2010), normal decay rates were shown to fluctuate on monthly and even daily cycles in accordance to solar flares and geomagnetic storms.

Now since we don't know the rate of fluctuation for all the recent solar flares and geomagnetic storms, we can not simply assume that decay rates are remotely accurate due to how many have happened over the course of history nor how the severity of these solar events may affect the decay rates.

For example, the paper demonstrates the fluctuation in decay rates during a potentially weak solar flare, but no information is given on the fluctuation of decay rates during the Carrington Event of 1859, or a Miyake style Solar Energetic Particle event which are said to be around 80 times stronger than the mentioned Carrington Event.

[RobotDude]

Science doesn't say God doesn't exist, scientists do.

[VFA]

9:10 Calvin makes the claim radiocarbon dating assumes the current atmospheric C14/C12 ratio has always been the same. That is a claim made from Calvin's ignorance and is 100% wrong. The entire reason C14 is calibrated against multiple independent yearly dating proxies is because it is known the historic C14/C12 ratio has *NOT* been constant but has varied by as much as 5% over the last 55, 000 years. Correction curves are calculated from the yearly proxies and are provided by scientific organizations like INTCAL so C14 dating can be as accurate as possible. The evidence shows there was *NO* major disruption to the C14/C12 ratio by any mythical Flood only 4400 years ago.

[tone]

Decay rates are constant & we have had little to no success in speeding them up. Also, you can not have millions of years of decay exist in only six thousand years. Atoms release heat when they decay & if you try to cram millions of years of decay into such a short time, you would release enough heat to melt the crust of the earth.

[Zaaxun]

Walter Libby, who invented carbon 14 dating, said himself that there's so many assumptions and inadequacies involved nothing past the Egyptian era could be dated with any accuracy.

[HardCoreFantasyFootball]

You had me at the dating game gag 🤣👍
Great show, love the whole style you presented it ❤️🍿