By Dr. Ron Carlson, Posted: 08/01 00:00:00/2008, Video Length: 12:45
This video is in flash format so you can view it over the internet without it buffering, therefore the quality is not at 100%. However, when you order the DVD from us, it is at 100% and broadcast quality.
Please wait one moment while the video loads onto the page.
Get Embed Code
Video Embed Code:
Click here to purchase this complete DVD that is two, one hour presentations by Dr. Ron Carlson
Distributed by www.WorldviewTube.com
Views: 14168
Return to home
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Worldview Tube and its writers do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every video posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
Carbon 14
| Posted On: 07/11/11 09:56:15 PM |
Age 0, CANADA |
Peter Wolczuk says; A lot of the information that we've been fed on the age of fossils, and other remains of living things has been based on the rate of decay of the carbon 14 molecule. However, I have heard that a little over 10 years ago, the process had to be adjusted due to checking on the carbon 14 in the tree rings of the bristlecone pine tree - a tree that lives thousands of years. Apparently there was an assumption that the radio-active decay was constant but, upon comparing this to the information from old tree rings in the bristlecone pine it was discovered that the rate changed on a slight curve. This meant that fossils and other remains were just a little bit younger than scientists had thought ... at least in cases produced in cases older than the oldest pine tree tested. Seems like assumptions are now held to that the curving rate is consistant. But, what if the curve is not consistant any more than the old belief in a steady rate of decay is consistant? Then we might have a sudden change typical of a "bell curve" just before the oldest known b pine sprouted. Such a sudden (and hypothetical) change could well place all life at less than 10 thousand years old. The point here is; if science has no better backing for carbon dating than the unknown rate of curve from before the one they've graphed after studying the result of carbon in the bristlecone pine then, it seems to me, they have nothing better on estimating the aging of plant and animal remains than "insufficient data" - by their own rules.
|
Darwin
| Posted On: 03/10/10 04:29:04 PM |
Age 76, NJ |
Darwin never had microscopes like the ones of today. It's very simple..."professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
|
Does not make it not true.
| Posted On: 01/30/09 10:49:36 AM |
Age 42, TX |
The origins of the earth are not going to be found in the dirt beloved man. After you get your heart right its funny how truth from your heart illuminates the truth of your entire existance. Life is from a divine source. Your heart, well you will give it back to where it belongs or you will eat your stratasphere in eternal wishing you would have explored "All that you lack" That is where you start to find truth. You are valued and worth so much more than you could ever phanthom. Do not settle for any of this, keep reaching.
Humility is learning! My prayers
S Wynn
|
Great Quote...
| Posted On: 10/16/08 04:02:26 AM |
Age 45, TX |
even up to the assumption that today’s catastrophists are not hardnosed empiricists.
Also radiometric dating is inaccurate in dating samples of know age and adjusted, using allege contamination to match the supposed date of the rock layer.
|
Wikipedia Does Have an Anti-Christian Bias
| Posted On: 08/27/08 10:20:16 PM |
Age 63, PA |
Wikipedia is biased against Christians. For them religion has "evolved" along with everything else.
|
Age of the earth
| Posted On: 08/11/08 09:54:52 AM |
Age 70, PA |
This information by Dr. Carlson reinforced my questioning of those who submit the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I have always questioned the means of measuring the earths age and now am more convinced than ever man simply has no credible data to support their conclusions....
|
"Dr. Calrson Appears to be misinformed" revisited.
| Posted On: 08/09/08 08:11:27 AM |
Age 46, FL |
I did a little research on Lyell. I found many references to him as a Geologist, but nothing saying that he had an earned Degree in Geology. Darwin appears to be in the same boat: his only earned Degree appears to be in Theology. By today’s educational standards, it seems that Lyell would be seen a Lawyer, and not a Geologist; I assume that this is Dr. Carlson’s point.
|
Is There Anybody Out There
| Posted On: 08/09/08 07:11:14 AM |
Age 55, SCOTLAND |
At first viewing I thought that the contents of this video ironic, but to my utter astonishment it became clear that "Dr" Carlson is an idiot preaching to an an already deluded audience. This IS NOT SCIENCE!
|
more important points
| Posted On: 08/06/08 07:16:42 PM |
Age 50, VA |
... and radiometric dating is based on unproved assumptions on the constancy of initial concentrations of the measured isotopes. Moreover, accuracy decreases over time since, as isotopes are depleted by decay, faint, statistically unreliable readings result. Falsity of evolutionary biology and flaws in geology neither confirm nor deny Genesis, but error does lead to many woes including a tainted world view that discourages objective consideration of contrary positions, including the correct one.
|
A Few More Facts
| Posted On: 08/06/08 01:43:43 PM |
Age 53, OH |
Not only is the column non existent, but:
1-New zealand has a museum which displays a petrified felt hat and wooden wagonwheel from the 1800'S= doesn't take millions of years
2-coal mines from the 1800's have stalactites and stalagmites several feet long
3- the 'white cliffs of dover' on englands southern coast disapear into the sea and can be traced via drill cores to continue for 600 miles into europe=hard to explain w/out a universal flood
4-polystrate fossils (treetrunks) appear as vertical posts in several layers at once, even tho the layers are supposed to be millions of years old each.
There is plenty of geological data to support a young earth view-plenty.
|
|
Read More Feedback
|
Post Feedback
|
|
|
|
Sign up to receive our
FREE Biblical Worldview Newsletter!
|
|
