What everyone is forgetting is that God can create things with time already in them. This is one of the reasons Jesus turned water to wine it takes time to ferment. God is not limited by time space or matter.
See, that's the problem. Your creationist fellows desperately want to prove that a young Earth has scientific merits to it (which of course is plainly ridiculous). So they avoid the claim "Poof, God just did his magic!". Because then it would become even clearer what the lot of you are engaged in: A baseless superstition.
@@johnnym6700 No, it means that you assume some religious texts are credible that were written by bronze age goat herders who didn't even know the Earth orbits the Sun. And it means further that you have never learned anything of Physics or Geology.
"God's word" according to man. Men misunderstand. Men misinterpret. Men lie. The tale in the ground does not lie. It IS our history. It takes millions of years to turn dead forests into coal. We have seen 6,000 year old dead forests in the earth, they are peat bogs, not coal.
We are in our 70s in Northwest Washington and we had some stressful times however we prayed to Our Heavenly Father and Jesus for help and we could always pay our monthly bills and never missed a meal 🙏Thank You Our Heavenly Father and Jesus for Your Love and Protection!PEACE TO ALL 💘💞💕💘😍🥰💘
@@nbyrd4138 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16
@@timhallas4275well some random stardust gazillion yrs ago won't "change" into trillions of completely different species we have on our planet lol. This was CREATED.
@@mickeyguide3112 The average human mind can only truly comprehend about .1% of this universe, and only a tiny spec of time. The 6,000 years of creation history does not begin to explain modern species let alone the trillions that are gone forever. The dirt beneath your feet has been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Like Billy Graham himself stated. I don't understand everything in the Bible but I have decided to accept it on faith. One thing I know is that God exists outside of time. So it's hard for us to grasp these things as we are bound by time. I have seen far too much to reject God. So like Billy Graham I will accept it by faith and not sweat the difficult things.
Yes, I also believe God exists outside of time, but the universe God created exists within time. I hope you're not saying that God created FAKE principles of nature to deceive us or test us.
YEP! Time does not work the way people think it does. But God understands and he reviled time dilation to Einstein Hubble and Schrödinger and that math matches 6 days for creation exactly. But not for us. for us is billions of years. If not for the riddle of Genesis captor 1, Einstein would not have been inspired to figure out time dilation. We have limited ability, you need to humble your self and look to the Holy Spirit for inspiration beyond human ability. That is what the Scientific method really is and it comes from First Corinthians. If you think your ideas are correct without observation you are blind and arrogant and can't figure out what is because man is limited. If you observe with humility and accept what you see as evidence you will find what is because the Holy Spirit can show you you are not blinded.
@@JanWnogu Yea thats the big bang smart ass. Sub Space was discovered in 1947 by Cashmere. This lead eventually to Brain Theory. This lead to the understanding of the expansion phase "separated the lite from the dark" it was just a soup of photons at that point. Drop you attitude it keeps you from using the scientific method properly.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. No evidence of time..... Could be billions of years old. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Only NOW did God create TIME...... the first day. God is light..... Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Why is there darkness in Gen. 1:2.............. Shouldn't there be light from the start? OR DID A JUDGEMENT PLACE? Gen_2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Fall of Satan...Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God and thou wast upon the holy mountain of God .... Was the first Eden destroyed with Earth in a JUDGEMENT? Possible.... no proof of the bec God does not have to reveal everything to us. Was earth created for the Angels and God's pleasure BEFORE ADAM? POSSIBLE Genesis does not prove a young earth..... more that it was created timeless in Gen. 1:1. Time did not begin until Gen. 1:3-5, the first day.
I don't talk in terms of billions of years. In England the BBC science unit made an experiment a few years ago in its TV series "Horizon" in which they used the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe was bounded or unbounded in the four dimensions. The result was a indeed a cosmos unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time.. It did not begin and has no edge they said. It always was.
@JanWnogu then why does it bother you that someone you don't even know believes? If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't even reply. Most atheist that I know do not care if people put up nativity scenes or believe what they believe. It doesn't mean anything to them they feel comfortable in their position. You must not feel comfortable in your rejection of God, so you have to strike out at those who do believe to reassure yourself that He doesn't exist.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. No evidence of time..... Could be billions of years old. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Only NOW did God create TIME...... the first day. God is light..... Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Why is there darkness in Gen. 1:2.............. Shouldn't there be light from the start? OR DID A JUDGEMENT PLACE? Gen_2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Fall of Satan...Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God and thou wast upon the holy mountain of God .... Was the first Eden destroyed with Earth in a JUDGEMENT? Possible.... no proof of the bec God does not have to reveal everything to us. Was earth created for the Angels and God's pleasure BEFORE ADAM? POSSIBLE Genesis does not prove a young earth..... more that it was created timeless in Gen. 1:1. Time did not begin until Gen. 1:3-5, the first day.
Even if a rock were "created" in 1980. The elements of that rock are much older even though it was in a somewhat liquid lava form. If I cut down a 100 year old tree, and made a small box from the wood of the tree. The box I just made is brand new, but the elements of wood I used would still be 100 years old.
So all rocks and elements that make rocks, should be the same age as they would all be created at the same time. But they date rocks at different times, how does that work??
The age of a rock is considered when it changed from magma to solid rock. Radiometric dating is “supposed” to give the date of this occurring, not the age of original material.
Seriously, if people genuinely believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old then they are either a moron or have been brainwashed. It is that simple.
Set aside radiometric dating for a minute and consider the following tidbit from Matthew Hedman’s book The Age of Everything, How Science Explores the Past: “Using logs from Germany, Ireland, and the west coast of the of the United States, researchers have managed to construct continuous records of tree rings all the way back to about 10000 BCE.”
Throw out if you believe in God or not... Or if you are a young earther, or an deep timer for a second... 1) Would it be fair to assume that if a God created a planet, and he intended to make it ready for Human inhabitants, that he might make mature trees? 2) Now on the flip side, its also possible that a "day" to God was not "a day" to us. Which means it doesnt matter how old the Earth is, it still fits within Christianity. Thus I dont care either way... On that note as well, Any God that is capable of creating life, would also be capable of editing it through evolution, AND/OR creating the processes in which evolution uses. Also, tree ring data is somewhat accurate but there are still discrepancies involved. Especially between trees of greater distance apart.
I've always believed the Bible account. Even when I was in school hearing all of the stories about millions of years, it always seemed wrong to me. Unbelievable.
I don't know why ppl think it unbelievable that God could have created the world 6000 years ago. It was only 2000 years ago that Jesus walked the earth. Also to think scientists have the technology to date back 'billions of years" while still not having the technology to accurately predict the weather is a bit comedic. We don't know exactly when God created the world but I'm almost certain it def wasn't billions of years ago
" to think scientists have the technology to date back 'billions of years" while still not having the technology to accurately predict the weather is a bit comedic" Nope. It only shows how uneducated you are.
@JanWnogu Just try to actually think in your head what a thousand years would look like then try to imagine 3 thousand years so there's no way scientist or not anyone could imagine even half a million years never mind a billion years it's nonsense when they can't even predict how long a murdered body has been in the ground for only about 20 odd years they end up guessing .Don't be deceived by the master of deception & confusion ( satan).
@@grgmj1980 then I don't need anything else in the Bible if it's invalidated immediately with a muddy, unclear timeline by the people who wrote it. People who didn't even possess scientific inquiry. Next.
The point that Harwood brushes over is if you are using Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) and you get dates that range from 350,000 to 2.8 million years on St Helens rock, you just know that those rocks are too young for K-Ar dating. You know this even if you don't know how old the rocks are because of the K-Ar values. Radiometric methods are statistical in nature and those with large half lives like K-Ar (1.25 billion years) also have larger margins of error. Obviously a margin of error like 2.45 million years (2.8 million minus 350 thousand) is too great for rocks that are only 50 years. However a margin of error of 2.45 million years is perfectly acceptable when dating rocks that are 500 million years old.
I did point this out (though in a less fully comprehending manner) in my comment. A discrepancy of 2 million years seems so much bigger when the near end is in our lifetimes than it does when both ends of it are over a hundred million years ago. However, I find it concerning that we try to rely on a method that we have no long-term control for. We know it doesn't work on more recent rocks, but how do we know it works on older rocks? We know how old rocks from those volcanoes are, because they were ten or 50 or 200 years ago, but we have no records of the formation of these 'older' rocks save for the records formed from these methods, and others like them, that rely on each other. Yes, there's no way to get that same historical documentation, because it's literally pre-history, but that is an obstacle we can't just handwave away. We have to accept that knowing for sure these dating methods work at all as advertised is impossible unless we have a control that we can... control.
@@madcinder257 Obviously, it is impossible to know _for sure_ that radiometric dating methods work as advertised because Science does not _know_ anything for sure. However, making inferences from observed phenomena to draw conclusions about things we cannot directly control or observe, is consistent with the scientific method. That is why we conclude that the earth moves around the sun even though no one has ever observed that it does or has been able to accomplish this in a laboratory. Furthermore, we have identified the chemical composition of the Sun without ever having made that determination in a laboratory. Similarly, scientists built an atom bomb decades before anyone ever observed an atom with an electron microscope. We were able to deduce that atoms exist and identify many of their properties without ever observing them. We can also make many reasonable inferences about the past and future without direct observation. As far as radiometric dating is concerned, quantum mechanics provides a theoretical foundation that supports the notion that the decay rates don’t change over time. This is also supported by a plethora of experimental evidence. Additionally, radiometric dating of rock samples have often been corroborated with dates derived from multiple radiometric techniques and laboratories. As far as evidence from the past is concerned, astrophysicists have performed spectroscopic analyses of supernovae that are sometimes millions of light years distant. In these supernovae, they have identified every radioactive isotope known here on Earth as well as their radiation signatures and half-lives. In every case, the measured radiation intensity and half-life of the isotope from the supernova matches very well with measurements of that isotope made on Earth. This is evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay, even in the distant past. Dating techniques in Astronomy corroborate the notion of an old universe suggested by radiometric data. The Gaia telescope used parallax to determine the distance to 1.47 billion stars that are up to 30,000 light years distant meaning that we are looking 30,000 years in the past. Distances to the overwhelming majority of stars and galaxies that are too far away for the Parallax method are determined, by diverse techniques such as the luminosity of Cepheid variable, luminosity of Type 1a supernovae, and red-shift. Measurements from each of these techniques, including Parallax, are sometimes used to corroborate by the others. For example, measurements by parallax of the distance to nearby cepheid variables confirms that the period of cepheids is strongly correlated with their intrinsic luminosity. This indicates that cepheids are reliable distance candles. There are numerous other dating techniques in geology, astronomy, and biology that haven’t even been touched upon here, but the evidence for an old universe is overwhelming. It is unlikely that all of these dating methodologies have margins of error in the millions of a percent and the universe is really 6,000 years old. If the universe was really that young, there would almost certainly be _some_ scientific evidence to support it. To the best of my knowledge there is none. Having said all of this, the notion of an old universe is no more or less consistent with the existence of God than a young universe is. Instead, it seems an old universe is inconsistent with the way many people interpret the bible though many others who profess a belief in God have no problem with it.
@@madcinder257 My earlier response apparently disappeared due to some technical glitch, so here it is again --> Obviously, it is impossible to know _for sure_ that radiometric dating methods work as advertised because Science does not _know_ anything for sure. However, making inferences from observed phenomena to draw conclusions about things we cannot directly control or observe, is consistent with the scientific method. That is why we conclude that the earth moves around the sun even though no one has ever observed that it does or has been able to accomplish this in a laboratory. Furthermore, we have identified the chemical composition of the Sun without ever having made that determination in a laboratory. Similarly, scientists built an atom bomb decades before anyone ever observed an atom with an electron microscope. We were able to deduce that atoms exist and identify many of their properties without ever observing them. We can also make many reasonable inferences about the past and future without direct observation. As far as radiometric dating is concerned, quantum mechanics provides a theoretical foundation that supports the notion that the decay rates don’t change over time. This is also supported by a plethora of experimental evidence. Additionally, radiometric dating of rock samples has often been corroborated with dates derived from multiple radiometric techniques and laboratories. As far as evidence from the past is concerned, astrophysicists have performed spectroscopic analyses of supernovae that are sometimes millions of light years distant. In these supernovae, they have identified every radioactive isotope known here on Earth as well as their radiation signatures and half-lives. In every case, the measured radiation intensity and half-life of the isotope from the supernova matches very well with measurements of that isotope made on Earth. This is evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay, even in the distant past. Dating techniques in Astronomy corroborate the notion of an old universe suggested by radiometric data. The Gaia telescope used parallax to determine the distance to 1.47 billion stars that are up to 30,000 light years distant meaning that we are looking 30,000 years in the past. Distances to the overwhelming majority of stars and galaxies that are too far away for the Parallax method are determined, by diverse techniques such as the luminosity of Cepheid variable, luminosity of Type 1a supernovae, and red-shift. Measurements from each of these techniques, including Parallax, are sometimes used to corroborate by the others. For example, measurements by parallax of the distance to nearby cepheid variables confirms that the period of cepheids is strongly correlated with their intrinsic luminosity. This indicates that cepheids are reliable distance candles. There are numerous other dating techniques in geology, astronomy, and biology that haven’t even been touched upon here, but the evidence for an old universe is overwhelming. It is unlikely that all of these dating methodologies have margins of error in the millions of a percent and the universe is really 6,000 years old. If the universe was really that young, there would almost certainly be _some_ scientific evidence to support it. To the best of my knowledge there is none. Having said all of this, the notion of an old universe is no more or less consistent with the existence of God than a young universe is. Instead, it seems an old universe is inconsistent with the way many people interpret the bible though many others who profess a belief in God have no problem with it.
At around 5:18, when the speaker claims that the volcanoes erupted 200 years ago, he implicitly suggests that the volcanoes themselves are not older than 200 years. This is a significant error. An eruption does not equal the birth of a volcano, which is the same mistake he made earlier with Mount St. Helens. Moreover, the entire Hawaiian Islands are aligned along a line because the lithospheric plate moves over a fixed mantle hotspot. This movement is similar to sliding a piece of paper over a candle and observing a dark path form. This geological process takes millions of years. Additionally, consider the sediment deposition rate in a deep ocean basin. By measuring the thickness of the sediments through seismic surveys, analyzing the stratigraphic section, and performing the necessary calculations, it becomes evident that the deposition time is significantly greater than 6,000 years. This is particularly true for abyssal clay deposits. Geologic layers are not always arranged from older to younger due to tectonics. A well-known example is the Glarner overthrust in the Swiss Alps (a UNESCO World Heritage site), where a older rock layer is positioned above a younger one. It is impossible for nature to achieve that in just 6,000 years (it happens when collision mountain ranges build up at over 15km depth, then uplifting and erosion create the landscape that we see)
There is TONS of evidence all agreeing on Earth being ~4.5 BILLION years old. But, don't bother, people brainwashed with religion will say it's all fake.
Nothing in nature is impossible. And science flip flops all the time, it's unwise to assume that we have figured out how everything works when history has shown us time and time again everything we know today will be thrown out the window in a few years. In 100 years people then will look back on today and laugh about how primitive our theories are for how we think the world works. This happened time and time again throughout history. Now why is that?
Kent Hovind goes over every testing method that modern science uses to 'prove,' or validate their (scientism's) claims in his videos on creation and evolution. Well worth the watch.
But he doesn't know, that age determination mathods exist, which either don't use the parent isotope or which have a stable reference isotope to compare with. He also forgets, that such age determination methods are being checked by other independent methods, that aren't based on radiometric decay. The only thing he can come up with is this giant conspiracy, that all scientists are supposedly part of. What do you think are the odds that all the methods coincide, when this they all supposedly arbitrary? Culture history puts the great pyramid of Cheops are about 2500 BCE. C14 found the same age for it. The same works with the coffin of pharao Zoser.
@@MrLogo73 Except for the fact that when you test the same sample 5 times, you get 5 different results. That's not science fact, that's science fiction. When you pick and choose which numbers you 'like' out of a list of results, that's a ridiculous testing method.
@@damonjesus445 That is not what radiometric methods do. All measurements will have an error rate, even when you measure the weight of your groceries. The error of U-Pb is one percent, which is a very good result. The claim, that scientists pick and choose is a conspiracy and shows that creationism is actually nothing else than that.
@@damonjesus445 It's a measurement and hence it is with 1% for U-Pb accurate like many other analytical methods. To claim, that they pick and choose is nothing but a conspiracy.
@@MrLogo73 Except for the evidence starting that's exactly what they do. You believe what you want to believe, but that doesn't make it right. Remain ignorant. Satan is real, and he's not your friend. God is real, and He can be. Conspiracies are real, and happen every day. Stay in the dark if it makes your life easier to deal with, but you can only ignore the light for so long.
When I watched The Ark and the darkness I was really surprised how they proved that all the fossils and dinosaurs were literally about six thousand years old. Blows away every argument that they are millions of years old. I think the documentary is on UA-cam for anyone who hasn't seen it
See what gets me though in the grand scheme of things 6000 years isn't that long. How could these numerous gigantic creatures and environments just up and disappear? Especially without them ever mentioned or seen by a human, they would have coexisted with them if the earth was that young. I love the Bible but the 6000 years thing doesn't seem right to me. I'll have to check that video out you mentioned
@@kkxi2289 yeah that could be plausible. Every culture of people have some sort of dragon depiction in their mythology. Maybe it could have been a dinosaur 🤷♂️
When you've got nothing as a timescale to calculate how old something is, it's then a guess, a peice of meteorite, isn't going to give any timescale either, just what it's made of.
@@nadaproblem3023 You can't measure time by measuring ratios of radio-active isotopes. All you can measure is the ratio of the isotopes. This is even true for C14 dating of very young objects. That's why we have "carbon years" and then the adjusted real age for the object.
Christian here with a question about dating lava rocks. It would seem that even thought the lava solidified recently, the molten lava comprising it could be millions of years old.
so it is molten and heated to a liquid state it will be as old as the earth itself so there is the quandary how old is the earth ,in other words what is the base age to start off with.
@@tedbohrer6799 , in certain dating methods the clock is reset when it becomes molten - the gases are assumed to have escaped. I think potassium argon dating falls into this category.
@@alanpfeiffer9686 I understand the ambiguity of dating lava/rocks. But we can't say the lava rock was formed in May 1980 just because it hardened then, and therefore is only 4 decades old. That's the same as saying the molten lava was formed in May 1980. I want to use this young Earth argument but it is not a good argument in our (Christianity) favor.
Potassium-Argon dating measures how much argon is present in the rock sample. The more Argon, the older the rock. Argon escapes as a gas from molten rock, resetting the clock. From the U.S. Geological Survey "Argon dating is an advancement of the long-used potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating method. Both techniques use the decay of unstable 40K to stable 40Ar. Potassium, including the 40K nuclide, is present in nearly every composition of magma and is stored readily in volcanic rocks as they cool and crystallize. Argon (including the 40Ar nuclide), on the other hand, is a gaseous element that escapes from magma and minerals at high temperatures. Only at low temperature-such as when erupted lava or ash cool at the surface-can atoms of argon be trapped in minerals. The advantage of this difference is that the radiometric "clock" starts at the time of eruption, when 40Ar starts building up in the rock."
@@ry_boy In the beginning, 6,000 years ago, God created the 14 billion year old heavens, and the 4.5 billion year old earth. and later that day he created light, but no stars or sun til later. My favorite bedtime story.
The Hebrew calendar is just shy of 6000 years. The Jewish people recorded the scriptures faithfully, but even if it is questionable, there's only 5000 plus years of documented history, as well as archeological evidence.
@@MrHardhead2the dinosaur were on earth for so long there were fossils of them like bones turned to stone type fossils while they were still roaming the earth. Humans think all “time” is relevant to our term of time but when god created the earth in 7 days what are we to believe that a single of our days is the same as his as his life is eternal so his concept of time may be billions of our years
the verse from 2.Peter is about God standing above time and space. He is not limited as we are. It is not about time in a technical sense to calculate with...but it is also a hint for the prophetic timeline of world history being fulfilled in 7000 years, with the millenial kingdom in the end!
I find it hard to believe that an intelligent human can seriously quote the lifespan of another human in 100's of years. Ussher's chronology, the most accepted basis for the nonsense of a young earth, was written in the 17th C. I'd like to think that human knowledge has moved on significantly since that time.
This is a theology that puts the age of the earth as a primary starting point. Let me suggest this is not good theology. This is called majoring in the minors. But there is a another Scripture one should consider. Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."
And the more reliable and traceable test of sequestered carbon in growing matter, by his only example, showed an age of 45,000 years. Those ages.have been historically linked step-by-step back in time to judge their accuracy; like the historical record of dendritic rings in trees, which have also told us about the changes in environment over time that took way more than 6,000 years.
@@Dranok1 'tis true. The geneologies of Genesis are not an exact linear record. They never were meant to be. And...there is no original Genesis manuscript to examine.
@@barnarus2547 Of course not, the texts that contributed to it were a merging of the oral histories of two unrelated sects from north and south of their land when they met and merged, one sect called the god of their traditions The Lord and the the other sect call their god Yahweh. The history of their meeting is clear throughout the oldest books of the O.T. as their cultural tales merged when they found similar features (such as tales copied from the Babylonians and mutated to suit their cultures)
@@timhallas4275Evolution has been debunked many times over. The "father" of evolution, Darwin himself, renounced his own theory. I know, because I did a thesis on him.
6000 years of human history. The time between “in the beginning…” and “…the first day.” Is indeterminate. Humanity is about 6000 years old, but all of creation is ??? years old.
The best thing about millions of years is that you cannot check it. The longer it is, the further away is God... (they think.) It all changes when Jesus speaks to you today. Or somewhere in your life. God is very very near... So we better obey...
I started watching an old David Attenborough wild life programme sometime back and he kept on about 500 thousand or 500 million years ago on Earth. He mentioned this multiple times in the space of about 10 minutes. In the end I lost trust in anything he was saying. I switched the programme of after 15 or so minutes.
@@georg7120 It would seem they are questioning. I thought that was kind of what science did anyway. If you attempt to prove that someone is lying using a flawed set of conclusions, you yourself could become the prevaricator
@@poliincredible770 But it does requires us to question it, does it not? Don't forget about the lies,my friend. Recorded history is rife with lies. The story in the rocks, tell the truth.
@@timhallas4275 misunderstanding why Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't invalidate the fact that he freed the slaves. It seems you want to conflate misunderstanding with lies. They are two different things.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
@@timhallas4275 yes u need a savor you just choce not to have him and y we need one is because we are sinner look at the ten commandments that will show you.
It isn't just the Book of Genesis that mentions seemingly impossible lifepspans. The Sumerian King List actually records lifespans of many thousands of years. The Charaka Samhita and other Vedic texts mentions lifepspans of thousands of years as well. Jack Cuozzo in his book Buried Alive gives some pretty hard evidence that Neanderthal Man may have lived for hundreds of years. In Brad Steiger's Book, Worlds Before Our Own, he gives an interesting story about modern human remains found in solid bedrock, over 30 million years old! Clearly, there was much more going on here than conventional science tells us, no matter what calendar we use.
True. That's my point. It cannot be definitely proven in any case. I believe it takes less faith to accept the biblical account than millions of years.
This is where many among Christians believers have failed to account of what was created in six days of creation. The Question was : HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? If your answer is 6,000 years, read Genesis 1 again, because that answer is wrong. Genesis 1:1 tells us it’s God who created it. It’s been left void for how long , only God knows . All you you need to account is ; what did God create on the ; FIRST , SECOND , THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH and you’ll see that the material Earth was not part of literal six days of creation.
@@nadaproblem3023 : Read the verse Genesis 1:2 The Earth was without form and Void . The same word was used in Revelation 20:1 ABYSS in Greek or Hebrew meaning without order or chaotic that’s the condition of the earth before the six days of creation. Void and without form.
If pre history and millions of years came before the Genesis creation story,then how would anything on earth have survived,if there was no plants to eat or even a sun and moon?there was nothing.GOD did create the earth during the same time HE created everything else to live on it.if the earth was void and without form,it's only because it's the same as building a house.when finished with the structure,before all the wiring and plaster and paint work is done,the house also looks void and without form.even if it was recently built,without the cosmetic and practical enhancements,it looks bad.
@@wendalwarren6131 No, they didn't. Only a fringe group of creationists believe that. The rest of the world chooses to accept the massive amount of evidence that contradicts their belief.
@lonchaney5743 There is more than one author who contributed to Job, and that particular author is describing a chaos beast. He wasn't looking at anything while he or she was writing. You all want us to believe there were all these massive dinosaurs romaing the planet and all we get is a couple vague references to monsters in the Bible. Lots of cultures had tales of beasts that were clearly myth. This is no different.
I once taped a piece of paper to a blackboard . I then asked someone to start timing when i said the word go . When i said go , i took my ink pen and drew a line...10 seconds later i said stop. I asked how old is the line? All agreed 10 seconds. I said wrong. This line is ink, i've had this pen for 2 yrs, it may have been in the pen store inventory for 6 mths, at the manufacturer for 6 mths, the ink producer for 6 mths . I asked, by what factor did you miss the true age of the line? Collective sigh. We dont know the age of the "materials" God used when he "assembled" the Earth/Universe .
Time is a concept given to us humans by Yahweh to make sense for us. After the thousand year rule of Christ on earth, coming very soon TIME STOP and then.... eternity.
Secular "old earth" scientists very much imply that if you test rocks from around the world from the same age in the geologic column, you get consistent results. It is further implied that radiometric dating yields a consistent pattern of younger and younger rocks as you move up the "geologic column". It seems to me that even if we can't trust the absolute accuracy of the results, the existence of such a pattern is eminently testable just by analyzing the data and if true, would be a fairly strong case for the idea that the strata of the "geologic column" represents slow deposition over long periods of time. If such a pattern doesn't exist, it would go a long way toward debunking the reliability of radiometric data, if not the whole notion of millions of years. Is anyone aware of any such analysis done by creationists?
The video referred to is, I believe, one of the most recent videos put out by the YT channel Is Genesis History? It has something about Noah's Flood in the title. It is a presentation by Dr. Kurt Wise. It is not an analysis per se, but in his video he shows multiple evidences that indicate the radiometric dating scheme is clearly off by many orders of magnitude within the time period of the flood. For example, there is sign of broken rock from a huge earthquake shockwave deep under the continental US that spread from beneath a supervolcano in the southeast US to the northwest, almost to the coast of Washington state and Oregon. Based on the radiometric dating at various points, the conventional (naturalistic) explanation is that the shockwave took 100 million years to cross the continent. Watch the video for much more.
"radioactive decay may have happened faster in the past"? So it also can be faster again any moment? So Kurt Wise predicts a meltdown of all nuclear reactors? Kurt Wise needs to alarm the president for such a catastrophe
Ah in one sense they are right similar dating,would you not expect that from the flood which laid similar sediments across the face of the earth what we now see as layers and what they call the geological column is that which has to be challenged, what would we find with the flood is a upheaval of the surface of earth and stripping away what was then splitting of the land mass near or at the end of the flood similar strata on many continents with fossils , that were living creatures that died violently and were buried rapidly.
@@warnerchandler9826 I did watch the video. It mainly reiterated the legitimate, common objection that radiometric dating is wildly inaccurate when tested on known young rocks. But my question deals with whether the overall pattern claimed by old earth geologist of a) the rocks lower in the geologic column consistently date older than those higher up and b) the rocks in the same strata consistently date at the same age. My gut tells me that the actual data isn’t as neatly consistent as old earth proponents suggest. In other words, even if radiometric dating methods are inaccurate in absolute terms, do they yield consistent results in relative terms vertically along the geologic column, and horizontally within the same strata across the earth? I can’t recall any creationists addressing this question when critiquing radiometric data. More often, they typically account for the seemingly old ages by pointing to the idea that decay rates may have been wildly different than they are today, but it’s never made clear how or why this could be. Make no mistake, I’m very sympathetic to the Young Earth view. But these are just questions that nag at me because I rarely if ever see them addressed.
I’m just reading the cited website … it’s very well put together. When I lived in the Latrobe Valley (In Victoria, Australia) I went on a tour of an enormous brown coal opencut mine and there, at a level touted to be incredibly old, was a polystrate fossil of a tree growing up through about 40 million years’ worth of coal layers (if you believe in an old earth). When I mentioned this the hour guide simply clammed up. The earth really is young!
"polystrate tree" is psudeo-science. Fossilized trees are dead trees that were slowly buried in sediment while standing. This occurs on flood planes and near riverbanks all the time. You'll notice that only the tree trunk is there. The branches are all gone.
@@timhallas4275 The trees span multiple sedimentary layers, which are claimed to be deposited millions of years apart. That means that for millions of years, the upper part of the tree would be exposed to the elements as the lower part was being buried. I guess rot and decay took a break during those millions of years.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Those sediment layers are annual flood sediments, not millions of years apart. Most specimens have less than 15 layers. 15 years of a tree slowly being buried. Not surprising at all.
Wow, a TOUR GUIDE wasn't an expert on science! No doubt you expect all tour guides to be experts in science. I wonder why they didn't know that coal only formed because trees DID NOT break down and rot as there were no microorganisms at the time which had the ability to break down the lignin in wood! And did this TOUR GUIDE actually state that the tree was _"growing up through about 40 million years’ worth of coal layers"_ or is this YOUR words, not theirs? Do you understand that all geologic strata DO NOT represent that same duration of deposition, or is this again just your own personal lack of understanding? What you were seeing took only a couple of decades to occur. Not at all unlikely in a time when wood would not rot. FYI, I live in Moe.
Humans also believed the earth was the center of the universe. Then they believed the sun was the center of the universe. Just because we don't currently know all the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a matter of time and the knowledge will be found.
@sixfootoneistall2002 Still not empirical evidence. As we have many times shown why that is. A. We cant access the original situation. B. We can't observe the duration. C. We can observe items of observed formation dates, and they give faulty numbers up to million fold.
@sixfootoneistall2002 Since when they can observe, repeat and test the distant past... physics chemistry and earth sciences cannot access the past, they operate in the present. And within your religion there are dogmatic a priority assumptions 24/7.
I like the concept you have of one person interview a scientist or similar in his/her area of expertise. Really rewarding and encouraging to listen to. 👍💯
If Jesus said it, we can believe it. He is God manifest in the flesh. Creation was obviously a supernatural event. Seculars will never discover the truth through natural explanations. God bless CMI
@@graemeross6970 If I had to say it out loud, It comes closer to realizing that the texts children read all the way through, no longer say "it's a theory" rather they maintain that old earth and host of other scientific positions are actually settled. The Creationists feel that is a deception based upon what they're finding in modern observations. It's fascinating that no one ever questions the professors of the faith in Science. When you believe your braking system will bring a vehicle to a complete stop at the next intersection, you're expressing a small amount of faith.
@@christtheonlyhope4578 Jesus never mentioned anything about the age of the earth. He did speak of Noah as a real person. The claim that the earth is 6000 years is a plain Biblical lie. How people who claim to be in the know can speak lies, I don't understand. Psa 5:6 ASV Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man.
@@OlegLankin I don't see how! What does the Bible tell us about teaching falsehoods by purpose? Psa 5:6 ASV Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man. When those who stand in places of influence in the church, claim lies to be truths, what is the assured reaction from God, from Christ! Psa 101:7 ASV He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes. While it is a Biblical fact that Adam was created about 6000 years ago, what does the bible teach about the earth? Gen 1:1 comes before the count of six terraforming days. Here we read: Gen 1:1 ASV In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Where in chapter one is this associated with day one! Nowhere. So to claim that earth was created at the time of Adam is a lie, a deception. Who is the deceiver? When was this beginning By the Bible? About Jesus: Micah 5:2 ASV But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (French Louis Segond) Micah 5:2 . . . Et dont l'origine remonte aux temps anciens, Aux jours de l'éternité. English translation: whose origin goes back to ancient times, to the days of eternity. (AB) . . . His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. About the Heavens, God’s throne: And, Psalms 93:2: ASV, Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting. Psalms 11:4 ASV Jehovah is in his holy temple; Jehovah, his throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. The beginning may then be seen to be of a time defined as everlasting. When scientists claim the earth to be 4 billion years old, Christians have no way of claiming this incorrect. We simply haven't been told. It could be younger, or older. As God creates the galaxies, suns, planets, moons and whatnot are also created gradually. We do not have a time index for when and what. DO NOT TEACH LIES.
I am a Christian and have always been open to the arguments for a young earth. But their Biblical evidence, which is based on an absolute literal interpretation of Genesis and is, in fact, a very minority view among Christian Theologians and was not even a view of the early Church fathers. It is in fact a view put forward in the last 100 years. It is also, in my humble opinion, an almost ideological resistance to the overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth - the latter of which is the view of the vast majority of even just Christian cosmologists and astrophysicist. That said, one’s view of the age of the earth is not something that matters one way or another to one’s salvation although I do worry that a young earth view can undermine the power of our witness to non-Christians
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, and I'm not convinced a day in Genesis is 24 hours particularly since the Sun and the Moon aren't created until day 4. Further 2 Peter 3:8 tells us "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I don't know what this means exactly, except that God experiences time differently from how we do.
To themarieboot. As a former Catholic I'd like to help you in understanding this. First, what Peter wrote was not saying God could have taken 1000's of year to create. Peter was talking about scoffers questioning about the Lord's second coming, saying since their fathers fell asleep, (died) things have continued since creation. Then Peter speaks of creation and the flood. Then goes back to answer the scoffers unbelief. God lives in eternity, not time like we do. So in eternity, a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years. This is not talking about a timeline for creation. As for the days of creation. Exodus 20: 9-11 God gives the commandment about the Sabbath. Six days the Hebrews work and the seventh day is a day of rest. Then God compares it to the creation days. In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all things in it. Then rested,or stopped on the seventh day. It says the same thing in Exodus chapter 31. God compares the creation week to the Hebrew work week and the seventh day is the Sabbath, a day of rest. God wouldn't have compared his creation days to a six day work week if God took thousands or millions of years to create.. Hope this helps.
@@eodee8459 Jesus uses metaphors constantly while he was on earth. I see no reason why God the Father would not use metaphors if Jesus did. Therefore a "Day" could still be ambiguous. It could be a metaphor for a period of time (a Day being the most easily recognizable period of time to a human). OR it could be a literal day. But you know what It doesnt matter either way! If God created it all in literal days, he obviously did so "in motion" (meaning some thing he created were fully mature before setting them in motion), and thus many of these tests would come back with answers older than the "in motion" date...
@@chrismcaulay7805 except a day can't be ambiguous. Yes the word day (yom) can speak of the day light or the whole 24 hours to any amount of time. But when other portions of scripture tells us then it's a determined time frame. Have to keep it within the context of the narrative. God gave the Hebrews a six day work week and the seventh day is the Sabbath, a day of rest. God also said as he created the heavens and the earth in six days... That would be the same amount of time as the work week. So, God created the heavens and the earth in six literal 24 hour days. Evening and morning were the first day and so on.
@@eodee8459 Ahh, me thinks you didnt read what I wrote (or at the very least didnt understand it). It can be ambiguous in a metaphor, even if the word day is specific in a non-metaphor... That is kinda the entire power of a metaphor now isnt it?
Remember to remember the Sabbath. For in six days God created... Creation Ministries is serious about creation but forget about the fourth commandment. Revelation 14:6,7. Worship Him who made heaven and earth. Verse 12. Here are they that keep the commandments of God.
People totally miss. " In the beginning, the earth was void and without form". No one knows how long the earth was in this state until God began creation. Yes, 6000 years since creation. Before this? Could have been billions.
@politicallydisgruntled.7977 I for one ponder it carefully, but you are right many miss it's significance. That very same expression "In the beginning " is used by the apostle John in the opening words of his gospel. Can any sober and right mind annex a time period to that ? Absolutely not! In the beginning, simply cannot be measured or comprehended.
@@politicallydisgruntled.7977 Exactly!!! The two words formless and void in Genesis translated to Hebrew are Bohu and Tohu which are strong words that denote catastrophe and cataclysm! According to top biblical scholars, the earth suffered some sort of judgement that left it in a formless and void state. It suffered some sort of catastrophe or cataclysm! This gives credence to dinosaurs and cavemen which was a world that existed before Adam and Eve and is much, much older than six thousand years.
@@emedina73 Also, Satan said he wanted to lift his throne above God's! He therefore had a throne... probably on the Earth before the first flood before Adam.
Fact is we don’t know how old the earth is. According to the Bible mankind has been around 6000 years. The earth was created before the 7 days of creation of the Book of Genesis. First verse of the Bible says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth “, and then verse 2 says the earth was void and desolate. The earth was already created before the 7 days of creation.
@@grgmj1980 Hebrew translation says the ‘ earth HAD BECOME desolate and void, you are right, not everything in genesis can be taken literally, I don’t think earth is billions of years old, but def not just 6,000
@@christineadamitus9824 maybe the war of angels vs demons destroyed it and God had to rebuild it. Maybe the dinosaurs died during this time of the war.
@@christineadamitus9824 Flood basalt deposits are a problem for young earthers. There is no explanation for 5 million cubic miles of basalt on top of fossiliferous sediment getting laid down in a year. Geology is complex. I agree with you. I suspect a few hundred thousand years. What gets me is when they say stars are the same age...6K. so God is fooling with us. Cannot be.
@@grgmj1980great concept. But when you research dinosaur theories will take you back billions of years, yet if you research dragons you can find them through out history. Next step is to know sir Richard Owens changed the name of dragon to dinosauria in 1841. That brings you to knowing the real name of these creatures. Yet this is called false teachings and so many get lost in research based on misinformation. This guy teaches only mankind’s time line and doesn’t speak of the 1st creations so many know as angels. Old history called them the watchers, biblical text calls them angels and today called aliens. They also teach Neanderthal, yet won’t teach you about bone growth. The brow never stops growing from age. So history is just one’s theory. These theories just don’t match up with the old history tablets/books. I do agree with mankind as being around 6000 years. But the planet is much older cuz there not counting the 1st creations. Enoch was the chosen one, yet if you look into Jewish they claim Eli/elijah. I also know that they change the writings and names. If they can’t get that right what true knowledge are so many depending on, as truth?
The earth is around 5 billion years old and the universe is around 13.7 or 13.8 billion years old. In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). The Big Bang Theory says the same. It's been around for 100 years and has yet to be disproven. The first two verses of Genesis is the first paragraph. The second paragraph beginning with verse 3 starts a new subject and also the first day, which is yom in Hebrew. It can mean 24 hours or an indefinite period of time. The word day in English also has this definition. It can mean either one.
You cannot prove how old the world or universe is. The world could have been created to look like it's older. All we know for certain is it was created. It could not have made itself.
Just like you said, pretty simple math. If you search Google you will find that the Sun burn itself at a rate of 10 yards per day constant from its Diameter, aprox. 5 yard per day of its Radius, just calculate how big the Diameter of the Sun was 6000 years ago and then calculate how big the Sun was 15-20 Billions of years ago, the Sun would be so big that today would be no Milky Way Galaxy and you must take in consideration that, like the scientist tell us, this Universe is Expanding every second, we now know this because the Hubble Telescope discovered this fenomen. Now we know that someone lied big time to the evolutionists and atheists. The Bible was right all along and is the Word of God and is very accurate because is God's Holy Word and we can trust in Him and in His Holy Words.
Did God really say.....? Genesis 3:1 LSB [1] Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
@@johns9290 the Bible isn't written to Hebrew professors, and to anyone who's read it, it's clear that God speaks clearly to the average Joe, using unambiguous language, and has providentially had it translated into our languages by multiple and reliable translators. It's the "experts" who often try to twist the Bible and deceive the common Joe. That's why I appreciate channels like this, which cut through the deception.
@@fraser_mr2009 LOL. You don't know the difference between a fact and an inference. Learn the difference. It'll make make you a better and more credible person.
2024 8 billion people 1924 2 billion people 1 AD 300 million So 2000 years ago there was 300 million people on earth and today there’s 8 billion. Do the math.
@Exodus--bx3dd can you tell me when did God create the angelic world ? I don't see it mentioned in the six days of creation. When Satan was cast out of heaven, was this before the 6 day creation or after it? Now he fell to where ???? Was it not the earth? A 6000 year old earth leaves us with many unsolved problems
What I would like to understand how does the earth produce coal and oil after six thousand years when science says it takes billions of years for oil to be produced. Coal is made from plants, oil comes from coal overtime you cannot produce that amount of coal or oil up to 3.9 kilometers unders ground without an enormus amount of time? So how can the earth be only six thousand years? I just want to know how that is possible? How?????????
Me too man. People like you, who question these things and realize they don’t make sense, are really rare and it’s terrifying. God doesn’t exist. The fact that such a baseless lie has persisted for thousands of years is disturbing to think about
@@Camden-zb6ur I do believe in God, I do not believe that all this came from nothing. But it doesnt make sense that the earth is only six thousand years old. I am more Incline to believe that God made everything but it took billions of year in the process.
I wouldn't have a problem with the heavens and earth being 6,000 years old although I don't believe they are exactly 6,000 years old but I most certainly don't believe they are millions of years old
Oh I see you are one of those people who have been brainwashed or should I say conditioned to believe in evolution by the scientific establishment I suppose you think they are completely unbiased and infallible as well?
@@avishevin1976I prefer an eyewitness to the events that does not lie. I believe you know where one can be found. As to the amazing preponderance of evidence that has been unearthed in support of Biblical recent creation and the flood, it would be fantastical to believe in naturalistic explanations that involve millions and billions of years.
' I agree with the accounts too, and these of the Lord God Creator of Love, Life, and Truth, in Holiness that is forever. These attributes are within our beginnings for we are made in God's image. The opposition that sidetracks away was a creation as well, in the Luciferian angel. Who led the rebellion to turn away. One third of the angelic host fell from grace and tempts mankind with the same manner. This is cause of disruptive evil works here on earth, and trials of the living in all families of man. AMEN with thanksgiving to God for His Gospel of redemptive loving grace.
I know the question of dating is much more complicated than presented in this video. However, given my experience with science and its ability to be manipulated by the all mighty dollar has given me a fair share of skepticism towards the popular conclusions. If you are wondering about what I’m referring to regarding manipulation. Just look up the mistakes made by the scientific community regarding pain control and opioid use in the 1990s and the colossal waste of money on antibiotic resistance that never materialized as science predicted. Blessings.
As a geologist I can say categorically that there's abundant evidence showing without contrary proof that the earth alone is 4. 5 to 4.75 BILLION YEARS old. Moses Red Sae alone took 400 million years to form. The crater that is in the Gulf of Mexico that destroyed the dinosaurs is very old (very). Your discussion is rot !!!
I saw a picture the other day of the meteor crater in Arizona. 1 km wide and 600 meters deep. I have to ask myself, "Did that meteor strike the earth before the flood, or after the flood?" If it was preflood (even if it were the cause of the flood), then the meteor crater could not be so uniform in shape, all the thousand meters of water depth would have erased all or part of the crater. That only leaves the conclusion that the meteor strike occurred after the flood, less than 5000 years ago, which is an impossibility. But, what do I know, I am a simple civil engineer, not a geologist.
@steve6548 I am quite familiar with this. Just simply Google the research on this. If you believe biblical chronological texts this event could not of happened prior to the "flood". (All geological studies of the Earth's crust cannot claim a world wide flood...ever). But , this crater is app. 250 million years old. The crater walls of course would've eroded. However , satellite photoextremethe outer boundaries. Bottom line : Nowhere in biblical texts is this cataclysm represented.....Faith may move mountains but apparently not craters...
@steve6548 I will also direct tou to the moon. Our telescopic views show asteroid strkes that make small our known impacts. The Biblical texts do not mention the moon let alone our galaxies planets. Mars , for example, has impact craters the size of California. Yet , these celestial events go ignored by biblical history. Why ? Because men of antiquity that wrote the texts used in the Bible had no clue these events took place. Their importance is plain. The violent nature to our galaxies development. Again , ignored in the bible....
There is NO evidence that earth is *older* than 6,000 years old, any suggestions of earth being much more older than 6,000 years old is just a suggestion and not to be taken seriously.
The Materialist Cosmology is missing 95% of the mass and energy that mathematics and physics requires to explain it's existence and motions. The nebular theory of our solar systems formation is bogus. The sun having 99% of it's total mass, yet less than 2% of it's angular momentum. Nearly completely backwards according to physics. Zero evidence for accretion, the asteroids have no tendencies to form a planet. Besides their total mass is estimated to be 14% of our moons. The earth is 14.5 billion years old? The moon is moving away from the earth at 12.5 feet per year. Besides, asserting 3.7 billion years ago , non living matter became living is without evidence. I'll stick with the Bible with empirical evidence Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so the things that are made were not made of things visible John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made
I'd say there is much more evidence to believe the earth to be very young (about 6,000 years) than evidence to believe that it is millions or billions of years old. The data is the same, but the interpretations are what makes the difference. Personally, after genuine comparison of old vs. young earth, I'd say the earth is indeed young. Too many things discovered go against old ages but promote an all-powerful creator that did speak everything into existence as spoken of in the Bible!
@damieno3470 chinese and Indians have recorded history of more than 8000 years , vedas were written (started) during the saraswati River which existed nearly 9000 years ago
@@GOVTEXAMAspirant-h7h how do you know these recorded history ages are 8000 and 9000 years ago? Is there some hard evidence other than someone said so?
The Materialist Cosmology is missing 95% of the energy and matter mathematics and physics requires for their universe's existence and motions. The sun having 99% of the solar systems total mass and only 2% of it's angular momentum? That's completely backwards for the nebular hypothesis of our solar systems formation to be true. Why are naturalists, materialists claims given the time of day? Same with life's origin? They can't make the elements do what they claim they did. Non living matter became living. Absolutely no design or purpose required.
The secret things are for God and the known things are for man. We should be naive thinking that we can grasp everything or summarize God no way let's judge repent and mend our ways and prepare for the coming maranatha Jesus Christ is coming back period thank you
Just a question to think about: If God knew His creation would eventually endure suffering, why would He want to stretch that out for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years? It seems 6000+/- years would be plenty to serve God's purposes.
To you, maybe. But, what is 6,000 years to an infinite being. Even it we take evolution's hilarious extended time estimates, does it even register in the infinite? What are God's purposes? As an infinite being, they probably go on infinitely, right?
This doesn’t connect. You are justifying a 6000 year old creation based on God’s dislike of suffering. What about the external suffering of the fallen ages and unsaved humans in the lake of fire/void? God knows all future events so he knows, right now, the suffering of unsaved souls a million years from now. A billion years from now. Given God is willing for creatures to freely choose to be removed from God’s presence and all the torment that will mean for them for the rest of time, I don’t find your argument persuasive.
@@juice7546 I posted a reply earlier but I'm not sure why it disappeared. First let me say, I didn't mean my post to be a knock down argument. Hence, "just a question to think about." Perhaps, it is a small part of a larger cumulative case. To your reply I would agree that God foreknew what the human experience would be before Adam. He knew there would be be suffering and decay. (I tend to connect the purpose at least in some way to Romans 8:18-25.) So your summation of my post at the beginning of your reply seems to be an over simplification of my point. (By the way, I don't think God enjoys our suffering.) And I'm still asking the same question as in my OP.
@@WilliamJohnson-ft4du Thanks. Internet comments are necessarily too small and difficult to really sketch out a fully comprehensive position. I’m not committed to old earth or young earth (I think the science most favors old earth) but I agree either is possible for God. And I think that neither interpretation is critical for salvation. So, it’s an in-house discussion and we are free to disagree. What I perhaps find more compelling is that God seems like to partner with his created creatures in managing His creation. He partners with angels to manage things and he partners with humans to manage the earth. He doesn’t seem to be in a hurry (time is not a limited resource) so the idea of him waiting 13-14 billion years to get to right now doesn’t seem to be a problem for God. And it’s not a problem if the real Adam and Eve actually lived 300-750k years ago. A wooden, literal reading of Genesis 1-3 doesn’t appear correct so I don’t take it in the way many young-earth interpretations do. At this point I’m just blathering…
Why do you always avoid telling what age has been determined by carbon dating? Because it doesn't fit with the ridiculous idea that the earth is 6000 years old?
"The Bible is a history book" Nope. It's a bunch of legends from several thousand years ago. "We should take God at his word" It was not written by god, but by people with a rather limited world view.
God created Adam as an adult not as a baby. So Adam might be like around 25-30 years old on day one. So God created Adam with an ingrown age. So for God 1 day is 1000 years. And 1000 years for God is oneday.
Earth Is 6k Yrs Old, We Live Inside A Dome Called Firmament, Earth Is Flat, I Believe That The Same Way Y'all Believe About Sphere. God Is Real, God Is Good, God Loves Us.
The firmament was broken at the flood of Noah and the Bible never says the world is flat. Instead, when describing the sky a unfolding like a scroll points directly to a spherical world.
@@psykol-1 I'm a Christian and it honestly amazes me that people use the Bible as an infallible science textbook. Somehow I think that's actually disrespectful to scripture. But I don't judge. I don't think that matters for our salvation. It's still objectively wrong though, but hey, no one is perfect.
@@noxplay4906 I'm a Christian as well and I agree. It honestly rubs me the wrong way when people use the Bible as if it's a science textbook when that really is not the case. The Bible is a history book, not a science book, and we really shouldn't be mix-and-matching the two. Use science for science and history for history, in my humble opinion at least.
@@MrLogo73 If the large balance for weighing trucks indicated that the feather weighed 10 tons, then I would argue that your scales were inaccurate or broken.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i But it doesn't show 10 tons with a feather. It shows 0. But the feather can't have 0 weight, can it? Is the conclusion rational to say the whole method of weighing is therefore wrong and doesn't work?
@@MrLogo73 It shouldn't show 10 tons. That's why IF it did, we would know something was wrong. I believe your trying to create an analogy of using K/Ar to date a young rock. Scales = K/Ar dating method Feather = 10 year old St Helens rock. You believe the K/Ar method cannot be used to accurately date a rock that's only 10 years old, because there would not be enough Argon to get a reading. Or in your analogy, the truck scales would not register any weight for the feather, because the scales are not sensitive enough to register the light weight of the feather. Please correct me if I got that wrong at all.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Analogies are good to display a topic. The method the creationist used was out of range just like the balance for trucks is. Radiometric age determination isn't all wrong, because one person used a method for a sample it can not measure. Just like the balances have small, sensitive ones and large, robust ones, radiometric methods have those for old ages like U-Pb and those for low ages like Cl36 or C14. It's dishonest from him to make it look as if the whole method didn't work.
Even having to call Earth "young" is a response to the fable of millions of years. 6,000 years isn't even young, it's ancient! If anyone met a person, or even learned of a civilization that was 6,000 years old, they wouldn't come away thinking that person or civilization was young. Earth is old, but not older than around 6,000 or so years, maybe plus a few hundred years, due to differences in some numbers in I think the septuagint (a greek translation of the original Hebrew old testament). The original is inerrant, and the translations and manuscripts are extremely accurate, but the translations aren't necessarily inerrant, which is why Christian scholars are so diligent in textual criticism so that they can know and maintain the text true to the original Bible. Apart from a few minor differences in numbers, the Septuagint is basically the same as the Hebrew manuscripts.
The Masoretic texts are different in about 200 places. The 1000 AD texts contradict the LXX in particular where the genealogies are stated in order to discredit Jesus being from the line of David as Messiah
"the fable of millions of years" This "fable" is called science. Don't like science? Turn off your computer, phone and internet (all products of science, not religion).
There is a "compromise" view, which acknowledges the timeline from Adam to today is roughly 6000 years, but which also understands that the "days" in Genesis 1 are periods of time. There's no reason to assume they must be 24 hour days.
Sorry guys, did you read your Bible correctly? The history of humanity is approx.6000 years. The age of the earth is older. “Genesis 1:2 (ESV): The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep”. So, the earth existed before God started his creational work. Basically, the Bible does not tell us the age of the earth. So, don’t confuse it with nonsense like C14 dating methods etc.
C14 is not accurate at all beyond 500 years and many things can cause the rate to change. The best evidence of how old the Earth really is is in geology not isotope decay.
This just doesn't keep with science. Noah's Ark didn't have dinosaurs. Places in Turkey alone are over 10000 years old. Creationists need to get used to the fact that the earth, the solar system and the universe are very old - in the billions of years.
@@richardhuddleston7086 why should we listen to scientists who have never left this planet and have only been on this planet for 70 80 years max to tell us when and how the universe began it's absolutely delusional
Hello, I am a believer and a ministry for 30 years. I believe in creation, and I believe in what the Bible says. I do not believe in evolution. And yet, I don't believe in an earth created 6,000 years ago. Now, for God, one day is like a thousand years and vice versa... So, to this day, I don't believe that arguing about the age of the earth is the message that will win people to the gospel. Does it matter? Yes, certainly, in Christian circles, for those who are interested in the subject. But often, when people talk about the subject, they quickly become condescending, if not aggressive. I believe, and I say this respectfully, that the world doesn't need scientific proof of the age of the earth, but a revelation of the Father's love. Fraternally yours. Mikaël Réale
The ice age was about 10,000-15,000 years ago here in Scandinavia , and in Denmark we have a lot of rocks (granite) who came with the ice from Norway, and much of our landscape is shaped by the ice, if the earth is only 6,000 years old , when was the ice age ?
@@timhallas4275 well, that explains it. You weren't there to know, yet you answer confidently. That shows that you have a firm presupposition that no one can test.
@@OlegLankin Actually, I can know without being there. You see, the Earth was formed from space dust that consists of elements formed inside of gen 1 stars. Lead is not formed in gen 1 stars, but uranium is. So the early Earth had plenty of uranium but NO lead. Now I will ask you a question. Did God make the Earth?
What everyone is forgetting is that God can create things with time already in them. This is one of the reasons Jesus turned water to wine it takes time to ferment. God is not limited by time space or matter.
See, that's the problem. Your creationist fellows desperately want to prove that a young Earth has scientific merits to it (which of course is plainly ridiculous). So they avoid the claim "Poof, God just did his magic!". Because then it would become even clearer what the lot of you are engaged in: A baseless superstition.
This means you can never date anything and that's why all dating is contrived.
@@johnnym6700 No, it means that you assume some religious texts are credible that were written by bronze age goat herders who didn't even know the Earth orbits the Sun. And it means further that you have never learned anything of Physics or Geology.
@@johnnym6700 bingo you got it but the Bible is true
Absolutely brilliant you got it buddy people are dumb
God's word is greater than science.
God's word is greater than the word of man.
God's word will endure forever.
Man is here today and gone tomorrow
By the way, u should interview God. 😅😅😅😅
why did God make man come and go, why did he make man at all, when he knew man will not behave to his wishes
"God's word" according to man. Men misunderstand. Men misinterpret. Men lie.
The tale in the ground does not lie. It IS our history.
It takes millions of years to turn dead forests into coal. We have seen 6,000 year old dead forests in the earth, they are peat bogs, not coal.
@@anttisalminen1110 why? I don't care why. All I know is God is good.
@@samuelrodriguez9199 good for you!
We are in our 70s in Northwest Washington and we had some stressful times however we prayed to Our Heavenly Father and Jesus for help and we could always pay our monthly bills and never missed a meal 🙏Thank You Our Heavenly Father and Jesus for Your Love and Protection!PEACE TO ALL 💘💞💕💘😍🥰💘
I trust God's word 💯
I'd rather believe the excavations and the carbon dating I can see before a fairy story of a chronicle of the times.
@@ianmatthew5824 The carbon dating that ages a living snail at 1000 years, or the Mt. St. Helens debris at thousands of years old?
Which God? Odin? Krishna? How do you decide?
@@wilhelmvonn9619 by following Jesus, his Spirit let's us know right from wrong
@@ianmatthew5824 your choice. Don't expect me to follow you.
The bible is not hard to understand it's sometimes hard to swallow.
@@nbyrd4138 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16
Anything in particular?
That is so true I like the phrase
@@Rossi0489 Is it true though? There's a worldwide record of the biblical flood and some elements of the tower of Babel sprinkled here and there.
Some in the Old Testament are hard for me to swallow. However, I got to trust Dad. He was there, He was the adult. He has always been the mature one.
God is our Creator and nothing will change that. Whether humans believe it or not.
Change is the foundational property of EVERYTHING.
Even solid granite mountains become grains of sand in the oceans.
Absolutely 😊
Maybe God is our creator, but that doesn't mean that everything that men have written down about him is true.
@@timhallas4275well some random stardust gazillion yrs ago won't "change" into trillions of completely different species we have on our planet lol. This was CREATED.
@@mickeyguide3112 The average human mind can only truly comprehend about .1% of this universe, and only a tiny spec of time. The 6,000 years of creation history does not begin to explain modern species let alone the trillions that are gone forever. The dirt beneath your feet has been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Like Billy Graham himself stated. I don't understand everything in the Bible but I have decided to accept it on faith.
One thing I know is that God exists outside of time. So it's hard for us to grasp these things as we are bound by time. I have seen far too much to reject God. So like Billy Graham I will accept it by faith and not sweat the difficult things.
"I know is that God exists outside of time"
Great! Now show experimental results to confirm this.
Yes, I also believe God exists outside of time, but the universe God created exists within time. I hope you're not saying that God created FAKE principles of nature to deceive us or test us.
YEP! Time does not work the way people think it does. But God understands and he reviled time dilation to Einstein Hubble and Schrödinger and that math matches 6 days for creation exactly. But not for us. for us is billions of years. If not for the riddle of Genesis captor 1, Einstein would not have been inspired to figure out time dilation. We have limited ability, you need to humble your self and look to the Holy Spirit for inspiration beyond human ability. That is what the Scientific method really is and it comes from First Corinthians. If you think your ideas are correct without observation you are blind and arrogant and can't figure out what is because man is limited. If you observe with humility and accept what you see as evidence you will find what is because the Holy Spirit can show you you are not blinded.
@@JanWnogu Yea thats the big bang smart ass. Sub Space was discovered in 1947 by Cashmere. This lead eventually to Brain Theory. This lead to the understanding of the expansion phase "separated the lite from the dark" it was just a soup of photons at that point. Drop you attitude it keeps you from using the scientific method properly.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
No evidence of time..... Could be billions of years old.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Only NOW did God create TIME...... the first day.
God is light.....
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Why is there darkness in Gen. 1:2.............. Shouldn't there be light from the start? OR DID A JUDGEMENT PLACE?
Gen_2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Fall of Satan...Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God and thou wast upon the holy mountain of God .... Was the first Eden destroyed with Earth in a JUDGEMENT? Possible.... no proof of the bec God does not have to reveal everything to us. Was earth created for the Angels and God's pleasure BEFORE ADAM? POSSIBLE
Genesis does not prove a young earth..... more that it was created timeless in Gen. 1:1. Time did not begin until Gen. 1:3-5, the first day.
When people talk about billions of years ago I tune out
I don't talk in terms of billions of years. In England the BBC science unit made an experiment a few years ago in its TV series "Horizon" in which they used the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe was bounded or unbounded in the four dimensions. The result was a indeed a cosmos unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time.. It did not begin and has no edge they said. It always was.
You are tuned out alright. You think you book of fairy tales is true. How pathetic!
They need so many years, so the lie about everything creating itself, make a tiny bit sence
@@vincesmythe8106 and you have tune out unknowingly to God too!!!!
@@vincesmythe8106 they just keep adding zeros.
God is Awesome 🌍
God does not exist.
@JanWnogu then why does it bother you that someone you don't even know believes? If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't even reply. Most atheist that I know do not care if people put up nativity scenes or believe what they believe. It doesn't mean anything to them they feel comfortable in their position. You must not feel comfortable in your rejection of God, so you have to strike out at those who do believe to reassure yourself that He doesn't exist.
God is gay
@nadaproblem3023 praying for you right now.
@@nadaproblem3023 gay means Happy
The most difficult subject to talk when it comes to the creation is to interact with people that don’t believe in God .
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
No evidence of time..... Could be billions of years old.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Only NOW did God create TIME...... the first day.
God is light.....
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Why is there darkness in Gen. 1:2.............. Shouldn't there be light from the start? OR DID A JUDGEMENT PLACE?
Gen_2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Fall of Satan...Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God and thou wast upon the holy mountain of God .... Was the first Eden destroyed with Earth in a JUDGEMENT? Possible.... no proof of the bec God does not have to reveal everything to us. Was earth created for the Angels and God's pleasure BEFORE ADAM? POSSIBLE
Genesis does not prove a young earth..... more that it was created timeless in Gen. 1:1. Time did not begin until Gen. 1:3-5, the first day.
The most crucial bit that was missed out. The part where Genesis states that the earth was created before the sun.
@@Nick-s9f6h its all complete nonsense.....lololol
@@tonyvillena1985it's going to be difficult talking to people who only believe facts and not fiction.
Even if a rock were "created" in 1980. The elements of that rock are much older even though it was in a somewhat liquid lava form. If I cut down a 100 year old tree, and made a small box from the wood of the tree. The box I just made is brand new, but the elements of wood I used would still be 100 years old.
@@Rico11b exactly what I was thinking and so went to the comments hoping to find this. Thanks :)
So all rocks and elements that make rocks, should be the same age as they would all be created at the same time. But they date rocks at different times, how does that work??
@@dansmith9724 ha, good point! 🤔
The age of a rock is considered when it changed from magma to solid rock. Radiometric dating is “supposed” to give the date of this occurring, not the age of original material.
@@alexmoreland7938 although it didn't work for Mount Saint Helen🤔
Seriously, if people genuinely believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old then they are either a moron or have been brainwashed. It is that simple.
Set aside radiometric dating for a minute and consider the following tidbit from Matthew Hedman’s book The Age of Everything, How Science Explores the Past: “Using logs from Germany, Ireland, and the west coast of the of the United States, researchers have managed to construct continuous records of tree rings all the way back to about 10000 BCE.”
Conclusion: religion is absurd.
Throw out if you believe in God or not... Or if you are a young earther, or an deep timer for a second...
1) Would it be fair to assume that if a God created a planet, and he intended to make it ready for Human inhabitants, that he might make mature trees?
2) Now on the flip side, its also possible that a "day" to God was not "a day" to us. Which means it doesnt matter how old the Earth is, it still fits within Christianity. Thus I dont care either way... On that note as well, Any God that is capable of creating life, would also be capable of editing it through evolution, AND/OR creating the processes in which evolution uses.
Also, tree ring data is somewhat accurate but there are still discrepancies involved. Especially between trees of greater distance apart.
I've always believed the Bible account.
Even when I was in school hearing all of the stories about millions of years, it always seemed wrong to me. Unbelievable.
@@Abidingingrace-p6z why do you think billions of years is impossible, the only impossible Thing about that is comprehending it
@@mathid__ billions of years is contradicted by known scientific data. It was fabricated to accommodate the unscientific evolutionary fairytale.
Then you believe dinosaurs were on the Ark.
I don't know why ppl think it unbelievable that God could have created the world 6000 years ago. It was only 2000 years ago that Jesus walked the earth. Also to think scientists have the technology to date back 'billions of years" while still not having the technology to accurately predict the weather is a bit comedic. We don't know exactly when God created the world but I'm almost certain it def wasn't billions of years ago
" to think scientists have the technology to date back 'billions of years" while still not having the technology to accurately predict the weather is a bit comedic"
Nope. It only shows how uneducated you are.
@@mrscottspodcast I agree! How do scientists have technology to say how old something is but not to correctly predict weather patterns??
Man was created 6000 years ago, the earth was created “In the Beginning “ before the 7 days of creation.
@JanWnogu Just try to actually think in your head what a thousand years would look like then try to imagine 3 thousand years so there's no way scientist or not anyone could imagine even half a million years never mind a billion years it's nonsense when they can't even predict how long a murdered body has been in the ground for only about 20 odd years they end up guessing .Don't be deceived by the master of deception & confusion ( satan).
@@grgmj1980 then I don't need anything else in the Bible if it's invalidated immediately with a muddy, unclear timeline by the people who wrote it. People who didn't even possess scientific inquiry. Next.
The point that Harwood brushes over is if you are using Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) and you get dates that range from 350,000 to 2.8 million years on St Helens rock, you just know that those rocks are too young for K-Ar dating. You know this even if you don't know how old the rocks are because of the K-Ar values. Radiometric methods are statistical in nature and those with large half lives like K-Ar (1.25 billion years) also have larger margins of error. Obviously a margin of error like 2.45 million years (2.8 million minus 350 thousand) is too great for rocks that are only 50 years. However a margin of error of 2.45 million years is perfectly acceptable when dating rocks that are 500 million years old.
I did point this out (though in a less fully comprehending manner) in my comment. A discrepancy of 2 million years seems so much bigger when the near end is in our lifetimes than it does when both ends of it are over a hundred million years ago. However, I find it concerning that we try to rely on a method that we have no long-term control for. We know it doesn't work on more recent rocks, but how do we know it works on older rocks? We know how old rocks from those volcanoes are, because they were ten or 50 or 200 years ago, but we have no records of the formation of these 'older' rocks save for the records formed from these methods, and others like them, that rely on each other. Yes, there's no way to get that same historical documentation, because it's literally pre-history, but that is an obstacle we can't just handwave away. We have to accept that knowing for sure these dating methods work at all as advertised is impossible unless we have a control that we can... control.
@@madcinder257 Obviously, it is impossible to know _for sure_ that radiometric dating methods work as advertised because Science does not _know_ anything for sure. However, making inferences from observed phenomena to draw conclusions about things we cannot directly control or observe, is consistent with the scientific method. That is why we conclude that the earth moves around the sun even though no one has ever observed that it does or has been able to accomplish this in a laboratory. Furthermore, we have identified the chemical composition of the Sun without ever having made that determination in a laboratory. Similarly, scientists built an atom bomb decades before anyone ever observed an atom with an electron microscope. We were able to deduce that atoms exist and identify many of their properties without ever observing them. We can also make many reasonable inferences about the past and future without direct observation.
As far as radiometric dating is concerned, quantum mechanics provides a theoretical foundation that supports the notion that the decay rates don’t change over time. This is also supported by a plethora of experimental evidence. Additionally, radiometric dating of rock samples have often been corroborated with dates derived from multiple radiometric techniques and laboratories. As far as evidence from the past is concerned, astrophysicists have performed spectroscopic analyses of supernovae that are sometimes millions of light years distant. In these supernovae, they have identified every radioactive isotope known here on Earth as well as their radiation signatures and half-lives. In every case, the measured radiation intensity and half-life of the isotope from the supernova matches very well with measurements of that isotope made on Earth. This is evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay, even in the distant past.
Dating techniques in Astronomy corroborate the notion of an old universe suggested by radiometric data. The Gaia telescope used parallax to determine the distance to 1.47 billion stars that are up to 30,000 light years distant meaning that we are looking 30,000 years in the past. Distances to the overwhelming majority of stars and galaxies that are too far away for the Parallax method are determined, by diverse techniques such as the luminosity of Cepheid variable, luminosity of Type 1a supernovae, and red-shift. Measurements from each of these techniques, including Parallax, are sometimes used to corroborate by the others. For example, measurements by parallax of the distance to nearby cepheid variables confirms that the period of cepheids is strongly correlated with their intrinsic luminosity. This indicates that cepheids are reliable distance candles. There are numerous other dating techniques in geology, astronomy, and biology that haven’t even been touched upon here, but the evidence for an old universe is overwhelming. It is unlikely that all of these dating methodologies have margins of error in the millions of a percent and the universe is really 6,000 years old. If the universe was really that young, there would almost certainly be _some_ scientific evidence to support it. To the best of my knowledge there is none.
Having said all of this, the notion of an old universe is no more or less consistent with the existence of God than a young universe is. Instead, it seems an old universe is inconsistent with the way many people interpret the bible though many others who profess a belief in God have no problem with it.
@@madcinder257 My earlier response apparently disappeared due to some technical glitch, so here it is again --> Obviously, it is impossible to know _for sure_ that radiometric dating methods work as advertised because Science does not _know_ anything for sure. However, making inferences from observed phenomena to draw conclusions about things we cannot directly control or observe, is consistent with the scientific method. That is why we conclude that the earth moves around the sun even though no one has ever observed that it does or has been able to accomplish this in a laboratory. Furthermore, we have identified the chemical composition of the Sun without ever having made that determination in a laboratory. Similarly, scientists built an atom bomb decades before anyone ever observed an atom with an electron microscope. We were able to deduce that atoms exist and identify many of their properties without ever observing them. We can also make many reasonable inferences about the past and future without direct observation.
As far as radiometric dating is concerned, quantum mechanics provides a theoretical foundation that supports the notion that the decay rates don’t change over time. This is also supported by a plethora of experimental evidence. Additionally, radiometric dating of rock samples has often been corroborated with dates derived from multiple radiometric techniques and laboratories. As far as evidence from the past is concerned, astrophysicists have performed spectroscopic analyses of supernovae that are sometimes millions of light years distant. In these supernovae, they have identified every radioactive isotope known here on Earth as well as their radiation signatures and half-lives. In every case, the measured radiation intensity and half-life of the isotope from the supernova matches very well with measurements of that isotope made on Earth. This is evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay, even in the distant past.
Dating techniques in Astronomy corroborate the notion of an old universe suggested by radiometric data. The Gaia telescope used parallax to determine the distance to 1.47 billion stars that are up to 30,000 light years distant meaning that we are looking 30,000 years in the past. Distances to the overwhelming majority of stars and galaxies that are too far away for the Parallax method are determined, by diverse techniques such as the luminosity of Cepheid variable, luminosity of Type 1a supernovae, and red-shift. Measurements from each of these techniques, including Parallax, are sometimes used to corroborate by the others. For example, measurements by parallax of the distance to nearby cepheid variables confirms that the period of cepheids is strongly correlated with their intrinsic luminosity. This indicates that cepheids are reliable distance candles. There are numerous other dating techniques in geology, astronomy, and biology that haven’t even been touched upon here, but the evidence for an old universe is overwhelming. It is unlikely that all of these dating methodologies have margins of error in the millions of a percent and the universe is really 6,000 years old. If the universe was really that young, there would almost certainly be _some_ scientific evidence to support it. To the best of my knowledge there is none.
Having said all of this, the notion of an old universe is no more or less consistent with the existence of God than a young universe is. Instead, it seems an old universe is inconsistent with the way many people interpret the bible though many others who profess a belief in God have no problem with it.
@@sl-rt5kv Well, that was a waste of a perfectly good explanation.
@@madcinder257 I am not sure I know what you are talking about. Which explanation was a waste? Yours or mine? Why?
At around 5:18, when the speaker claims that the volcanoes erupted 200 years ago, he implicitly suggests that the volcanoes themselves are not older than 200 years. This is a significant error. An eruption does not equal the birth of a volcano, which is the same mistake he made earlier with Mount St. Helens.
Moreover, the entire Hawaiian Islands are aligned along a line because the lithospheric plate moves over a fixed mantle hotspot. This movement is similar to sliding a piece of paper over a candle and observing a dark path form. This geological process takes millions of years.
Additionally, consider the sediment deposition rate in a deep ocean basin. By measuring the thickness of the sediments through seismic surveys, analyzing the stratigraphic section, and performing the necessary calculations, it becomes evident that the deposition time is significantly greater than 6,000 years. This is particularly true for abyssal clay deposits.
Geologic layers are not always arranged from older to younger due to tectonics. A well-known example is the Glarner overthrust in the Swiss Alps (a UNESCO World Heritage site), where a older rock layer is positioned above a younger one. It is impossible for nature to achieve that in just 6,000 years (it happens when collision mountain ranges build up at over 15km depth, then uplifting and erosion create the landscape that we see)
There is TONS of evidence all agreeing on Earth being ~4.5 BILLION years old. But, don't bother, people brainwashed with religion will say it's all fake.
Nothing in nature is impossible. And science flip flops all the time, it's unwise to assume that we have figured out how everything works when history has shown us time and time again everything we know today will be thrown out the window in a few years. In 100 years people then will look back on today and laugh about how primitive our theories are for how we think the world works. This happened time and time again throughout history. Now why is that?
Kent Hovind goes over every testing method that modern science uses to 'prove,' or validate their (scientism's) claims in his videos on creation and evolution. Well worth the watch.
But he doesn't know, that age determination mathods exist, which either don't use the parent isotope or which have a stable reference isotope to compare with. He also forgets, that such age determination methods are being checked by other independent methods, that aren't based on radiometric decay. The only thing he can come up with is this giant conspiracy, that all scientists are supposedly part of. What do you think are the odds that all the methods coincide, when this they all supposedly arbitrary?
Culture history puts the great pyramid of Cheops are about 2500 BCE. C14 found the same age for it. The same works with the coffin of pharao Zoser.
@@MrLogo73 Except for the fact that when you test the same sample 5 times, you get 5 different results. That's not science fact, that's science fiction. When you pick and choose which numbers you 'like' out of a list of results, that's a ridiculous testing method.
@@damonjesus445 That is not what radiometric methods do. All measurements will have an error rate, even when you measure the weight of your groceries. The error of U-Pb is one percent, which is a very good result. The claim, that scientists pick and choose is a conspiracy and shows that creationism is actually nothing else than that.
@@damonjesus445 It's a measurement and hence it is with 1% for U-Pb accurate like many other analytical methods. To claim, that they pick and choose is nothing but a conspiracy.
@@MrLogo73 Except for the evidence starting that's exactly what they do. You believe what you want to believe, but that doesn't make it right. Remain ignorant. Satan is real, and he's not your friend. God is real, and He can be. Conspiracies are real, and happen every day. Stay in the dark if it makes your life easier to deal with, but you can only ignore the light for so long.
I felt that way as well, the way humanity is, I doubt we would have made it that long.🇨🇦❤️
The fool said in his heart there is no God. Scientist who doesn't believe in God can't be trusted
When I watched The Ark and the darkness I was really surprised how they proved that all the fossils and dinosaurs were literally about six thousand years old. Blows away every argument that they are millions of years old. I think the documentary is on UA-cam for anyone who hasn't seen it
See what gets me though in the grand scheme of things 6000 years isn't that long. How could these numerous gigantic creatures and environments just up and disappear? Especially without them ever mentioned or seen by a human, they would have coexisted with them if the earth was that young. I love the Bible but the 6000 years thing doesn't seem right to me. I'll have to check that video out you mentioned
@@gingemaximus5301 I believe dinosaurs are actually called dragons in the Bible, and they did coexist with humans before the Great Flood
@@kkxi2289 yeah that could be plausible. Every culture of people have some sort of dragon depiction in their mythology. Maybe it could have been a dinosaur 🤷♂️
Dinosaurs never even existed.. all made up nonsense
No mention of dinosaurs or dragons on the Ark.
When you've got nothing as a timescale to calculate how old something is, it's then a guess, a peice of meteorite, isn't going to give any timescale either, just what it's made of.
Spot on.
Wow. So you've never heard of radioactive decay or isotopes? Half-life? Makes sense. I'd be dumb as paint, too.
@@nadaproblem3023
You can't measure time by measuring ratios of radio-active isotopes.
All you can measure is the ratio of the isotopes.
This is even true for C14 dating of very young objects.
That's why we have "carbon years" and then the adjusted real age for the object.
Christian here with a question about dating lava rocks. It would seem that even thought the lava solidified recently, the molten lava comprising it could be millions of years old.
so it is molten and heated to a liquid state it will be as old as the earth itself so there is the quandary how old is the earth ,in other words what is the base age to start off with.
@@tedbohrer6799 , in certain dating methods the clock is reset when it becomes molten - the gases are assumed to have escaped. I think potassium argon dating falls into this category.
@@alanpfeiffer9686 I understand the ambiguity of dating lava/rocks. But we can't say the lava rock was formed in May 1980 just because it hardened then, and therefore is only 4 decades old. That's the same as saying the molten lava was formed in May 1980. I want to use this young Earth argument but it is not a good argument in our (Christianity) favor.
@@seanvogel8067 Thank you. The universe's age is key to believing the Bible.
Potassium-Argon dating measures how much argon is present in the rock sample. The more Argon, the older the rock. Argon escapes as a gas from molten rock, resetting the clock.
From the U.S. Geological Survey
"Argon dating is an advancement of the long-used potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating method. Both techniques use the decay of unstable 40K to stable 40Ar. Potassium, including the 40K nuclide, is present in nearly every composition of magma and is stored readily in volcanic rocks as they cool and crystallize. Argon (including the 40Ar nuclide), on the other hand, is a gaseous element that escapes from magma and minerals at high temperatures. Only at low temperature-such as when erupted lava or ash cool at the surface-can atoms of argon be trapped in minerals. The advantage of this difference is that the radiometric "clock" starts at the time of eruption, when 40Ar starts building up in the rock."
It was evening and it was morning, the second day. Then evening and morning, the 3rd day... I honestly don't know how much more specific God could be!
Water doesn't have tannins in it, wine is out of grapes not water it truly was miraculously
God knows better than we do. He was there.
How do YOU know that?
@@CornerStaple Explain more...
Genesis 1:1. First line in the best history book and best selling book of all time.
@@ry_boy In the beginning, 6,000 years ago, God created the 14 billion year old heavens, and the 4.5 billion year old earth.
and later that day he created light, but no stars or sun til later. My favorite bedtime story.
God does not exist.
The Hebrew calendar is just shy of 6000 years. The Jewish people recorded the scriptures faithfully, but even if it is questionable, there's only 5000 plus years of documented history, as well as archeological evidence.
@@eugenepearson4467 agreed
Then dinosaurs were on the Ark.
@@MrHardhead2 that is true.
Chinese history goes back recorded some 10k years
@@MrHardhead2the dinosaur were on earth for so long there were fossils of them like bones turned to stone type fossils while they were still roaming the earth. Humans think all “time” is relevant to our term of time but when god created the earth in 7 days what are we to believe that a single of our days is the same as his as his life is eternal so his concept of time may be billions of our years
To God, a day can be a thousand years, and a thousand years can be a day.
Sure, and to Spiderman miles can be inches and inches can be miles. So what?
In the creation record-the evening and the morning were the first day-Genesis 1:3-5. it would most likely be a 24 hour day.
If that's true, then he hasn't resurrected Jesus yet. That should be happening about 3000 CE, 3 "days" after the crucifixion, right?
the verse from 2.Peter is about God standing above time and space. He is not limited as we are. It is not about time in a technical sense to calculate with...but it is also a hint for the prophetic timeline of world history being fulfilled in 7000 years, with the millenial kingdom in the end!
@@JanWnogu lol haha nice
I find it hard to believe that an intelligent human can seriously quote the lifespan of another human in 100's of years. Ussher's chronology, the most accepted basis for the nonsense of a young earth, was written in the 17th C. I'd like to think that human knowledge has moved on significantly since that time.
This is a theology that puts the age of the earth as a primary starting point. Let me suggest this is not good theology. This is called majoring in the minors. But there is a another Scripture one should consider. Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."
The problem with the first piece of evidence is that volcanic "rocks" are solidified lava and the lava is old.
And the more reliable and traceable test of sequestered carbon in growing matter, by his only example, showed an age of 45,000 years. Those ages.have been historically linked step-by-step back in time to judge their accuracy; like the historical record of dendritic rings in trees, which have also told us about the changes in environment over time that took way more than 6,000 years.
@@Dranok1 'tis true. The geneologies of Genesis are not an exact linear record. They never were meant to be. And...there is no original Genesis manuscript to examine.
@@barnarus2547 Of course not, the texts that contributed to it were a merging of the oral histories of two unrelated sects from north and south of their land when they met and merged, one sect called the god of their traditions The Lord and the the other sect call their god Yahweh. The history of their meeting is clear throughout the oldest books of the O.T. as their cultural tales merged when they found similar features (such as tales copied from the Babylonians and mutated to suit their cultures)
Dr.John Lennox has some great input on this exact question..
The evolution needs old ages so there it is.
Circular reasoning.
Why it's circular reasoning? Where is circle?
That is not circular reasoning. It's logical understanding. Evolution really happened and the evidence is very very very old.
There is no circular reasoning in evolution you are confusing that with Christianity
one can have unlimited time and information will not arise, by chance...
@@timhallas4275Evolution has been debunked many times over. The "father" of evolution, Darwin himself, renounced his own theory. I know, because I did a thesis on him.
6000 years of human history. The time between “in the beginning…” and “…the first day.” Is indeterminate. Humanity is about 6000 years old, but all of creation is ??? years old.
The best thing about millions of years is that you cannot check it.
The longer it is, the further away is God... (they think.) It all changes when Jesus speaks to you today. Or somewhere in your life. God is very very near... So we better obey...
I started watching an old David Attenborough wild life programme sometime back and he kept on about 500 thousand or 500 million years ago on Earth. He mentioned this multiple times in the space of about 10 minutes. In the end I lost trust in anything he was saying. I switched the programme of after 15 or so minutes.
Same, snap !!.
Childhood to adult idol, but can't watch him anymore,or others like him. Evilutionists shame on them ha !!
Yes! It does make any sense
I also stopped watching him.
@@highlightoftheday7058 You prefer the lies of creationists?
@@georg7120 It would seem they are questioning. I thought that was kind of what science did anyway. If you attempt to prove that someone is lying using a flawed set of conclusions, you yourself could become the prevaricator
The word of God is valid history. Rejection of God's word is a rejection of history.
@@sixfootoneistall2002 100%
The "word of God" is written by man. Men misunderstand. Men misinterpret. Men lie.
The tale in the ground cannot lie to us. It IS our history.
@@timhallas4275 the fact that men are capable of misunderstanding and misinterpreting does not negate history.
@@poliincredible770 But it does requires us to question it, does it not? Don't forget about the lies,my friend. Recorded history is rife with lies. The story in the rocks, tell the truth.
@@timhallas4275 misunderstanding why Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't invalidate the fact that he freed the slaves. It seems you want to conflate misunderstanding with lies. They are two different things.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Saved from what? Reality? The uncomfortable truth?
I am neither consumed by evil nor baffled by my existence. I have no need for a savior.
@@timhallas4275 yes u need a savor you just choce not to have him and y we need one is because we are sinner look at the ten commandments that will show you.
@@mirandarogers3595 The ten commandments? Thou shall have no other god before me. The law of a tyrant. I think you are a bit confused.
Jehovahs perception of time is totally different to ours. A thousand years as one day and one day as a thousand years…2 Peter 3:8 👍
It isn't just the Book of Genesis that mentions seemingly impossible lifepspans. The Sumerian King List actually records lifespans of many thousands of years. The Charaka Samhita and other Vedic texts mentions lifepspans of thousands of years as well. Jack Cuozzo in his book Buried Alive gives some pretty hard evidence that Neanderthal Man may have lived for hundreds of years. In Brad Steiger's Book, Worlds Before Our Own, he gives an interesting story about modern human remains found in solid bedrock, over 30 million years old! Clearly, there was much more going on here than conventional science tells us, no matter what calendar we use.
True. That's my point. It cannot be definitely proven in any case. I believe it takes less faith to accept the biblical account than millions of years.
This is where many among Christians believers have failed to account of what was created in six days of creation. The Question was : HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? If your answer is 6,000 years, read Genesis 1 again, because that answer is wrong. Genesis 1:1 tells us it’s God who created it. It’s been left void for how long , only God knows . All you you need to account is ; what did God create on the ; FIRST , SECOND , THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH and you’ll see that the material Earth was not part of literal six days of creation.
It wasn't a void though. The Earth and the universe were not a void for billions of years before the creation.
@@nadaproblem3023 : Read the verse Genesis 1:2 The Earth was without form and Void . The same word was used in Revelation 20:1 ABYSS in Greek or Hebrew meaning without order or chaotic that’s the condition of the earth before the six days of creation. Void and without form.
@@nadaproblem3023 : I agree with your first comment, I was talking about the earth not the universe.
If pre history and millions of years came before the Genesis creation story,then how would anything on earth have survived,if there was no plants to eat or even a sun and moon?there was nothing.GOD did create the earth during the same time HE created everything else to live on it.if the earth was void and without form,it's only because it's the same as building a house.when finished with the structure,before all the wiring and plaster and paint work is done,the house also looks void and without form.even if it was recently built,without the cosmetic and practical enhancements,it looks bad.
Adam is not in chapter one!
So, dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans?
@@wendalwarren6131 yup
@@wendalwarren6131 No, they didn't. Only a fringe group of creationists believe that. The rest of the world chooses to accept the massive amount of evidence that contradicts their belief.
@@HighMindedHominid Yes they did. Read the book of Job ch: 40. The author is looking at a huge beast whilst he's describing it.
@lonchaney5743 There is more than one author who contributed to Job, and that particular author is describing a chaos beast. He wasn't looking at anything while he or she was writing. You all want us to believe there were all these massive dinosaurs romaing the planet and all we get is a couple vague references to monsters in the Bible. Lots of cultures had tales of beasts that were clearly myth. This is no different.
@wendalwarren6131 yes absolutely 💯!!
Great job telling the truth about creation.
I once taped a piece of paper to a blackboard . I then asked someone to start timing when i said the word go . When i said go , i took my ink pen and drew a line...10 seconds later i said stop. I asked how old is the line? All agreed 10 seconds. I said wrong. This line is ink, i've had this pen for 2 yrs, it may have been in the pen store inventory for 6 mths, at the manufacturer for 6 mths, the ink producer for 6 mths . I asked, by what factor did you miss the true age of the line? Collective sigh. We dont know the age of the "materials" God used when he "assembled" the Earth/Universe .
Time is a concept given to us humans by Yahweh to make sense for us.
After the thousand year rule of Christ on earth, coming very soon TIME STOP and then.... eternity.
Secular "old earth" scientists very much imply that if you test rocks from around the world from the same age in the geologic column, you get consistent results. It is further implied that radiometric dating yields a consistent pattern of younger and younger rocks as you move up the "geologic column". It seems to me that even if we can't trust the absolute accuracy of the results, the existence of such a pattern is eminently testable just by analyzing the data and if true, would be a fairly strong case for the idea that the strata of the "geologic column" represents slow deposition over long periods of time. If such a pattern doesn't exist, it would go a long way toward debunking the reliability of radiometric data, if not the whole notion of millions of years. Is anyone aware of any such analysis done by creationists?
The video referred to is, I believe, one of the most recent videos put out by the YT channel Is Genesis History?
It has something about Noah's Flood in the title. It is a presentation by Dr. Kurt Wise.
It is not an analysis per se, but in his video he shows multiple evidences that indicate the radiometric dating scheme is clearly off by many orders of magnitude within the time period of the flood.
For example, there is sign of broken rock from a huge earthquake shockwave deep under the continental US that spread from beneath a supervolcano in the southeast US to the northwest, almost to the coast of Washington state and Oregon. Based on the radiometric dating at various points, the conventional (naturalistic) explanation is that the shockwave took 100 million years to cross the continent.
Watch the video for much more.
"radioactive decay may have happened faster in the past"? So it also can be faster again any moment? So Kurt Wise predicts a meltdown of all nuclear reactors? Kurt Wise needs to alarm the president for such a catastrophe
@seanvogel8067 - if radioactive decay may have happened faster in the past then it can happen now or in the future. Everybody take cover!
Ah in one sense they are right similar dating,would you not expect that from the flood which laid similar sediments across the face of the earth what we now see as layers and what they call the geological column is that which has to be challenged, what would we find with the flood is a upheaval of the surface of earth and stripping away what was then splitting of the land mass near or at the end of the flood similar strata on many continents with fossils , that were living creatures that died violently and were buried rapidly.
@@warnerchandler9826 I did watch the video. It mainly reiterated the legitimate, common objection that radiometric dating is wildly inaccurate when tested on known young rocks. But my question deals with whether the overall pattern claimed by old earth geologist of a) the rocks lower in the geologic column consistently date older than those higher up and b) the rocks in the same strata consistently date at the same age. My gut tells me that the actual data isn’t as neatly consistent as old earth proponents suggest.
In other words, even if radiometric dating methods are inaccurate in absolute terms, do they yield consistent results in relative terms vertically along the geologic column, and horizontally within the same strata across the earth? I can’t recall any creationists addressing this question when critiquing radiometric data. More often, they typically account for the seemingly old ages by pointing to the idea that decay rates may have been wildly different than they are today, but it’s never made clear how or why this could be.
Make no mistake, I’m very sympathetic to the Young Earth view. But these are just questions that nag at me because I rarely if ever see them addressed.
I’m just reading the cited website … it’s very well put together.
When I lived in the Latrobe Valley (In Victoria, Australia) I went on a tour of an enormous brown coal opencut mine and there, at a level touted to be incredibly old, was a polystrate fossil of a tree growing up through about 40 million years’ worth of coal layers (if you believe in an old earth). When I mentioned this the hour guide simply clammed up. The earth really is young!
"polystrate tree" is psudeo-science. Fossilized trees are dead trees that were slowly buried in sediment while standing. This occurs on flood planes and near riverbanks all the time. You'll notice that only the tree trunk is there. The branches are all gone.
@@timhallas4275 The trees span multiple sedimentary layers, which are claimed to be deposited millions of years apart. That means that for millions of years, the upper part of the tree would be exposed to the elements as the lower part was being buried. I guess rot and decay took a break during those millions of years.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Those sediment layers are annual flood sediments, not millions of years apart. Most specimens have less than 15 layers. 15 years of a tree slowly being buried. Not surprising at all.
Wow, a TOUR GUIDE wasn't an expert on science! No doubt you expect all tour guides to be experts in science. I wonder why they didn't know that coal only formed because trees DID NOT break down and rot as there were no microorganisms at the time which had the ability to break down the lignin in wood! And did this TOUR GUIDE actually state that the tree was _"growing up through about 40 million years’ worth of coal layers"_ or is this YOUR words, not theirs? Do you understand that all geologic strata DO NOT represent that same duration of deposition, or is this again just your own personal lack of understanding? What you were seeing took only a couple of decades to occur. Not at all unlikely in a time when wood would not rot.
FYI, I live in Moe.
Humans also believed the earth was the center of the universe. Then they believed the sun was the center of the universe. Just because we don't currently know all the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a matter of time and the knowledge will be found.
The earth is absolutely 6000 years old. Definitely not billions of years old. Good stuff here!
Thought it was 10,000 years old 😅. Nice to know this!
The idea is "less than 10000", not exactly 10000.
@@sixfootoneistall2002 pooh pooh fallacy isn't an argument...
@sixfootoneistall2002 None of which is empirical evidence. All evidences are _interpreted_ .
@sixfootoneistall2002 Still not empirical evidence. As we have many times shown why that is. A. We cant access the original situation. B. We can't observe the duration. C. We can observe items of observed formation dates, and they give faulty numbers up to million fold.
@sixfootoneistall2002 Since when they can observe, repeat and test the distant past... physics chemistry and earth sciences cannot access the past, they operate in the present. And within your religion there are dogmatic a priority assumptions 24/7.
I like the concept you have of one person interview a scientist or similar in his/her area of expertise. Really rewarding and encouraging to listen to. 👍💯
If Jesus said it, we can believe it. He is God manifest in the flesh. Creation was obviously a supernatural event. Seculars will never discover the truth through natural explanations. God bless CMI
@@graemeross6970 If I had to say it out loud, It comes closer to realizing that the texts children read all the way through, no longer say "it's a theory" rather they maintain that old earth and host of other scientific positions are actually settled. The Creationists feel that is a deception based upon what they're finding in modern observations. It's fascinating that no one ever questions the professors of the faith in Science. When you believe your braking system will bring a vehicle to a complete stop at the next intersection, you're expressing a small amount of faith.
@@christtheonlyhope4578 Jesus never mentioned anything about the age of the earth. He did speak of Noah as a real person. The claim that the earth is 6000 years is a plain Biblical lie. How people who claim to be in the know can speak lies, I don't understand.
Psa 5:6 ASV Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man.
@@graemeross6970 they are deceivers. And who deceives us humans!
@@Grandliseur did you just condemn yourself?
@@OlegLankin I don't see how! What does the Bible tell us about teaching falsehoods by purpose?
Psa 5:6 ASV Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man.
When those who stand in places of influence in the church, claim lies to be truths, what is the assured reaction from God, from Christ!
Psa 101:7 ASV He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes.
While it is a Biblical fact that Adam was created about 6000 years ago, what does the bible teach about the earth?
Gen 1:1 comes before the count of six terraforming days. Here we read:
Gen 1:1 ASV In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Where in chapter one is this associated with day one! Nowhere. So to claim that earth was created at the time of Adam is a lie, a deception. Who is the deceiver?
When was this beginning By the Bible?
About Jesus:
Micah 5:2 ASV But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
(French Louis Segond) Micah 5:2 . . . Et dont l'origine remonte aux temps anciens, Aux jours de l'éternité.
English translation: whose origin goes back to ancient times, to the days of eternity.
(AB) . . . His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.
About the Heavens, God’s throne:
And, Psalms 93:2: ASV, Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.
Psalms 11:4 ASV Jehovah is in his holy temple; Jehovah, his throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.
The beginning may then be seen to be of a time defined as everlasting. When scientists claim the earth to be 4 billion years old, Christians have no way of claiming this incorrect. We simply haven't been told. It could be younger, or older. As God creates the galaxies, suns, planets, moons and whatnot are also created gradually. We do not have a time index for when and what.
DO NOT TEACH LIES.
The Bible is absolutely accurate and the best historical reference available
I am a Christian and have always been open to the arguments for a young earth. But their Biblical evidence, which is based on an absolute literal interpretation of Genesis and is, in fact, a very minority view among Christian Theologians and was not even a view of the early Church fathers. It is in fact a view put forward in the last 100 years. It is also, in my humble opinion, an almost ideological resistance to the overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth - the latter of which is the view of the vast majority of even just Christian cosmologists and astrophysicist. That said, one’s view of the age of the earth is not something that matters one way or another to one’s salvation although I do worry that a young earth view can undermine the power of our witness to non-Christians
@@steverational8615 💯
I completely agree.
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, and I'm not convinced a day in Genesis is 24 hours particularly since the Sun and the Moon aren't created until day 4. Further 2 Peter 3:8 tells us "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I don't know what this means exactly, except that God experiences time differently from how we do.
The catholic doctrine does not match the KJV of the Bible.
To themarieboot. As a former Catholic I'd like to help you in understanding this. First, what Peter wrote was not saying God could have taken 1000's of year to create. Peter was talking about scoffers questioning about the Lord's second coming, saying since their fathers fell asleep, (died) things have continued since creation. Then Peter speaks of creation and the flood. Then goes back to answer the scoffers unbelief. God lives in eternity, not time like we do. So in eternity, a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years. This is not talking about a timeline for creation. As for the days of creation. Exodus 20: 9-11 God gives the commandment about the Sabbath. Six days the Hebrews work and the seventh day is a day of rest. Then God compares it to the creation days. In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all things in it. Then rested,or stopped on the seventh day. It says the same thing in Exodus chapter 31. God compares the creation week to the Hebrew work week and the seventh day is the Sabbath, a day of rest. God wouldn't have compared his creation days to a six day work week if God took thousands or millions of years to create.. Hope this helps.
@@eodee8459 Jesus uses metaphors constantly while he was on earth. I see no reason why God the Father would not use metaphors if Jesus did. Therefore a "Day" could still be ambiguous. It could be a metaphor for a period of time (a Day being the most easily recognizable period of time to a human). OR it could be a literal day.
But you know what It doesnt matter either way! If God created it all in literal days, he obviously did so "in motion" (meaning some thing he created were fully mature before setting them in motion), and thus many of these tests would come back with answers older than the "in motion" date...
@@chrismcaulay7805 except a day can't be ambiguous. Yes the word day (yom) can speak of the day light or the whole 24 hours to any amount of time. But when other portions of scripture tells us then it's a determined time frame. Have to keep it within the context of the narrative. God gave the Hebrews a six day work week and the seventh day is the Sabbath, a day of rest. God also said as he created the heavens and the earth in six days... That would be the same amount of time as the work week. So, God created the heavens and the earth in six literal 24 hour days. Evening and morning were the first day and so on.
@@eodee8459 Ahh, me thinks you didnt read what I wrote (or at the very least didnt understand it). It can be ambiguous in a metaphor, even if the word day is specific in a non-metaphor... That is kinda the entire power of a metaphor now isnt it?
Truth is very straight forward and I think this person is completely correct.
I believe in a God so powerful He can speak and He creates
Remember to remember the Sabbath. For in six days God created... Creation Ministries is serious about creation but forget about the fourth commandment. Revelation 14:6,7. Worship Him who made heaven and earth. Verse 12. Here are they that keep the commandments of God.
People totally miss. " In the beginning, the earth was void and without form".
No one knows how long the earth was in this state until God began creation.
Yes, 6000 years since creation.
Before this? Could have been billions.
@politicallydisgruntled.7977 I for one ponder it carefully, but you are right many miss it's significance. That very same expression "In the beginning " is used by the apostle John in the opening words of his gospel. Can any sober and right mind annex a time period to that ? Absolutely not! In the beginning, simply cannot be measured or comprehended.
@@politicallydisgruntled.7977 Exactly!!! The two words formless and void in Genesis translated to Hebrew are Bohu and Tohu which are strong words that denote catastrophe and cataclysm! According to top biblical scholars, the earth suffered some sort of judgement that left it in a formless and void state. It suffered some sort of catastrophe or cataclysm! This gives credence to dinosaurs and cavemen which was a world that existed before Adam and Eve and is much, much older than six thousand years.
That it NOT what the Bible says, you can't even quote the King James Bible CORRECTLY.
Exactly right. This and many other scriptures are misinterpreted by naive folks thinking they know things that they do not understand.
@@emedina73 Also, Satan said he wanted to lift his throne above God's! He therefore had a throne... probably on the Earth before the first flood before Adam.
Fact is we don’t know how old the earth is. According to the Bible mankind has been around 6000 years. The earth was created before the 7 days of creation of the Book of Genesis. First verse of the Bible says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth “, and then verse 2 says the earth was void and desolate. The earth was already created before the 7 days of creation.
@@grgmj1980 Hebrew translation says the ‘ earth HAD BECOME desolate and void, you are right, not everything in genesis can be taken literally, I don’t think earth is billions of years old, but def not just 6,000
@@christineadamitus9824 maybe the war of angels vs demons destroyed it and God had to rebuild it. Maybe the dinosaurs died during this time of the war.
@@christineadamitus9824 Flood basalt deposits are a problem for young earthers. There is no explanation for 5 million cubic miles of basalt on top of fossiliferous sediment getting laid down in a year. Geology is complex. I agree with you. I suspect a few hundred thousand years. What gets me is when they say stars are the same age...6K. so God is fooling with us. Cannot be.
@@grgmj1980great concept. But when you research dinosaur theories will take you back billions of years, yet if you research dragons you can find them through out history. Next step is to know sir Richard Owens changed the name of dragon to dinosauria in 1841. That brings you to knowing the real name of these creatures. Yet this is called false teachings and so many get lost in research based on misinformation. This guy teaches only mankind’s time line and doesn’t speak of the 1st creations so many know as angels. Old history called them the watchers, biblical text calls them angels and today called aliens. They also teach Neanderthal, yet won’t teach you about bone growth. The brow never stops growing from age. So history is just one’s theory. These theories just don’t match up with the old history tablets/books. I do agree with mankind as being around 6000 years. But the planet is much older cuz there not counting the 1st creations. Enoch was the chosen one, yet if you look into Jewish they claim Eli/elijah. I also know that they change the writings and names. If they can’t get that right what true knowledge are so many depending on, as truth?
The earth is around 5 billion years old and the universe is around 13.7 or 13.8 billion years old. In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). The Big Bang Theory says the same. It's been around for 100 years and has yet to be disproven. The first two verses of Genesis is the first paragraph. The second paragraph beginning with verse 3 starts a new subject and also the first day, which is yom in Hebrew. It can mean 24 hours or an indefinite period of time. The word day in English also has this definition. It can mean either one.
You cannot prove how old the world or universe is. The world could have been created to look like it's older. All we know for certain is it was created. It could not have made itself.
GOD created every thing with a past history
Pretty simple math, I say.
Just like you said, pretty simple math. If you search Google you will find that the Sun burn itself at a rate of 10 yards per day constant from its Diameter, aprox. 5 yard per day of its Radius, just calculate how big the Diameter of the Sun was 6000 years ago and then calculate how big the Sun was 15-20 Billions of years ago, the Sun would be so big that today would be no Milky Way Galaxy and you must take in consideration that, like the scientist tell us, this Universe is Expanding every second, we now know this because the Hubble Telescope discovered this fenomen. Now we know that someone lied big time to the evolutionists and atheists. The Bible was right all along and is the Word of God and is very accurate because is God's Holy Word and we can trust in Him and in His Holy Words.
Not so simple solar models confirm the age of the Solar System to be 4.5 billion years.
yeah, I like the bit when people lived till they were 900 as well
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth" and it didn't say that's day 1
Silly!
Did God really say.....?
Genesis 3:1 LSB
[1] Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
@@OlegLankin believe whatever you want
@@OlegLankin I doubt that you are a Hebrew professor
@@johns9290 the Bible isn't written to Hebrew professors, and to anyone who's read it, it's clear that God speaks clearly to the average Joe, using unambiguous language, and has providentially had it translated into our languages by multiple and reliable translators. It's the "experts" who often try to twist the Bible and deceive the common Joe. That's why I appreciate channels like this, which cut through the deception.
Carbon dating has been proven to be extremely inaccurate...
Thank you for your expert opinion. Now I know the truth.
Prove it.
@@fraser_mr2009 LOL. You don't know the difference between a fact and an inference. Learn the difference. It'll make make you a better and more credible person.
2024 8 billion people
1924 2 billion people
1 AD 300 million
So 2000 years ago there was 300 million people on earth and today there’s 8 billion. Do the math.
6000 years is from the fall of creation, not from the beginning of creation. I cannot believe how many people cannot differentiate between the 2.
Absolutely , the world is brand spanking new , 6000 yrs on the clock another 1000 left, then comes the eternal.. Stop doubting be believing
@sixfootoneistall2002 God spoke all things into being in 6 days approximately 6 k yrs ago.
Ever read a book?
@@Exodus--bx3dd the last days are soon 2033 ish, then millennial reign of Christ for the last thousand years.
@@timhallas4275 evidently it is not about education, but belief.....in what ever option, you focus on....
@Exodus--bx3dd can you tell me when did God create the angelic world ? I don't see it mentioned in the six days of creation. When Satan was cast out of heaven, was this before the 6 day creation or after it? Now he fell to where ???? Was it not the earth? A 6000 year old earth leaves us with many unsolved problems
Amen 🙏🏿❤✝️ moral of the story? trust the Bible
Moral of the story: read the bible. This man is way off on his timelines.
Sure, and be exploited by religious manipulators 🤣🤣🤣
What I would like to understand how does the earth produce coal and oil after six thousand years when science says it takes billions of years for oil to be produced.
Coal is made from plants, oil comes from coal overtime you cannot produce that amount of coal or oil up to 3.9 kilometers unders ground without an enormus amount of time?
So how can the earth be only six thousand years? I just want to know how that is possible? How?????????
Me too man. People like you, who question these things and realize they don’t make sense, are really rare and it’s terrifying. God doesn’t exist. The fact that such a baseless lie has persisted for thousands of years is disturbing to think about
@@Camden-zb6ur I do believe in God, I do not believe that all this came from nothing. But it doesnt make sense that the earth is only six thousand years old. I am more Incline to believe that God made everything but it took billions of year in the process.
“A day with the lord is like a thousand years” “The earth was made in 6 days” 6,000 years………
How true so glad you brought this to light, I to am a creationist praise the lord for you willingness to speak truth
I wouldn't have a problem with the heavens and earth being 6,000 years old although I don't believe they are exactly 6,000 years old but I most certainly don't believe they are millions of years old
Oh I see you are one of those people who have been brainwashed or should I say conditioned to believe in evolution by the scientific establishment I suppose you think they are completely unbiased and infallible as well?
@@avishevin1976I prefer an eyewitness to the events that does not lie. I believe you know where one can be found.
As to the amazing preponderance of evidence that has been unearthed in support of Biblical recent creation and the flood, it would be fantastical to believe in naturalistic explanations that involve millions and billions of years.
@@avishevin1976 - He did not say what you have projected.
@avishevin1976 back at you.
@@avishevin1976 - I have not said what you are projecting on me. Is this your only form of argumentation?
Love to see an interview with astrophysicist Hugh Ross.
' I agree with the accounts too, and these of the Lord God Creator of Love, Life, and Truth, in Holiness that is forever. These attributes are within our beginnings for we are made in God's image.
The opposition that sidetracks away was a creation as well, in the Luciferian angel. Who led the rebellion to turn away. One third of the angelic host fell from grace and tempts mankind with the same manner.
This is cause of disruptive evil works here on earth, and trials of the living in all families of man. AMEN with thanksgiving to God for His Gospel of redemptive loving grace.
In my experience, even creationists are ashamed to admit they're creationists.
Which ones?
Things are very different when they are moving in a hyper-time/space speed.
I know the question of dating is much more complicated than presented in this video. However, given my experience with science and its ability to be manipulated by the all mighty dollar has given me a fair share of skepticism towards the popular conclusions.
If you are wondering about what I’m referring to regarding manipulation. Just look up the mistakes made by the scientific community regarding pain control and opioid use in the 1990s and the colossal waste of money on antibiotic resistance that never materialized as science predicted.
Blessings.
someone has said that about 50 percent, of major research is fraudulent....
Oh yes, science is soooooooo manipulated! As opposed to religion 🤣🤣🤣
@@JanWnogu So, I take it you are not familiar with medical research. Follow the money my friend.
As a geologist I can say categorically that there's abundant evidence showing without contrary proof that the earth alone is 4. 5 to 4.75 BILLION YEARS old. Moses Red Sae alone took 400 million years to form. The crater that is in the Gulf of Mexico that destroyed the dinosaurs is very old (very).
Your discussion is rot !!!
I saw a picture the other day of the meteor crater in Arizona. 1 km wide and 600 meters deep. I have to ask myself, "Did that meteor strike the earth before the flood, or after the flood?" If it was preflood (even if it were the cause of the flood), then the meteor crater could not be so uniform in shape, all the thousand meters of water depth would have erased all or part of the crater. That only leaves the conclusion that the meteor strike occurred after the flood, less than 5000 years ago, which is an impossibility. But, what do I know, I am a simple civil engineer, not a geologist.
@steve6548 I am quite familiar with this. Just simply Google the research on this. If you believe biblical chronological texts this event could not of happened prior to the "flood". (All geological studies of the Earth's crust cannot claim a world wide flood...ever). But , this crater is app. 250 million years old. The crater walls of course would've eroded. However , satellite photoextremethe outer boundaries.
Bottom line : Nowhere in biblical texts is this cataclysm represented.....Faith may move mountains but apparently not craters...
@@steve6548 Pardon me 66 million years old.
@steve6548 I will also direct tou to the moon. Our telescopic views show asteroid strkes that make small our known impacts. The Biblical texts do not mention the moon let alone our galaxies planets. Mars , for example, has impact craters the size of California. Yet , these celestial events go ignored by biblical history. Why ? Because men of antiquity that wrote the texts used in the Bible had no clue these events took place. Their importance is plain. The violent nature to our galaxies development. Again , ignored in the bible....
There is NO evidence that earth is *older* than 6,000 years old, any suggestions of earth being much more older than 6,000 years old is just a suggestion and not to be taken seriously.
The Materialist Cosmology is missing 95% of the mass and energy that mathematics and physics requires to explain it's existence and motions. The nebular theory of our solar systems formation is bogus. The sun having 99% of it's total mass, yet less than 2% of it's angular momentum. Nearly completely backwards according to physics. Zero evidence for accretion, the asteroids have no tendencies to form a planet. Besides their total mass is estimated to be 14% of our moons. The earth is 14.5 billion years old? The moon is moving away from the earth at 12.5 feet per year. Besides, asserting 3.7 billion years ago , non living matter became living is without evidence. I'll stick with the Bible with empirical evidence Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so the things that are made were not made of things visible John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made
I'd say there is much more evidence to believe the earth to be very young (about 6,000 years) than evidence to believe that it is millions or billions of years old. The data is the same, but the interpretations are what makes the difference.
Personally, after genuine comparison of old vs. young earth, I'd say the earth is indeed young. Too many things discovered go against old ages but promote an all-powerful creator that did speak everything into existence as spoken of in the Bible!
@damieno3470 chinese and Indians have recorded history of more than 8000 years , vedas were written (started) during the saraswati River which existed nearly 9000 years ago
@@GOVTEXAMAspirant-h7h how do you know these recorded history ages are 8000 and 9000 years ago? Is there some hard evidence other than someone said so?
The Materialist Cosmology is missing 95% of the energy and matter mathematics and physics requires for their universe's existence and motions. The sun having 99% of the solar systems total mass and only 2% of it's angular momentum? That's completely backwards for the nebular hypothesis of our solar systems formation to be true. Why are naturalists, materialists claims given the time of day? Same with life's origin? They can't make the elements do what they claim they did. Non living matter became living. Absolutely no design or purpose required.
The secret things are for God and the known things are for man. We should be naive thinking that we can grasp everything or summarize God no way let's judge repent and mend our ways and prepare for the coming maranatha Jesus Christ is coming back period thank you
The finite will NEVER understand the infinite YAHWEH.
@@kurtk8926 God has given more details in lsaiah 45 and 2 peter chapter 3 this man would be counted for wise if he would stop contradicting the Bible.
Just a question to think about: If God knew His creation would eventually endure suffering, why would He want to stretch that out for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years? It seems 6000+/- years would be plenty to serve God's purposes.
To you, maybe.
But, what is 6,000 years to an infinite being. Even it we take evolution's hilarious extended time estimates, does it even register in the infinite?
What are God's purposes? As an infinite being, they probably go on infinitely, right?
This doesn’t connect. You are justifying a 6000 year old creation based on God’s dislike of suffering. What about the external suffering of the fallen ages and unsaved humans in the lake of fire/void? God knows all future events so he knows, right now, the suffering of unsaved souls a million years from now. A billion years from now. Given God is willing for creatures to freely choose to be removed from God’s presence and all the torment that will mean for them for the rest of time, I don’t find your argument persuasive.
@@juice7546 I posted a reply earlier but I'm not sure why it disappeared. First let me say, I didn't mean my post to be a knock down argument. Hence, "just a question to think about." Perhaps, it is a small part of a larger cumulative case. To your reply I would agree that God foreknew what the human experience would be before Adam. He knew there would be be suffering and decay. (I tend to connect the purpose at least in some way to Romans 8:18-25.) So your summation of my post at the beginning of your reply seems to be an over simplification of my point. (By the way, I don't think God enjoys our suffering.) And I'm still asking the same question as in my OP.
@@WilliamJohnson-ft4du Thanks. Internet comments are necessarily too small and difficult to really sketch out a fully comprehensive position. I’m not committed to old earth or young earth (I think the science most favors old earth) but I agree either is possible for God. And I think that neither interpretation is critical for salvation. So, it’s an in-house discussion and we are free to disagree. What I perhaps find more compelling is that God seems like to partner with his created creatures in managing His creation. He partners with angels to manage things and he partners with humans to manage the earth. He doesn’t seem to be in a hurry (time is not a limited resource) so the idea of him waiting 13-14 billion years to get to right now doesn’t seem to be a problem for God. And it’s not a problem if the real Adam and Eve actually lived 300-750k years ago. A wooden, literal reading of Genesis 1-3 doesn’t appear correct so I don’t take it in the way many young-earth interpretations do. At this point I’m just blathering…
Why do you always avoid telling what age has been determined by carbon dating? Because it doesn't fit with the ridiculous idea that the earth is 6000 years old?
CMI addresses carbon dating in many, many articles! creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works
The Bible is a history book and the question is a history question. We should take God at his word.
@@BiologosDebunked-h2v its not gods word grow up
"The Bible is a history book"
Nope. It's a bunch of legends from several thousand years ago.
"We should take God at his word"
It was not written by god, but by people with a rather limited world view.
God created Adam as an adult not as a baby. So Adam might be like around 25-30 years old on day one. So God created Adam with an ingrown age. So for God 1 day is 1000 years. And 1000 years for God is oneday.
I have cheese in my fridge older than 6000 years.
Earth Is 6k Yrs Old, We Live Inside A Dome Called Firmament, Earth Is Flat, I Believe That The Same Way Y'all Believe About Sphere.
God Is Real, God Is Good, God Loves Us.
The firmament was broken at the flood of Noah and the Bible never says the world is flat. Instead, when describing the sky a unfolding like a scroll points directly to a spherical world.
Isaiah 40:22 “The Lord sits above the circle of the earth…..”
@@martylueddeke7333 Poetry. Not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. The Bible does not affirm flat Earth lol.
@@psykol-1 I'm a Christian and it honestly amazes me that people use the Bible as an infallible science textbook. Somehow I think that's actually disrespectful to scripture. But I don't judge. I don't think that matters for our salvation. It's still objectively wrong though, but hey, no one is perfect.
@@noxplay4906 I'm a Christian as well and I agree. It honestly rubs me the wrong way when people use the Bible as if it's a science textbook when that really is not the case. The Bible is a history book, not a science book, and we really shouldn't be mix-and-matching the two.
Use science for science and history for history, in my humble opinion at least.
Wow! Mount Saint Helens blew millions of years ago. I must be millions of years old because I was alive when it erupted 😎
Thank you
If you have a large balance for weighing trucks, could I come and put a feather on it and then claim, that weighing doesn't work?
@@MrLogo73 If the large balance for weighing trucks indicated that the feather weighed 10 tons, then I would argue that your scales were inaccurate or broken.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i But it doesn't show 10 tons with a feather. It shows 0. But the feather can't have 0 weight, can it? Is the conclusion rational to say the whole method of weighing is therefore wrong and doesn't work?
@@MrLogo73 It shouldn't show 10 tons. That's why IF it did, we would know something was wrong.
I believe your trying to create an analogy of using K/Ar to date a young rock.
Scales = K/Ar dating method
Feather = 10 year old St Helens rock.
You believe the K/Ar method cannot be used to accurately date a rock that's only 10 years old, because there would not be enough Argon to get a reading. Or in your analogy, the truck scales would not register any weight for the feather, because the scales are not sensitive enough to register the light weight of the feather.
Please correct me if I got that wrong at all.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Analogies are good to display a topic. The method the creationist used was out of range just like the balance for trucks is. Radiometric age determination isn't all wrong, because one person used a method for a sample it can not measure. Just like the balances have small, sensitive ones and large, robust ones, radiometric methods have those for old ages like U-Pb and those for low ages like Cl36 or C14. It's dishonest from him to make it look as if the whole method didn't work.
Even having to call Earth "young" is a response to the fable of millions of years. 6,000 years isn't even young, it's ancient! If anyone met a person, or even learned of a civilization that was 6,000 years old, they wouldn't come away thinking that person or civilization was young. Earth is old, but not older than around 6,000 or so years, maybe plus a few hundred years, due to differences in some numbers in I think the septuagint (a greek translation of the original Hebrew old testament). The original is inerrant, and the translations and manuscripts are extremely accurate, but the translations aren't necessarily inerrant, which is why Christian scholars are so diligent in textual criticism so that they can know and maintain the text true to the original Bible. Apart from a few minor differences in numbers, the Septuagint is basically the same as the Hebrew manuscripts.
The Masoretic texts are different in about 200 places. The 1000 AD texts contradict the LXX in particular where the genealogies are stated in order to discredit Jesus being from the line of David as Messiah
@@sixfootoneistall2002 not persuaded.
@@sixfootoneistall2002 those are lying sources. No thanks!
The douay-rheims challoner version has no errors.
"the fable of millions of years"
This "fable" is called science. Don't like science? Turn off your computer, phone and internet (all products of science, not religion).
There is a "compromise" view, which acknowledges the timeline from Adam to today is roughly 6000 years, but which also understands that the "days" in Genesis 1 are periods of time. There's no reason to assume they must be 24 hour days.
I was convinced, years ago, of that reality by a Christian called Kent Hovind.
Sorry guys, did you read your Bible correctly? The history of humanity is approx.6000 years. The age of the earth is older. “Genesis 1:2 (ESV): The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep”. So, the earth existed before God started his creational work. Basically, the Bible does not tell us the age of the earth. So, don’t confuse it with nonsense like C14 dating methods etc.
C14 is not accurate at all beyond 500 years and many things can cause the rate to change. The best evidence of how old the Earth really is is in geology not isotope decay.
This just doesn't keep with science. Noah's Ark didn't have dinosaurs.
Places in Turkey alone are over 10000 years old.
Creationists need to get used to the fact that the earth, the solar system and the universe are very old - in the billions of years.
@@johncater7861 What is your evidence for which animals were or were not on the ark?
@@rnordquest do you really think Brontosaurus were on the Ark? How about unicorns?
Baby dinosaurs are small.
What do you think of the claim that recently formed rocks from volcanos date very old by current methods. If that is true, doesn't it give you pause?
@@rdrift1879 I think that there are many who make up stories or manipulate facts to suit their particular narrative.
Big Bang is a delusional guess
And the Bible, isnt
Yeah I only believe in about 1 percent of the things these scientists try to tell us
@@jayreyndogz1791 thats veey sad
@@richardhuddleston7086 why should we listen to scientists who have never left this planet and have only been on this planet for 70 80 years max to tell us when and how the universe began it's absolutely delusional
@@richardhuddleston7086have you ever read the bible brother?
Hello,
I am a believer and a ministry for 30 years. I believe in creation, and I believe in what the Bible says. I do not believe in evolution. And yet, I don't believe in an earth created 6,000 years ago.
Now, for God, one day is like a thousand years and vice versa...
So, to this day, I don't believe that arguing about the age of the earth is the message that will win people to the gospel. Does it matter? Yes, certainly, in Christian circles, for those who are interested in the subject. But often, when people talk about the subject, they quickly become condescending, if not aggressive. I believe, and I say this respectfully, that the world doesn't need scientific proof of the age of the earth, but a revelation of the Father's love.
Fraternally yours.
Mikaël Réale
You're a good man, Mark. Following the evidence wherever it may lead ... 🙂
6,000 years, that sounds about right. I can agree with that.
The ice age was about 10,000-15,000 years ago here in Scandinavia , and in Denmark we have a lot of rocks (granite) who came with the ice from Norway, and much of our landscape is shaped by the ice, if the earth is only 6,000 years old , when was the ice age ?
Carl Sagan was full of it: “Billions and billions.”
How long does it take for uranium to turn to lead?
@timhallas4275 was there any lead in the rocks at the beginning of Earth's existence?
@@OlegLankin No.
@@timhallas4275 well, that explains it. You weren't there to know, yet you answer confidently. That shows that you have a firm presupposition that no one can test.
@@OlegLankin Actually, I can know without being there. You see, the Earth was formed from space dust that consists of elements formed inside of gen 1 stars. Lead is not formed in gen 1 stars, but uranium is. So the early Earth had plenty of uranium but NO lead.
Now I will ask you a question. Did God make the Earth?