From a a geology friend: "My only complaint would be you said no limestone layers have floccules, but that isn't really true. Floccules are found in those slump layers (which makes sense, turbidites would create them). But outside of those slump layers, there are none, so they can't all be dismissed as flood turbidites or something" Thank you Mr. Wilford!
@@mr_wilford1123 this is what I really appreciate by people like her. If she makes a mistake, she isn't scared to point it out and correct herself rather than pretending it didn't happen
Well if we are nit picking.............. I'm pretty sure you put up a picture of the Seven Sisters in Sussex, rather than the White Cliffs of Dover (Kent). These people are so dishonest/deluded, they will just hand wave it all away with special pleading.
Thank you. People often ask me why I don't buy into YEC, or creation in general, expecting me to cite one or two difficulties. As you pointed out, it's EVERYTHING. The data from all scientific fields is in opposition with a 6-10k earth.
_"People often ask me why I don't buy into YEC, or creation in general"_ I feel so sorry for you that you're surrounded by so many idiots. Do you live in the southern U.S.?
Why don't you believe in the very much true word of God that was written by different people and makes it extremely contradictory? (Like how God created earth and then the stars in Genesis, but in the book of Job he "laid the foundations of the earth while the stars were still singing.")
@@AlbertaGeek I live in Michigan, and I have the same problem, I think it more depends on the circles you run in, which for me is homeschooled evangelical Christians. It's how I was raised and even accounted for most of the people I went to college with (though I was fortunate enough to have some awesome science teachers who were Christian AND believed in evolution to show me that was a legitimate option, even if I didn't believe them at the time). I didnt manage to break out into a much more progressive and scientifically reasonable form of Christianity until relatively recently. But of course my family and old friends are still mostly YEC. Except, most of them aren't actually interested in why I believe in science because they don't care about the science, they're just interested in why I would "question God" and "not believe the Bible" anymore. Because they won't accept that YEC is only one interpretation, it's just the only possible reading if you're a true Christian and aren't being deceived by the world.
This may be "bite sized", but if you really are trying to take in all this information and get it into your brain, it takes a LOT of "chewing"! I have been through this multiple times trying to absorb all this information, and could still go through it some more, and it's all worth it! It feels like a college level lecture. Great job!
@@firstnamelastname9918 yeah, if there ever was anything that could be called "hyper concentrated gravity currents" in the solar system, they would have ripped apart this planet like tissue paper.
@@dynamicworlds1 I'm neither a physicist nor deeply studied on this, but I believe that is correct and would also produce a great deal of heat -- converting a small portion of that gravitational energy into heat and possibly liquefying the planet as well. EDIT: Honestly, I would LOVE for some (astro-)physicist(s) to describe such an interaction in detail!! Also, by "gravitational energy" I mean the energy potential of the great difference in gravity between such nearby coordinates in space-time.
@@dogwalker666 a blowtorch operates at 1100c and it’s enough to turn steel into butter. That said, even below steel’s melting point, it will still buckle, crumple, and fold under load
Former YEC here. While I didn't, and don't, understand this level of science about limestone, I live in Florida where we owe our existence to the stuff. As I learned more about limestone through cultural osmosis, the more I realized the impracticality of a recent global flood and Florida's existence. But, what really pushed me out of YEC was learning about our reefs and marine habitats. I asked a lot of people I respected, wrote to a few Christian scientists, and read lots of books trying to find out how any complex aquatic life could have survived the proposed global flood. I realized that every attempt at an answer broached extra-biblical miracles. which runs up against sola scriptura.
@@MichaelAChristian1 That statement is self-contradictory, unless you're claiming that water and animals aren't natural. And fossils aren't simply buried animals.
@@KL-lt8rc Did you miss the second statement. They have to be buried rapidly with water. They won't wait around "millions of years" without decomposing. Whales float. You have whales found on top of mountains. You have to have it buried rapidly to be preserved but then you need alot of water to bury whales and thousands of dinosaurs. You can't say it is "local flood" when you have rock layers that go CONTINENT wide and laid down by WATER. The evidence is overwhelmingly against "millions of years". Jesus loves you! Your life is precious! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED!
@@MichaelAChristian1 Most complete fossils are in fact buried quickly, which is why there are relatively few of them. That's not limited to floods though. There's all kinds of natural disasters that bury things. And you can't say it's all due to a global flood when they're all in different layers that match different measured time frames which are constant around the world. All the animals would be mixed up if they were all generated by one giant flood, and they aren't. Not even close. "Whales float. You have whales found on top of mountains." Mountains aren't permanent and static. They form geologically. Mount Everest, for example, is only about 55 million years old. The Andes mountains are also about 50 million years old. Tectonic plates push land (that was once below sea level) up.
@@KL-lt8rc You are missing the point. If you admit the fossil formed RAPIDLY then you are admitting a CATASTROPHE to bury the whale and then you are admitting THE ROCK LAYERS that the whale is in FORMED RAPIDLY. If the ROCK LAYER formed rapidly what disappears? The "geologic column" assumption of TIME. So it destroys the "geologic column". Go ahead and say ALL THE ROCK LAYERS ON TOP OF MOUNTAINS FORMED RAPIDLY. Do you not see how that DEVASTATES "millions of years". The "ages" you are talking about "different layers" that match "different time", but if the LAYER formed RAPIDLY then you lose the "TIME". Do you not understand how devastating that is? If even a few layers from "geologic column" formed rapidly then you lose "millions of years". You admitted they are buried quickly. You do have alot of fossils though. You have plants that haven't had time to WILT. You have fish giving birth and eating. You have whales that float. All sea life is very hard for you since it will not "fossilize" by itself unless buried rapidly. But guess what? Over 90 percent of ALL fossils are marine life like a giant FLOOD deposit. You can't get CONTINENT wide rock layers from a local flood. Sedimentary layers are admittedly MOVED BY WATER. Then you have other problems like not enough meteors in rock layers if it is supposedly "billions of years". And then you have ripple marks in basically every layer. Water marks won't last long at all. It is ALL rapid. They do find animals in different places but like I said it is mostly marine life to begin with. They find whole "geologic column" OUT OF PLACE and MISSING and UPSIDE DOWN. So yet a FLOOD would do that easily. Jesus loves you! Your life is precious! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! I notice you haven't thought about how desert people in Israel knew ALL the mountains WERE UNDERWATER before geology as you know it EXISTED. Have you thought about the TESTIMONY of what happened? You can TRUST God's Word! Jesus Christ is the resurrection and the life!
Another really cool video , thanks Erika , you have a talent for making science fun ,I will use them to help my grandchildren get a feel for exploring their world and getting to know how nature works . Top job lass .
Thinking about how when I was taught creationism on a chalkboard the teacher was being contradicted by the microfossils in the chalk he was writing with. Imagine your corpse being used to write out that you never existed 😂
Your video was the perfect way to relax and learn after an awful day and your jokes make me cackle. The people in the comments are just jealous, never stop
In regards to the tectonic model proposed by young Earth creationists that gives them the heat problem, the life on the ark would have drowned in the air due to relative humidity long before the plates could have moved to their current areas because of 100% humidity and temperatures well beyond the body temperatures of the animals. This means that life would have had to hyper evolve from even more primitive life than the macro animals that would have been taken on the ark.
I responded with a reaction to your joke just now but i have a more genuine comment -- I love your YEC debunking vids, and debunking vids in general, because they give me, a layperson who is invested in science and virulently anti-YEC but who wouldn't usually learn about this stuff on their own, a framework into which i can place information about a wide variety of topics through which i'm more likely to remember them! So when someone's talking about human evolution around me, i can reach into my YEC-debunking file cabinet to provide relevant information, and if i'm asked for sources i usually remember which video i learned the thing from, and can go into the summary and pull out and read/share the relevant paper. I have yet to find significant misrepresentations made by the youtubers I love :) but should i ever find one, i'll have a conceptual framework to place it into. That and there's something really satisfying about seeing people who hold other opinions I think are bad (anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-abortion, sexist, racist, nationalist) get dunked on by people who know what they're talking about XD Ngl there's something so soothing about it (also my name is different here but i'm one of your early patrons thank you again for drawing my tiny warrior kitty for me :))) your art/animation style is a joy to look at and an inspiration to me as a learning artist myself :) )
I don’t know why SFT aka Monkey for bananas said this video was unwatchable. As a chemist, I learned a lot in the 20 minutes and this video has both the scientific evidence and references that supports a larger time scale that is what is typically presented by proponents of a young earth. I will probably work my way up to watching the video by SFT featuring Joe Hubbard but knowing they will not approach it with bias will give some hesitation on my part.
One of the things I have commented on at various videos is that creationism shouldn't try to explain a select few convenient observations, but everything, rather than ignoring the ones that don't fit
Such a nice surprise to see notch peak in your video. It was in my master’s thesis study area. Great job! Can you address the Mormon belief that the earth was “assembled” 6000ya from chunks of other planets, fossils and all?
18:25 where can I find videos of this underwater sandstorm awesomeness? Its so cool to watch. Also very good video as always. Concise, descriptive, and easy to understand.
Don't forget dolomite, which is derived from limestone. In the dolomite, much (roughly 50%) of the Calcium is replaced by Magnesium. Huge mountainranges of dolmite, such as the Dolomite in italy (from which it derives its name), the mountains of the coastal ranges in California, and many others. I posited in another of your videos to query YEC people about Salt Domes, and how the salt got there, when it requires ages of evaporation of shallow seas to form a thin layer of salts, followed by flooding, then more evaporation, over and over again, to form a thick layer of salt.
Hey Gutsick Gibbon, great video. Punchy and succinct. I'm noticing that when i click on your redbubble link i get a 404 although if i google your store i can still access it. Is the link copied wrong? _Edit: Actually all your support the channel links are doing that. Maybe it's just me_
It's funny that the anime The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - which posits a modern Earth inadvertently created by an omnipotent being a couple years prior - has FEWER evidentiary problems than the theory of a creator intentionally making everything 6,000 years ago.
Actually the don't "debate", Ken & Kent don't have vaild arguments, so they ridicule and insult or move goalposts so fast they are out of the stadium before you realise it There is also a reason why serieus scientists don't go in debate with them: "Why give a fool a platform he can use to pretend he is to be taken serious."
Maybe god just really really wants a few corporations to become immensely rich, so she put oil down there and left it out of scripture as a nice surprise
The only fast calcium carbonate reaction I know of is Plaster of Paris and that's an exothermic reaction so really rapid accumulation would cause a heat effect. EDIT. Never mind, you're on it.
Okay. Being a Horticulturist I'm a bit of a Soil Science Nerd but the way you talk Geology has me kinda Nerd Heated.🤓But smacking the YEC twerps with it at the same time? I'm afraid I've leaped right over Nerdgasm into Absolute Swoon.🌝
In the flood «model», it would be impossible to have lime stone and shale under sand stone. It should be, bottom up, coarse sand stone fading to fine sand stone transitioning smoothly into lime stone, then a smooth transition into shale. Yet, there are many instances where there is coarse sand stone atop of lime stone and shale.
0:33 - "So frequently I encounter what I call 'bite-sized busts'" I love those! "...aspects of STEM fields that entirely preclude Young Earth Creationism" Oh... well I like those too.
The pronunciation of zooplankton here sounds off. I thought it was four syllables: zoe-uh-plank-ton. I love your channel and have basically been binge-watching it for the past week. Thanks for all the great content!
Here is something for a bite sized bust. The guy I lite debate YEC with keeps going with the point of the layers in the grand Canyon seem completely flat with no weathering on the top of each layer. When I look at pics of the layers I just don't see what he sees but it would be nice to be able to explain it more than "your premise is just wrong".
Well, when we look at strata in the GC walls we're not looking at their tops, are we? We're looking laterally. That's what I'd point out, if only to get him to clarify. What I suspect he means is that the stratification looks like how we'd expect strata to look, by definition. Layers sitting on top of one another with no blurring between them. What this really means is that he is not distinguishing between deposition and lithification. Makes sense since YECs think the flood simultaneously laid down the GC strata and cut out the grand canyon. However, A mass of water boring out a canyon in mud is not "weathering". This brings up the point of how YECs think aerially exposed layered mud sitting in the GC walls gets turned into rock. You should ask him Deposition, lithification and weathering can't occur simultaneously at the sane time and place on the same sediment. They are temporally and spatially distinct processes. Unconsolidated sediments are not weathered. They get deposited depending on whether the environment is in a basin and when uplift or erosion is going on they don't. If they get buried under the same sediment in the same environment or different sediment from different environments then they get lithified into rock, and if that rock gets uplifted then weathering might expose or even erase them Tl dr: the fact that we can see strata is evidence that it was buried, lithified, and that weathering occurrd. We wouldn't be able to look at it with our eyes if weathering hadn't occurred.
Hey Erica, Professor David McQueen was impressed by your video and has asked if you would like to debate him on the subject of Limestone on the SFT channel. This is the real deal.
Shoot me an email, or have sft do so. Kind of odd to suggest in the comments no? I'd be very interested in discussing Limestone or the age of the earth with David McQueen. I would love to explore his blood in oil claim while I'm at it.
@@GutsickGibbon well i didnt have your email and Prof McQueen asked me if you would like to debate the topic. I'll contact SFT and ask if he can arrange it then. Thanks for responding
@@GutsickGibbon too bad they will never accept any evidence that precludes their religious beliefs no matter how well understood it is. The only good thing about these debates is everyone can just look at each sides rebuttals to see who is always caught being wrong. My favorite is when they use peer review articles as evidence that actually disagree with them. Not hard to see who's bull$hi++ing when that happens
Besides kinds, this is the argument they don't have much of an answer to. Just the canned creationist responses that are in this video that actually don't explain global limestone features and the patterns of deposition. Imagine thinking an underwater landslide can produce the complex stratigraphy we see just about anywhere.
@@Rayrard Geology is founded on the flood. Evolutionists believe in MOLTEN earth that "formed itself". So limestone is a huge problem for them. ua-cam.com/video/XntVs3KWzs4/v-deo.html
@@greendragonreprised6885 There ard some assumptions which are not true.Chemisty ca be very fast.No body really knows what the conditions were.Limestone can be made rapidly by Basalt and carbon acids reaction
@@cristianpopescu78 But this isn't about limestone, it's about chalk. Slow build ups of the shells of dead sea creatures over millions of years. And yes, the smart people who spend their lives studying this know what the conditions were like. You may not and I may not because it's not either of ours area of expertise but that does not mean no one does. Young Earth Creationism is science denial and deserves them ridicule that is poured upon it.
@@greendragonreprised6885In theory it seems so as you say.But this issue can be right evaluate ony in correlation with other information about what is life in general,chmistry, fossils records Psychology and NDE..Materialism only ,is the wrong answer.
It was fun to hear "Heartaches" in the background. I learned to play it on the banjo from this version, by The Country Gentlemen. ua-cam.com/video/-g1cuGE4NNs/v-deo.html/ I only wish I could play it half as well as Eddie Adcock did!
I seem to remember reading that limestone formation is exothermic, and that if all the limestone on Earth was deposited in a short period of time, like a year, the heat generated would have made the oceans boil. Any thoughts?
I know that if you use old-fashioned lime wash for exterior walls you have to add the powdered quick lime to the water, slowly ; if you put the lime in the bucket then pour the water on top it can boil and spit
Hiya Secular Pagan Mum. Hope you're doin' ok. Life can be difficult at times. Hope you're getting enough laughs daily. I've been checking out die besten videos, might be worth looking. It's like fail army lite.
The universe was created in the beginning, an undisclosed time before the first day. Then the planets were finished in a six day "making" process that transformed the surface to produce the continents and ocean basins the first three days. Since the time between the beginning and the first day we could have had an astronomical amount of time for limestone to a a cumulate before the first day when the earth was smooth and entirely covered with water. During the flood much of the limestone existing was pulverized and re congealed after the flood. The sediments would not be on the land with sea fossils in them without catastrophic intrusion of sea, covering the entire earth.
And what with metamorphic rocks? For example, marble rock was formed from the limestone rock. That limestone rock sank (due to tectonics movements), and was exposed to high temperature and high pressure for hundreds of thousands years. Subsequent tectonic disturbance returns the marble rock to the surface. The high of the marble rocks in Carrara (Italy) was 100 m. Metamorphic rocks make up a large part of the Earth`s crust and form 12% of the Earth's land surface.
Even if they invoke magic just-so mudflows they will not replicate the very discrete layers of very different rock types. Why would you have a white limestone and then switch instantaneously to a red limestone, and have a sharp boundary between them, if it was formed underwater in a mudflow? How does a mudflow explain chalk beds. How do you even sustain that much plankton at once given limiting reagents limit seasonal blooms today? How do coral reefs even survive the flood and why aren't pre-flood reefs identified and buried in sediment today? How do you get carbonate banks forming at even the most optimistic coral growth rates? How does a flood tell the difference between siliecous and calcareous limestone (is there a depth given by YEC's of this flood?)? There are just no answers to the limestone problem.
"of all sedimentary rock 10% is limestone you say, and the majority is marine in nature - what % of all limestone in the world contains marine organisms? Who studied and concluded that. I need that info for a presentation I want to make? Thanks.
There is a volcano in east Africa that erupts as a black rock then as it hardens it becomes white calcium carbonate. It's possible that all the limestone on the fossil record is not the usual natural accumulation of limestone. Also all the continent surfaces are above sea level. The the continental surfaces are never below sea level and never sea floor that's lifted above sea level by diastrophism. In order to get sediments on the surface the sea had to catastrophicly intrude onto and covering all continents with even land animals in the sediments. And with chalk beds it's possible that all the near microscopic organisms fell like snow because of thermal or chemical conditions killing the entire column.
I don't understand well the calcium cycle.. How does it make concreate? What does it do when it is heated? Solubility goes down as temperature goes up? 'Counterintuitive to myself. .. Not a thermos dynamic genius myself.
Just to be clear, is the micro fossils precipitating out or the chemical solution or both? If we’re talking solubility I assume that’s a chemical, maybe leeched from the fossils?
It does occur worldwide - "This calcium carbonate, a very pure type of limestone, consists of billions of microorganisms including foraminifera and calcareous algae, coccoliths and rhabdoliths. Today, these microorganisms live in the upper 300-600 feet (91-183 m) of the open seas. When these microorganisms die, their calcium-rich shells accumulate on the bottom of the ocean floor, often almost 15,000-16,000 feet (4.6-4.9 km) below the surface. These shells cover about one-quarter of the surface of the earth today. It is estimated that these remains take up to 10 days or longer to reach the ocean floor and reportedly accumulate at a rate of .5-3 inches (1.25-7.5 cm) per thousand years." "Chalk formations are found in many places in Europe, including England, France and Northern Ireland, and even extend into the Middle East as far as Kazakhstan. Extensive chalk beds are also found throughout North America, including the states of Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kansas." "Similar chalk beds are found in the Midwestern USA, from Nebraska to Texas, and from Alabama to Colorado. They include the Niobrara Chalk in Kansas, which is famous for its astonishing variety of fossils. Chalk beds are also found in the Perth Basin of southern Western Australia (the Gingin Chalk) and contain the same fossils as the English chalk beds, as well as the same types of rock layers above and below them. All these chalk beds are at the same relative level in the global geologic record. So they represent one global sedimentary rock unit." "Even more important is the existence of so many larger fossils found mixed in the chalk beds. How did all these large, diverse creatures get buried in the ooze, unlike what we find on the ocean floor today? The list of large fossils is huge. English chalk bed fossils include many big seafloor animals like sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones). The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures-the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land." And you think all these fossils were buried at a deposition rate of 1-8cm per 1000 yrs, wow. And no predominant contamination over millions of yrs, double wow.
@@100weirdnessbyvolume8 i did watch it to the end. But you need to consider the other arguments to get a balanced view, I know its hard for you guys but there are other explanations. ua-cam.com/video/h2tIGJD91hA/v-deo.html
@@georgebond7777 Sorry, but some random UA-cam video isn't evidence. Now if you had linked to a peer reviewed scientific paper(s) that even remotely supports anything you said I'd be interested. However that's the problem isn't it, you don't have any Science backing your position. Hutton in the 18th Century and Lyell in the early 19th pretty much killed off any chance you might have for arguing that YEC was a widely accepted historical belief. 7th Day Adventist George McCready Price's 'A New Geology in the 1920's, was pretty much dismissed at the time, savagely attacked in the 50's by the likes of Ramm & Kulp and the concept of 'flood geology' was generally shunned by christian science bodies like the American Scientific Association. It was only Whitcomb & Morris's rewriting of Price's ramblings in 1961 that seems to have kicked the YEC corpse back into life but only as a movement pretty much confined to bible literalists in the US. As I said you don't have any scientific evidence for your position and, as most of the YEC's are rabidly anti-science (although perfectly happy to use the products of that science), it is unlikely that you'll dig up any evidence. The few 'experts' you can wheel out are generally not qualified in the areas they expound on or were generally YEC's who went through the motions to get the qualification and have never published anything peer reviewed to support their views. You claim that 'science' is prejudiced against your position but you are wrong. Science is prejudiced against BS which is exactly what it should be.
@@100weirdnessbyvolume8 i did provide papers but Erica or YT must have turned that feature off. Try googling this, its a phys.org paper - "Researchers find carbon reactions with basalt can form carbonate minerals faster than thought"
Maybe you've covered this elsewhere, but if not, I've thought of a couple of illustrations that blow up Kent Hovind's "the Grand Canyon was formed in a week." I think I've heard him mention "flood tsunamis" as his explanation for how the Grand Canyon was carved out of rock. So, the one comparison I've yet to see (and would like to) would be to compare tsunami flood patterns with river patterns that obviously formed by water responding to gravity (does Hovind think that "tsunami flood currents" took the meandering of the Colorado River?). The second test would be to take samples of the rocks that make up the Grand Canyon (or maybe just get a tile of sandstone from the garden shop), then subject that rock to the highest water pressure possible, for one week, and measure the results. Do you know if this has been done? Again, another great vid. Thanks.
Second question: why's there only one Grand Canyon? - if all the world was wet there should be canyons that size and structure on every plain in the world; there should be thirty or more just on each of the US east and west coasts.
From a a geology friend: "My only complaint would be you said no limestone layers have floccules, but that isn't really true. Floccules are found in those slump layers (which makes sense, turbidites would create them). But outside of those slump layers, there are none, so they can't all be dismissed as flood turbidites or something" Thank you Mr. Wilford!
My pleasure
@@mr_wilford1123 this is what I really appreciate by people like her. If she makes a mistake, she isn't scared to point it out and correct herself rather than pretending it didn't happen
Sorry, I have a stupid question. 6:00
If 2.45cm = 1inch, then how many inches are 3.6cm? (1.47")
Well if we are nit picking..............
I'm pretty sure you put up a picture of the Seven Sisters in Sussex, rather than the White Cliffs of Dover (Kent).
These people are so dishonest/deluded, they will just hand wave it all away with special pleading.
@@saalkz.a.9715 Yeah, but 1"= 2.54 cm, so 3.6 cm = 1.42" which is even worse than your calculation.
Thank you. People often ask me why I don't buy into YEC, or creation in general, expecting me to cite one or two difficulties. As you pointed out, it's EVERYTHING. The data from all scientific fields is in opposition with a 6-10k earth.
_"People often ask me why I don't buy into YEC, or creation in general"_
I feel so sorry for you that you're surrounded by so many idiots. Do you live in the southern U.S.?
@@AlbertaGeek I think he lives in Transylvania x3
Why don't you believe in the very much true word of God that was written by different people and makes it extremely contradictory? (Like how God created earth and then the stars in Genesis, but in the book of Job he "laid the foundations of the earth while the stars were still singing.")
@@RobertMcBride-is-cool - i thought the stars were crying but anyway excellent point, i use that too...👍
@@AlbertaGeek I live in Michigan, and I have the same problem, I think it more depends on the circles you run in, which for me is homeschooled evangelical Christians. It's how I was raised and even accounted for most of the people I went to college with (though I was fortunate enough to have some awesome science teachers who were Christian AND believed in evolution to show me that was a legitimate option, even if I didn't believe them at the time). I didnt manage to break out into a much more progressive and scientifically reasonable form of Christianity until relatively recently. But of course my family and old friends are still mostly YEC. Except, most of them aren't actually interested in why I believe in science because they don't care about the science, they're just interested in why I would "question God" and "not believe the Bible" anymore. Because they won't accept that YEC is only one interpretation, it's just the only possible reading if you're a true Christian and aren't being deceived by the world.
"Responses will involve strange or never before seen (processes) never before seen in nature or lab" otherwise known as magic.
This may be "bite sized", but if you really are trying to take in all this information and get it into your brain, it takes a LOT of "chewing"! I have been through this multiple times trying to absorb all this information, and could still go through it some more, and it's all worth it! It feels like a college level lecture. Great job!
This is super fascinating even without the debunking. Great work Erika!
Ok, can we agree that out of context "Hyper Concentrated Gravity Currents" sounds freaking awesome and terrifying?
Sounds like the terrifying outskirts of a black hole merger.
@@firstnamelastname9918 yeah, if there ever was anything that could be called "hyper concentrated gravity currents" in the solar system, they would have ripped apart this planet like tissue paper.
@@dynamicworlds1 I'm neither a physicist nor deeply studied on this, but I believe that is correct and would also produce a great deal of heat -- converting a small portion of that gravitational energy into heat and possibly liquefying the planet as well.
EDIT: Honestly, I would LOVE for some (astro-)physicist(s) to describe such an interaction in detail!!
Also, by "gravitational energy" I mean the energy potential of the great difference in gravity between such nearby coordinates in space-time.
Great name for a band. Dibs.
I think it's important to mention that if a robot is made of 40% dolomite, then it can survive in lava.
I thought for sure a futurama clipnwas going to be there.
Actually steel can survive in lava lava melts at about 1200c steel requires 1400c.
For a limited time
@@dogwalker666 a blowtorch operates at 1100c and it’s enough to turn steel into butter.
That said, even below steel’s melting point, it will still buckle, crumple, and fold under load
@@camwyn256 indeed you get it soft then blast compressed oxygen to punch a hole through,
Former YEC here. While I didn't, and don't, understand this level of science about limestone, I live in Florida where we owe our existence to the stuff. As I learned more about limestone through cultural osmosis, the more I realized the impracticality of a recent global flood and Florida's existence. But, what really pushed me out of YEC was learning about our reefs and marine habitats. I asked a lot of people I respected, wrote to a few Christian scientists, and read lots of books trying to find out how any complex aquatic life could have survived the proposed global flood. I realized that every attempt at an answer broached extra-biblical miracles. which runs up against sola scriptura.
Fossils don't appear naturally. They were buried RAPIDLY with WATER. ua-cam.com/video/XntVs3KWzs4/v-deo.html
Jesus loves you!
@@MichaelAChristian1 That statement is self-contradictory, unless you're claiming that water and animals aren't natural. And fossils aren't simply buried animals.
@@KL-lt8rc Did you miss the second statement. They have to be buried rapidly with water. They won't wait around "millions of years" without decomposing. Whales float. You have whales found on top of mountains. You have to have it buried rapidly to be preserved but then you need alot of water to bury whales and thousands of dinosaurs. You can't say it is "local flood" when you have rock layers that go CONTINENT wide and laid down by WATER. The evidence is overwhelmingly against "millions of years". Jesus loves you! Your life is precious! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED!
@@MichaelAChristian1 Most complete fossils are in fact buried quickly, which is why there are relatively few of them. That's not limited to floods though. There's all kinds of natural disasters that bury things. And you can't say it's all due to a global flood when they're all in different layers that match different measured time frames which are constant around the world. All the animals would be mixed up if they were all generated by one giant flood, and they aren't. Not even close.
"Whales float. You have whales found on top of mountains."
Mountains aren't permanent and static. They form geologically. Mount Everest, for example, is only about 55 million years old. The Andes mountains are also about 50 million years old. Tectonic plates push land (that was once below sea level) up.
@@KL-lt8rc You are missing the point. If you admit the fossil formed RAPIDLY then you are admitting a CATASTROPHE to bury the whale and then you are admitting THE ROCK LAYERS that the whale is in FORMED RAPIDLY. If the ROCK LAYER formed rapidly what disappears? The "geologic column" assumption of TIME. So it destroys the "geologic column". Go ahead and say ALL THE ROCK LAYERS ON TOP OF MOUNTAINS FORMED RAPIDLY. Do you not see how that DEVASTATES "millions of years". The "ages" you are talking about "different layers" that match "different time", but if the LAYER formed RAPIDLY then you lose the "TIME". Do you not understand how devastating that is? If even a few layers from "geologic column" formed rapidly then you lose "millions of years". You admitted they are buried quickly. You do have alot of fossils though. You have plants that haven't had time to WILT. You have fish giving birth and eating. You have whales that float. All sea life is very hard for you since it will not "fossilize" by itself unless buried rapidly. But guess what? Over 90 percent of ALL fossils are marine life like a giant FLOOD deposit.
You can't get CONTINENT wide rock layers from a local flood. Sedimentary layers are admittedly MOVED BY WATER. Then you have other problems like not enough meteors in rock layers if it is supposedly "billions of years". And then you have ripple marks in basically every layer. Water marks won't last long at all. It is ALL rapid. They do find animals in different places but like I said it is mostly marine life to begin with. They find whole "geologic column" OUT OF PLACE and MISSING and UPSIDE DOWN. So yet a FLOOD would do that easily.
Jesus loves you! Your life is precious! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! I notice you haven't thought about how desert people in Israel knew ALL the mountains WERE UNDERWATER before geology as you know it EXISTED. Have you thought about the TESTIMONY of what happened? You can TRUST God's Word! Jesus Christ is the resurrection and the life!
I'll make sure to reference this video whenever Creationists talk Limestone or Chalk...they won't watch it but I will still reference it! Thanks
i love your long creationist busting videos, but this short format is perfect to squeeze in morning routine.
Another really cool video , thanks Erika , you have a talent for making science fun ,I will use them to help my grandchildren get a feel for exploring their world and getting to know how nature works . Top job lass .
These bite sized busts are a great idea! Keep em coming
Thinking about how when I was taught creationism on a chalkboard the teacher was being contradicted by the microfossils in the chalk he was writing with. Imagine your corpse being used to write out that you never existed 😂
Your video was the perfect way to relax and learn after an awful day and your jokes make me cackle. The people in the comments are just jealous, never stop
Floccule is such a fun word to say
(Commenting to feed the algorithm gods)
In regards to the tectonic model proposed by young Earth creationists that gives them the heat problem, the life on the ark would have drowned in the air due to relative humidity long before the plates could have moved to their current areas because of 100% humidity and temperatures well beyond the body temperatures of the animals. This means that life would have had to hyper evolve from even more primitive life than the macro animals that would have been taken on the ark.
Huzzah for limestone! Another great video, Erika :)
Please make more stuff like this. I love your content but I don’t have time for 2-3 hour videos most days
I responded with a reaction to your joke just now but i have a more genuine comment -- I love your YEC debunking vids, and debunking vids in general, because they give me, a layperson who is invested in science and virulently anti-YEC but who wouldn't usually learn about this stuff on their own, a framework into which i can place information about a wide variety of topics through which i'm more likely to remember them! So when someone's talking about human evolution around me, i can reach into my YEC-debunking file cabinet to provide relevant information, and if i'm asked for sources i usually remember which video i learned the thing from, and can go into the summary and pull out and read/share the relevant paper. I have yet to find significant misrepresentations made by the youtubers I love :) but should i ever find one, i'll have a conceptual framework to place it into.
That and there's something really satisfying about seeing people who hold other opinions I think are bad (anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-abortion, sexist, racist, nationalist) get dunked on by people who know what they're talking about XD Ngl there's something so soothing about it
(also my name is different here but i'm one of your early patrons thank you again for drawing my tiny warrior kitty for me :))) your art/animation style is a joy to look at and an inspiration to me as a learning artist myself :) )
I don’t know why SFT aka Monkey for bananas said this video was unwatchable. As a chemist, I learned a lot in the 20 minutes and this video has both the scientific evidence and references that supports a larger time scale that is what is typically presented by proponents of a young earth. I will probably work my way up to watching the video by SFT featuring Joe Hubbard but knowing they will not approach it with bias will give some hesitation on my part.
England's chalk downs and cliffs are one of Darwin's arguments for Deep Time in _The Origin Of Species._
Such a great video with so much information. I will definitely be watching this video several times.
Ocean Keltoi just introduced me to your content, I love it already!
whenever you find science that contradicts young earth creationism, a wizard did it
One of the things I have commented on at various videos is that creationism shouldn't try to explain a select few convenient observations, but everything, rather than ignoring the ones that don't fit
Such a nice surprise to see notch peak in your video. It was in my master’s thesis study area. Great job! Can you address the Mormon belief that the earth was “assembled” 6000ya from chunks of other planets, fossils and all?
Renai Circulation x All Star hybrid
Truly the peak of good taste
18:25 where can I find videos of this underwater sandstorm awesomeness? Its so cool to watch. Also very good video as always. Concise, descriptive, and easy to understand.
Don't forget dolomite, which is derived from limestone. In the dolomite, much (roughly 50%) of the Calcium is replaced by Magnesium. Huge mountainranges of dolmite, such as the Dolomite in italy (from which it derives its name), the mountains of the coastal ranges in California, and many others.
I posited in another of your videos to query YEC people about Salt Domes, and how the salt got there, when it requires ages of evaporation of shallow seas to form a thin layer of salts, followed by flooding, then more evaporation, over and over again, to form a thick layer of salt.
Saw the title and already loved the video!
Egypt was already on it's eleventh dynasty by 2000BCE so the flood doesn't appear to have slowed them down.
Hey Gutsick Gibbon, great video. Punchy and succinct.
I'm noticing that when i click on your redbubble link i get a 404 although if i google your store i can still access it. Is the link copied wrong?
_Edit: Actually all your support the channel links are doing that. Maybe it's just me_
There's a lot of limestone here in TN, and a lot of YEC.
I find that unequivocally funny.
Glad to know my clogged sink pipes are a problem for YEC, and not just myself.
It's funny that the anime The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - which posits a modern Earth inadvertently created by an omnipotent being a couple years prior - has FEWER evidentiary problems than the theory of a creator intentionally making everything 6,000 years ago.
Lol, now that you mention it, yes actually!
Keep up the good work. We will miss you when this covid shit is over and you go back to finishing your field work.
You had me at Limestone! 🤣🤣🤣👍Good job Erika!
If Ken Ham ever had another “debate” (although he has no basis for his arguments) then it needs to be with Gutsick Gibbon!
I want to see Vaush debate Kent hoven
Actually the don't "debate", Ken & Kent don't have vaild arguments, so they ridicule and insult or move goalposts so fast they are out of the stadium before you realise it
There is also a reason why serieus scientists don't go in debate with them: "Why give a fool a platform he can use to pretend he is to be taken serious."
Good point, Kameon53
"Let me show you what I mean. Or should I say... what _lime_ mean!"
No. No you should not.
I don't understand why the existence of fossil fuels doesn't cure the poor young earthers. Would someone please be kind enough to explain ?
Maybe god just really really wants a few corporations to become immensely rich, so she put oil down there and left it out of scripture as a nice surprise
@@williamchamberlain2263 that must be it
I've had idiots try to tell me that oil takes just hundreds of years to form lol.
fun fact. the great pyramid of giza was built from 5 million tonnes of limestone sourced from local quarries.
Fun fact and very very relevant. Thanks for pointing that one out John Brinsmead.
The only fast calcium carbonate reaction I know of is Plaster of Paris and that's an exothermic reaction so really rapid accumulation would cause a heat effect. EDIT. Never mind, you're on it.
Okay. Being a Horticulturist I'm a bit of a Soil Science Nerd but the way you talk Geology has me kinda Nerd Heated.🤓But smacking the YEC twerps with it at the same time? I'm afraid I've leaped right over Nerdgasm into Absolute Swoon.🌝
In the flood «model», it would be impossible to have lime stone and shale under sand stone. It should be, bottom up, coarse sand stone fading to fine sand stone transitioning smoothly into lime stone, then a smooth transition into shale. Yet, there are many instances where there is coarse sand stone atop of lime stone and shale.
0:33 - "So frequently I encounter what I call 'bite-sized busts'"
I love those!
"...aspects of STEM fields that entirely preclude Young Earth Creationism"
Oh... well I like those too.
God I love limestone, and I'm not ashamed if anyone knows it
🤣 the editing on this video 👌👏 outstanding.
The pronunciation of zooplankton here sounds off. I thought it was four syllables: zoe-uh-plank-ton.
I love your channel and have basically been binge-watching it for the past week. Thanks for all the great content!
aluminium/aluminum ?
Here is something for a bite sized bust. The guy I lite debate YEC with keeps going with the point of the layers in the grand Canyon seem completely flat with no weathering on the top of each layer.
When I look at pics of the layers I just don't see what he sees but it would be nice to be able to explain it more than "your premise is just wrong".
Well, when we look at strata in the GC walls we're not looking at their tops, are we? We're looking laterally. That's what I'd point out, if only to get him to clarify.
What I suspect he means is that the stratification looks like how we'd expect strata to look, by definition. Layers sitting on top of one another with no blurring between them. What this really means is that he is not distinguishing between deposition and lithification.
Makes sense since YECs think the flood simultaneously laid down the GC strata and cut out the grand canyon. However, A mass of water boring out a canyon in mud is not "weathering". This brings up the point of how YECs think aerially exposed layered mud sitting in the GC walls gets turned into rock. You should ask him
Deposition, lithification and weathering can't occur simultaneously at the sane time and place on the same sediment. They are temporally and spatially distinct processes. Unconsolidated sediments are not weathered. They get deposited depending on whether the environment is in a basin and when uplift or erosion is going on they don't. If they get buried under the same sediment in the same environment or different sediment from different environments then they get lithified into rock, and if that rock gets uplifted then weathering might expose or even erase them
Tl dr: the fact that we can see strata is evidence that it was buried, lithified, and that weathering occurrd. We wouldn't be able to look at it with our eyes if weathering hadn't occurred.
Oh geeze I didnt even consider the biomass problem
As a kid I lived just a few miles from the White Cliffs of Dover. Very cool.
Hey Erica, Professor David McQueen was impressed by your video and has asked if you would like to debate him on the subject of Limestone on the SFT channel.
This is the real deal.
Shoot me an email, or have sft do so. Kind of odd to suggest in the comments no? I'd be very interested in discussing Limestone or the age of the earth with David McQueen. I would love to explore his blood in oil claim while I'm at it.
@@GutsickGibbon well i didnt have your email and Prof McQueen asked me if you would like to debate the topic.
I'll contact SFT and ask if he can arrange it then.
Thanks for responding
@@GutsickGibbon too bad they will never accept any evidence that precludes their religious beliefs no matter how well understood it is. The only good thing about these debates is everyone can just look at each sides rebuttals to see who is always caught being wrong. My favorite is when they use peer review articles as evidence that actually disagree with them. Not hard to see who's bull$hi++ing when that happens
Redwall!
Oh, wait, it's not about a mouse warrior...
A 'Librarian' mouse warrior. Respect, please
I like your videos. Have a great summer.
Hey Erika,
Good vid! That limestone forest feature at 21:38 --> looks familiar, can you let me know where it is?
"Conducive" does not go with "With" or with "For", but with "To".
thanks for answering so quickly
Great intro again!
I have been tryiny to argue this point to YECs for a long time now and all they ever do is go back to their talking points.
Besides kinds, this is the argument they don't have much of an answer to. Just the canned creationist responses that are in this video that actually don't explain global limestone features and the patterns of deposition. Imagine thinking an underwater landslide can produce the complex stratigraphy we see just about anywhere.
To be fair, they do that regardless of topic.
What a crock of sh*t.
@@Rayrard Geology is founded on the flood. Evolutionists believe in MOLTEN earth that "formed itself". So limestone is a huge problem for them. ua-cam.com/video/XntVs3KWzs4/v-deo.html
15:09 "lithify"? I don't think this girl loses too many times playing Scrabble!
WHO DISLIKED THIS VIDEO?! HOW DARE YOU?!
Young Earth Creationism can be refuted in 2 words: Gobekli Tepe.
Evolution in one: chemistry.
@@cristianpopescu78 I assume you either didn't watch the video or didn't understand it.
@@greendragonreprised6885 There ard some assumptions which are not true.Chemisty ca be very fast.No body really knows what the conditions were.Limestone can be made rapidly by Basalt and carbon acids reaction
@@cristianpopescu78 But this isn't about limestone, it's about chalk. Slow build ups of the shells of dead sea creatures over millions of years. And yes, the smart people who spend their lives studying this know what the conditions were like. You may not and I may not because it's not either of ours area of expertise but that does not mean no one does. Young Earth Creationism is science denial and deserves them ridicule that is poured upon it.
@@greendragonreprised6885In theory it seems so as you say.But this issue can be right evaluate ony in correlation with other information about what is life in general,chmistry, fossils records Psychology and NDE..Materialism only ,is the wrong answer.
Ken Hamm should have to watch this a l’A Clockwork Orange.
I so enjoy your videos!!!!
Great video. Loved this bite-sized bust!
Awesome video, as always!
It was fun to hear "Heartaches" in the background. I learned to play it on the banjo from this version, by The Country Gentlemen. ua-cam.com/video/-g1cuGE4NNs/v-deo.html/
I only wish I could play it half as well as Eddie Adcock did!
Do you have a "safe" address to send things too? A PO Box or general Faculty Department?
I mean somewhere that wouldn't dox your domicile? (because weirdo internet stalker crazy people)
Do you make your cartoons? They are cool !! I also appreciate your channel!
Is it possible to print out the transcript?
I somehow missed this video! Better late than never, I guess!
I seem to remember reading that limestone formation is exothermic, and that if all the limestone on Earth was deposited in a short period of time, like a year, the heat generated would have made the oceans boil. Any thoughts?
I know that if you use old-fashioned lime wash for exterior walls you have to add the powdered quick lime to the water, slowly ; if you put the lime in the bucket then pour the water on top it can boil and spit
Yes, it may be an issue of quantities. How much salt water would it to alter this process?
Thank you. After that Danny bs, I needed some fun reality to clear the muck out of my brain
Hiya Secular Pagan Mum. Hope you're doin' ok. Life can be difficult at times. Hope you're getting enough laughs daily.
I've been checking out die besten videos, might be worth looking. It's like fail army lite.
I wonder if you understand me? Are there limestone deposits about the world without freshwater of marine lifeforms? If yes what percentage?
Which article goes over limestone accumulation in Bahamas?
which sample of heartaches did you use?
The universe was created in the beginning, an undisclosed time before the first day. Then the planets were finished in a six day "making" process that transformed the surface to produce the continents and ocean basins the first three days. Since the time between the beginning and the first day we could have had an astronomical amount of time for limestone to a a cumulate before the first day when the earth was smooth and entirely covered with water. During the flood much of the limestone existing was pulverized and re congealed after the flood. The sediments would not be on the land with sea fossils in them without catastrophic intrusion of sea, covering the entire earth.
And what with metamorphic rocks? For example, marble rock was formed from the limestone rock. That limestone rock sank (due to tectonics movements), and was exposed to high temperature and high pressure for hundreds of thousands years. Subsequent tectonic disturbance returns the marble rock to the surface. The high of the marble rocks in Carrara (Italy) was 100 m. Metamorphic rocks make up a large part of the Earth`s crust and form 12% of the Earth's land surface.
Maybe the hot tears of all the animals as they were all waiting to drown because Good Boy Noah wouldn't let 99.9999% of animals onboard.
Evolutionists believe the entire earth was molten so you just disproved it. Great job! Jesus loves you!
No
Even if they invoke magic just-so mudflows they will not replicate the very discrete layers of very different rock types. Why would you have a white limestone and then switch instantaneously to a red limestone, and have a sharp boundary between them, if it was formed underwater in a mudflow? How does a mudflow explain chalk beds. How do you even sustain that much plankton at once given limiting reagents limit seasonal blooms today? How do coral reefs even survive the flood and why aren't pre-flood reefs identified and buried in sediment today? How do you get carbonate banks forming at even the most optimistic coral growth rates? How does a flood tell the difference between siliecous and calcareous limestone (is there a depth given by YEC's of this flood?)? There are just no answers to the limestone problem.
Question, is the calcium in solution or suspension?
Whats the name of the song at the start of the video
"of all sedimentary rock 10% is limestone you say, and the majority is marine in nature - what % of all limestone in the world contains marine organisms? Who studied and concluded that. I need that info for a presentation I want to make? Thanks.
What do you use for your end theme? It's really catchy but I have no idea how to find it
It's Everybody's Circulation lol.
She's obviously a woman of culture.
13:13 ok I'm sorry but I was kinda sad when I realized that "vulcanism" wasn't "Vulcans (from Star Trek) did it"
Which rocks are you going to tackle next?
There is a volcano in east Africa that erupts as a black rock then as it hardens it becomes white calcium carbonate. It's possible that all the limestone on the fossil record is not the usual natural accumulation of limestone.
Also all the continent surfaces are above sea level. The the continental surfaces are never below sea level and never sea floor that's lifted above sea level by diastrophism. In order to get sediments on the surface the sea had to catastrophicly intrude onto and covering all continents with even land animals in the sediments. And with chalk beds it's possible that all the near microscopic organisms fell like snow because of thermal or chemical conditions killing the entire column.
Gibbon @em once again, y'all!
I don't understand well the calcium cycle.. How does it make concreate? What does it do when it is heated?
Solubility goes down as temperature goes up? 'Counterintuitive to myself.
.. Not a thermos dynamic genius myself.
Cool video, thanks!
Outro music went off!
Just to be clear, is the micro fossils precipitating out or the chemical solution or both? If we’re talking solubility I assume that’s a chemical, maybe leeched from the fossils?
The Fossils are destroyed by the process. They're made up of the carbonate
@@borttorbbq2556 it seems to be some interesting mix of
both as we wouldn't have such interesting fossils
Brilliant! But don't ever call me a gentle ape again!
Wouldn't said limestone deposit, by necessity, be a WORLDWIDE occurrence? Checkmate Floodies 😂
It does occur worldwide -
"This calcium carbonate, a very pure type of limestone, consists of billions of microorganisms including foraminifera and calcareous algae, coccoliths and rhabdoliths. Today, these microorganisms live in the upper 300-600 feet (91-183 m) of the open seas. When these microorganisms die, their calcium-rich shells accumulate on the bottom of the ocean floor, often almost 15,000-16,000 feet (4.6-4.9 km) below the surface. These shells cover about one-quarter of the surface of the earth today. It is estimated that these remains take up to 10 days or longer to reach the ocean floor and reportedly accumulate at a rate of .5-3 inches (1.25-7.5 cm) per thousand years."
"Chalk formations are found in many places in Europe, including England, France and Northern Ireland, and even extend into the Middle East as far as Kazakhstan. Extensive chalk beds are also found throughout North America, including the states of Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kansas."
"Similar chalk beds are found in the Midwestern USA, from Nebraska to Texas, and from Alabama to Colorado. They include the Niobrara Chalk in Kansas, which is famous for its astonishing variety of fossils. Chalk beds are also found in the Perth Basin of southern Western Australia (the Gingin Chalk) and contain the same fossils as the English chalk beds, as well as the same types of rock layers above and below them. All these chalk beds are at the same relative level in the global geologic record. So they represent one global sedimentary rock unit."
"Even more important is the existence of so many larger fossils found mixed in the chalk beds. How did all these large, diverse creatures get buried in the ooze, unlike what we find on the ocean floor today? The list of large fossils is huge. English chalk bed fossils include many big seafloor animals like sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones). The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures-the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land."
And you think all these fossils were buried at a deposition rate of 1-8cm per 1000 yrs, wow. And no predominant contamination over millions of yrs, double wow.
@@georgebond7777 You didn't watch the video did you? All of your copy pasta was addressed - there was no Big Slosh
@@100weirdnessbyvolume8 i did watch it to the end. But you need to consider the other arguments to get a balanced view, I know its hard for you guys but there are other explanations.
ua-cam.com/video/h2tIGJD91hA/v-deo.html
@@georgebond7777 Sorry, but some random UA-cam video isn't evidence. Now if you had linked to a peer reviewed scientific paper(s) that even remotely supports anything you said I'd be interested.
However that's the problem isn't it, you don't have any Science backing your position.
Hutton in the 18th Century and Lyell in the early 19th pretty much killed off any chance you might have for arguing that YEC was a widely accepted historical belief. 7th Day Adventist George McCready Price's 'A New Geology in the 1920's, was pretty much dismissed at the time, savagely attacked in the 50's by the likes of Ramm & Kulp and the concept of 'flood geology' was generally shunned by christian science bodies like the American Scientific Association. It was only Whitcomb & Morris's rewriting of Price's ramblings in 1961 that seems to have kicked the YEC corpse back into life but only as a movement pretty much confined to bible literalists in the US.
As I said you don't have any scientific evidence for your position and, as most of the YEC's are rabidly anti-science (although perfectly happy to use the products of that science), it is unlikely that you'll dig up any evidence. The few 'experts' you can wheel out are generally not qualified in the areas they expound on or were generally YEC's who went through the motions to get the qualification and have never published anything peer reviewed to support their views.
You claim that 'science' is prejudiced against your position but you are wrong. Science is prejudiced against BS which is exactly what it should be.
@@100weirdnessbyvolume8 i did provide papers but Erica or YT must have turned that feature off. Try googling this, its a phys.org paper -
"Researchers find carbon reactions with basalt can form carbonate minerals faster than thought"
Thought precludes Creation and Creation is Thought. Think about that one. 🤓😉
Maybe you've covered this elsewhere, but if not, I've thought of a couple of illustrations that blow up Kent Hovind's "the Grand Canyon was formed in a week." I think I've heard him mention "flood tsunamis" as his explanation for how the Grand Canyon was carved out of rock. So, the one comparison I've yet to see (and would like to) would be to compare tsunami flood patterns with river patterns that obviously formed by water responding to gravity (does Hovind think that "tsunami flood currents" took the meandering of the Colorado River?).
The second test would be to take samples of the rocks that make up the Grand Canyon (or maybe just get a tile of sandstone from the garden shop), then subject that rock to the highest water pressure possible, for one week, and measure the results. Do you know if this has been done?
Again, another great vid. Thanks.
Second question: why's there only one Grand Canyon? - if all the world was wet there should be canyons that size and structure on every plain in the world; there should be thirty or more just on each of the US east and west coasts.
How do they dispute all archaeological discoveries, even the ones mentioned in the bible that predate their hypothesis by thousands of years?
*shudders* "Flood geologists"
No you shouldn’t say that limestones joke ever again lol
it was pretty lit if you ask me
If anything she should say more
Whenever you bust, always bust hard. Get em GSG!
the cretaceous chalk layers preclude the flood
thank you