Here's some further reading/viewing for those who are interested: 📄 101 evidences for the age of the Earth: creation.com/age 📄 How radiometric dating methods work: creation.com/how-dating-methods-work 📺 Does carbon dating prove millions of years? ua-cam.com/video/I6Xv-PxSRPc/v-deo.html 📄 Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important? creation.com/did-god-create-over-billions-of-years
@@nickmorgan8434nobody knows how long earth been here ( it's not even scripted in the Bible) the Bible doesnt say ,ppl tryna predict something of the first day of earth and don't even know the day when it's gone end (nobody knows it but God)
This gave me a similar Biblical revelation and now understand this quote so much more. (The "natural man" is a man who only thinks of the world as a person would without God like a scientist would and try to explain a way of creation without God because the supernatural is foolishness to him!) 1st Corinthians 2:14 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Didn't watch this video, but what is kinda baffling is the fact that these religions are all a scam. Ultimately a creator is not out of the equation... or we have the potential to become the "gods" ourselves. That is the craziest part. Honestly the word is "atheist" is say to broad. I used to belief I'm an atheist. But I rather call myself a cosmic rationalist. That said, all your holy books are still a bunch of nonsense lol
You have to study the bible in ancient hebrew and greek. the so called "translations" into the tongues of the nations replace the scripture with a different text. the text in 1corinthians 2:14 says "the soul man". The soul man is the first man adam who was made a living soul, the one through whom death entered the world, the one who has the power of death, called the devil. Whoever desires to save his soul will destroy himself, but he who destroys his soul because of me will find himself. The good news is covered for those who are destroyed, whose unfaithful minds have been blinded by the God of this world. Beware of false prophets, they come to you in sheep clothes but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
The same science that cannot forecast the weather a week from now is trying to tell me it knows what happened millions of years ago.. I'm not sold on this one.
LOL... You are telling me that because you know what happened to you a week ago that you will be positively certain of what will happen to you a week from now with no error? What, do you have a gadget in your pocket that allows you to see into the future?
@@exxrray Yes it is... He is claiming that someone who can't accurately predict the future, can't possibly discern what happened in the past; and by default, he is claiming that he knows better than those who have spent a lifetime studying the science!
If you remember one thing from this conversation for me it is this....Don't park your brains outside the church......So it is really saying...If God gave you the brain and expected you to use it before you became aware of Him doesn't He expect you to continue to use it even more after you recognise Him in His fullness. Priceless
@@johnglad5The Bible has so many things factual wrong with it. Snakes don’t talk, virgins don’t give birth, people don’t come back from the dead, there wasn’t a worldwide flood, and Adam and Eve 100% did not exist. Those are few big things that it got wrong, and your entire worldview pivots on those factually incorrect, and frankly, silly things.
@@roscius6204 Bats are flying creatures that fits in with the Hebrew word. There is no comparable translation. The same goes for whales are fish. This information is easy to find. You are not trying very hard.
@@roscius6204 Different kind[s]. Gen. 1.21 - And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.
@daryltonkin the point I made flew right above your head. Mate. I was speaking about the general topic that goes on between christians who believe in evolution vs young earth Christians.
I wasn't even a christian whenever I started seeing major flaws in the methods used for dating things and high holes in them when I studied them in college. After many many hours of studying the data and not taking the word of others for it I found that I could not trust these "experts" because they were as biased as anyone you could ever imagine. It wasn't until almost 10 years later until I found God. And after finding him I find that everything fits just fine.
There’s great information about scientific methods for geology available now openly via the internet, please try some of those rather than what some christian ministers are telling you.
This is me as well. After a while of seeing them leave out important variables or overlook clear mistakes, it started to look like a conspiracy; that thought evolved to groupthink, which evolved into the battle between good and evil. At this point science is lost; its purpose commandeered for all purposes in opposition to God. The question I have is whether God wants us fighting this fight. As difficult as it is to convince people of the truth of the Bible without scientific backing, so far I say yes.
I came to grips with this argument years ago when I realized that the Pentateuch was Jesus’ bible. If he was truly who he said he was, then he would have clarified any errors. He never sat the disciples down and said that the creation story wasn’t really six days, but several thousand, or millions of years. What many Christians tend to overlook is that His resurrection is what affirms a literal interpretation of scripture.
The writers of the gospels thought the Earth was a Flat Disk, covered by a solid plate (FIRMAMENTUM in the Vulgate or Rakia in the Hebrew) immersed in the infinite waters of Chaos. Exactly like the Babylonian and Egyptian creation stories say.. Yeah, the inerrant book screwed that one up. Too bad you are too full of pride, the sin of satan, to look into the real meaning of Christianity.
The literal creation story also tells us that the sabbath of the Lord is not Sunday, but the seventh day, which is the true Sabbath starting from Friday evening at sunset to Saturday sunset. But how sad that many Christians neglect researching the matter of the fourth commandment. They discard it and make all kinds of excuses that are not biblical.
@@beatricepineda5923 If you search you find that the Chabad, has nothing to do with Saturn's day or your god. Like the 7 day week, It comes from the Babylonians. The people of Mesopotamia feared the God Enlil would try to kill humanity again by sending a great flood as he had when humanity had become to numerous and noisy. Noah is just the Jewish version of Athrahasis of Akkadia who built an ark and saved life. A thousand years later the myth was copied by the Babylonians as Unapishtin who was used by the Jews for the Noah myth. Orthodox and conservative Jews to this day have a list of prohibited activities. It is not a day of "rest" and worship. It was a day of prohibited activities. The Apostolic Catholic Church made Sun day Dominĭcus, the 1st day of the week, a day of Mass obligation because it marks the day of the resurrection.
This discussion is a whole game changer for the scientific community, where people's beliefs are base on observable test. Mind blowing! Would love to see discussion like this together with Dr. John Lennox with Dr. Mark.
Perhaps. And I would love to see Dr. James Tour weigh in on these things. There is so much evidence which points to a very ancient Earth and even more ancient universe. This is wisdom: God created the Truth of Scripture, AND He created the Truth of Nature. Truth cannot contradict Truth. When there seems to be a difference, it comes from a *_misinterpretation_* of scripture, nature or BOTH. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@joels5970 Not all science is based on observation as this video points out, an easy place to start, how do you observe millions or billions of years without inference(the opposite of observation)
I think there's a lot of truth in that, but we also have to be careful. I believe humility in the search for truth is what you're talking about. Christians often want to pretend that spiritual "truth" is in conflict with logic and reason, we can't trust in ourselves to know or find the truth of God through that, so we have to use our "faith", our "heart", which can only come about by reading the Bible. Never mind that it's through reason and logic that you would come to any sort of realization that you should believe a certain thing...which is true in ANY domain of life. Many Christians don't have a clue why they believe what they believe, but they probably have a good heart... but the lack of logic and reasoning shows, exemplified in the nature of these young-earth creationists who like to quickly call "heresy" against people that want to do something basic like showing how the earth is indeed very old, and that that's OK, and even warranted, because it fits very well with the text and the physical evidence we see all around us.
Dear God, I ask that during this person’s search for truth they discover the imprint of Your love and mercy in their heart. Amen! God already claims you as His. But sometimes it takes a little humility and legwork to feel His spirit within you. You’re headed in the right direction listening to these fine people.
Mount Saint Helens was the opening for me as it challenged my assumptions based on Charles Lyell's uniformitarian model for everything. From there I had to explore the historical nature of the Bible and it moved on from there. In 1988 or January 1993, had someone told me "you'll become a Christian, a believer in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and most importantly the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ", I would have said they were mad, an idiot. Then March 1993, that all changed with Mount Saint Helens- Evidence for Catastrophe. Later that year I put my faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Uniformitarianistism versus Catastrophism This is the question that needs discussion more often. Research in both theories should be compared. Anomalies that uniformitarianistism can't explain are easily explained by a recent single catastrophic global flood
I personally think the Flood was cosmic. Looking at the volcanism on Io, Mars, and Venus. Galactic jets. Galaxy collisions. Isaiah 34:4, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 21:1 says the end will come by the fire of the stars falling towards the supermassive blackholes. Noah's Flood started it as a foreshadowing of what will become of our Solar System as it is vaporized to be part of the jets.
The biblical flood is nothing more than folklore storytelling. It originated in ancient Mesopotamia, and the same flood story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh... though told slightly different, and with different characters. Many aspects of the story are impossible without a crap ton of God magic or intervention. It's a bit silly and illogical as well. Besides, YEC science can not explain the heat problem that comes with all of the shifting and radioactive decay of organic materials over such a short period of time. This is a known issue.
@@andrewc1205 God magic...? Try Amos 4:13. God is the mind that governs all things. Understanding how the painter paints doesn't negate the painter's existence.
@Hydroverse with all I mentioned, the only thing you could bring up was the god magic? Do you have a response to the bigger problems in question? The only reason I mentioned god magic is because the story about Noah's Ark is not supposed to involve any god magic or divine intervention. Otherwise, why go through all of the trouble of building an Ark and loading it with all those animals when he could just poof the evil away. Yet, for the events to take place, and for everything work out the way it portrays, there would have to be a crap ton of divine intervention (aka god magic).
@@andrewc1205 If the Flood actually happened, why wouldn't several civilisations have the same story reflecting the same event, but told differently? Since it was known to be true, they would all have different explanations, not necessarily copying from each other? Next, you'll tell me the Vikings, the Aztecs, and the Chinese copied the Epic of Gilgamesh too!!
When I was in university I drove a ½ day down to ICR in Lakeside. The reason was I was surprised to be the only Christian in a creation v evolution debate. I got my hat handed to me. I wish I had the internet and tons of resources to use like now. Here, 40 years later I still remember what I could have done if only...
@roscius6204 nice try. Explain the reality of soft tissue in dinosaurs from multiple specimens spanning 6 decades. ...or is your bias too scared to even do a Google search? Are you able to comprehend the ratification of this discovery? How about the Organic Chemistry approach? There is no way to build left handed amino acid chains needed for life in the miniscule 4 billion years, not to mention carbohydrates, lipids, etc. You sir, are the one leaning on faith: Not i.
@@robindhood9125 the burden of proof is on you in finding fault. I spoke of reasons why I don't believe in evolution. Please either counter them. I cannot see the evidence I've seen and evolution being viable. Based on what I've seen in the world over the last 5 years, I can see weak minded people swallowing whatever the state spoons out. Masks any one?
It's actually called a Patsy discussion where the interviewer puts facile obstacles in the guest's path, and holds his cheek intoning Mmmmm whenever he tries to get some malarkey across the line .
Totally agree, Dorothy Dix questions are created to appeal to non-thinking and weak willed personalities who are easily misled. Sorry thats the truth of it !!! @@mikev4621
Oh really? Do you know that your Blood cells die every 3 months and your liver producers new red blood cells? And every 7 years every cell in your body is replaced? What do you call that?
Then what would have happened if Adam ate from the fruit of the tree of life? It's pretty clear that according to the Genesis Fable he would only have lived forever after he ate the fruit.
Brother Harwood revealed in his journey of understanding the absolute truth of the Biblical account of creation, one of the very important ministries of the Holy Spirt in the lives of believers. When presented with devine truth, the HS makes it real to our souls. The brother heard the truth, and it just clicked for him.
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FMSo begin without belief, or use equal priors if you like. You don't have to believe either position to investigate how things came to be.
@@kellystone7501 It is impossible to begin to understand anything without presuppositions. Various philosophers have attempted to do so-Descartes, for one-and much has been written demonstrating his errors. Descartes tried doubting all of his assumptions until he could doubt no more and arrived at what he thought was an absolutely certain conclusion: cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). But notice that along his skeptical journey he has to assume many things just to begin his doubting: the laws of logic, regularity of events over time, trustworthiness of his memory and rational faculty, intelligibility of nature, that it is possible to make logical inferences at all, predication in language, meanings of words. My point is not that these assumptions are incorrect, but that it’s impossible to begin to think about anything at all completely free of assumptions. The question we must ask ourselves is how we can account for the assumptions we must make in order to begin an investigations at all. Only in a cosmos created by a supernatural, good, intelligent creator can we assume the order, regularity, and intelligibility we must assume to begin reasoning at all. A cosmos brought about by a random act of violence has no inherent order and we should not expect it to be intelligible to us if we are merely meat machines adapted to reproduce our genes. Evolution selects for survivability and reproducibility, not an ability to discern truth-especially not transcendent truth about the nature of being itself.
Are you stating that if an individual does not believe in the strict biblical accounts then by default that individual believes in materialism or physicalism ? @Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM
@@Jimothy-723 How does a young earth deny the divinity of God? God literally said that He made the world in 6 days. "There was evening, and there was morning, the first day" then the second, then the third. Here it specifies what a day is, then proceeded to name the days, specifically. Not generally. Otherwise that is like me quoting a project duration of six days, but then end up charging for thousands of years. There is no logic here. Also the genealogies can be counted backwards to Adam which add up to roughly 6000 years ago, which is another supporting confirmation of a young earth. If God wanted to take millions and billions of years to create an old earth He certainly could've done so, but don't you think the Genesis story would then reflect that? The only reason we even think the earth is old, is because the theory of evolution doesn't work with a young earth model. The only reason evolution is even considered possible is because of this drive to make the earth seem far older than it is. Everything you learned and watched from a young age, all the documentaries and hollywood movies have this built in pre-conception that old earth and evolution is true. And by repetition even lies can be believed to be true. So we all grow up believing this. But where is the ACTUAL evidence? None of it can be tested or observed. And there is ZERO reason to entertain an old earth if there is no evolution or old earth evidence. 1. There couldn't have been death before the first sin. Death is NOT good. When sin entered the world, the material world got corrupted. That's where you get your weeds and thorns from. They're most certainly NOT good. 2. No death means no evolution, so no reason to believe in an old earth. 3. “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” The statement “from the beginning of creation” (apo archñs ktiseōs-cf. Mark 13:19-20; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8) is a reference to the beginning of creation and not simply to the beginning of the human race. Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on day six, not billions of years after the beginning. Jesus is the living Word. You can take God at His Word when He said days. You can accept the Word when Jesus confirmed the Genesis account. Jews believed that the earth was young, and created as it says in Genesis, so Jesus was essentially confirming that account. The disciple Luke traced Jesus genealogy back to Adam (Luke 3:23; 38). SO we have that length of time. And we know Adam was created in the foundation period, which is creation week. (Luke 11:50-51)
Satans purpose is to confuse us about God’s Creation which proves we have a Creator. This is also how Satan has taken over the schools to teach everything contrary to God even taking out the Bible’s and school prayers. The world is in this Great Spiritual war of God saving us through Jesus death and resurrection and satan fighting to rule the earth through his seed humans and part man part technology but lost souls. He hates us and wants us to die, lose our Soul to him to live in eternity in the lake of fire with him. The curse began in the Garden. God gives us eternal Life and free will to choose. We make our own self God or follow God. God took human form through the Word, Jesus, to die for our sins so we can live. Only our God does this for humanity.
@@ELMQ That's when the sun was created yes. God had already made the light, (Genesis 1:3) and decided what the day should be like before then. (Genesis 1:5). The sun did not exist then. Yet there was night and day. Remarkable what an Almighty God can do, eh? You're limiting your worldview, and thus your understanding, to the material.
I was raised to believe what Harwood concludes here. Then I learned actual science and history, not the misrepresentation that he's offering. That made believing in a young Earth impossible. If you want to drive educated people away from Christianity, you're doing an excellent job.
@@creationministriesintl Specifically here, he's misrepresenting the techniques of radiometric dating. Scientists do not simply assume that radioactive isotopes decay at a uniform rate. Their rates have been tested repeatedly, and in many cases, there are multiple decay series that can be used as crosschecks, among other techniques for verifying constancy of decay. The same is true about historians.They do not merely assume human civilizations that are older than the mythological flood. They have multiple lines of evidence from numerous cultures, many that crossreference each other.
@@creationministriesintl I answered your question, and you deleted it. If you can't be honest, well, that's what I've come to expect from creationists.
It used to be thought petrified trees had to be millions of years old, but when Mt. St Helen exploded the trees became petrified in a really short time (a couple of decades).
Nice. Yes, several things can happen quicker than normal or quicker than previously thought under the right conditions. How do you explain things like colliding galaxies though? That doesn't happen in a few thousand years, right?
@@mdoerkseChristians have always believed that God created the Universe to look older than it is. We are talking about THE Almighty....Nothing is impossible. Scientists have always been hung up on the Big Bang theory. Unfortunately now they are scrambling for a new theory every since the newest telescope (James Webb telescope) found more galaxies where they didn't expect to find more galaxies...where it wouldn't be possible if the big bang were true.
It is without a doubt certain that if you do not know the original state of a sample you CANNOT know how to properly age said sample. Another outstanding point!
@omutvtube3910 you can say that about absolutely every historical artifact in existence. Maybe all of history is a lie because none of us was alive to see it? You are acting desperate with your logic. That is concerning....
@@chad1682 More faith than logic. Although, great faith usually leads to insightful logic because believing something is possible can lead to profound discovery. And I’m desperately trying not to laugh.
@@omutvtube3910 You are desperately trying not to laugh about what? You are totally ignorant about a subject so you mock those who put in the time to learn about it. That is the sin of pride. Repent now!
@@chad1682 Maybe I wasn’t specific enough. What I meant is that from the beginning, AND THROUGHOUT YEARS, no one can see what effects an object endures so that when dating anything it is easy to misdiagnose how old something is. That’s actually less logical & prideful ASSUMING things about a specimen without documenting its journey and what may alter its state to make a measurement illogical. This actually happened and why I laughed because it made me think about this time where layers were dated millions of years by a geological expert when the lake being observed was only 10 years old and the layers were only as old. I apologize if I sounded prideful that was not my intention. I hate pride and know it alls. When you can’t be wrong you’re already wrong. A wise man once said, “And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” Again I did not intend to sound arrogant, maybe I need to work on the way I present.
@@omutvtube3910 You are still repeating the exact same mistake. You need to learn the basics of a scientific concept before you can debate the subject with anyone. If you cannot be bothered to learn about it then nobody will be bothered to give you a serious conversation. What if someone never read a single chapter of the Bible but then proceeded to lecture you on the subject? I suspect that you would be shocked and annoyed!
The flaw is: What do you mean by "age of a rock". If you take lava which is melted and resolidified rock, why do you take the moment of solidification as t= zero ?
Exactly. If rocks had an age,they should all be exactly the same age. Sedimentary rock isn't real rock just because it got hard. It's the lack of our language that we even call many types of matter by group names. Our labelling something is not a statement of anything factual. God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. And we have been naming sh!t ever since, and thinking that by naming something, we have somehow understood and defined it. We delude ourselves with our pattern seeking brains.
There is no flaw. If you date a piece of lava at 100 mln years, it is never younger, maybe its components are even older, but then the whole young earth story still falls apart.
@@johnglad5 The men you speak of were ignorant of everything around them, couldn't read or write and probably died at 30 of something they couldn't see. Everything was all handed down by word of mouth and written down a hundred years later by some other ignoramus who wasn't there. We have scientists now who can actually read and write and know how to use radiometric dating, so we know how old the earth is. I'll go with that.
If the moment of solidification is not taken as t=0, you in turn have the same, if not a bigger problem with the same dating methods he's criticizing. Now you have to ask, when does t=0? If it's the moment it came into existence, let's say the Big Bang, then everything would have the same date. I think he has to take the moment of solidification as t=zero, since that's probably what the sciences say. At least for extrusive igenous rocks, and upon searching this, it appears that is when that rock is considered "born".
Thank you for pointing out that the age of the earth IS a gospel issue. I hear so many Christians say the opposite without ever really thinking about it
I am a Christian and believe that God created as described in the Bible, not through evolution as some Christians believe. I will detail my thoughts here because they may help others realize that there had to be a creator and that macro evolution is not plausible. The evolutionary claim is that evolution needs a tremendous amount of time to create life at all at then a change in kinds because the changes that might occur at any point in time would be improbable (today we see minor changes within species happening very infrequently) and tiny. If all one is thinking about is that to get cumulatively big changes from many incrementally small changes, one will naturally conclude that we need much time. But there is a fly in the ointment. The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor. Additionally, that DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek (not that I agree with everything he has said) gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)
@@mustaffa1611 Exactly, the earth is clearly a pyramid where giant trolls live underneath stealing socks, underpants and the remote control to the TV. The Bible clearly tells us that.
I knew God before it was taught to me. Then i got into science then dream of space exploration. Got angry with god. Blamed him for my unhappy life. Now that i came back to God. I felt happy. And realize that my unhappiness was. Because my faith weakened. And i realize that God wants my happiness and only evil causes suffering.
Thanks for a very informative talk. I really enjoyed it! I am part of a creationist ministry here in Norway, which was started 7 years ago. Just had Steven Austin and Rober Carter visiting us for a conference. This gave me some fresh ideas in arguing for a young earth!
Not trying to be on the opposition of anything, just genuinely curious. But, if the earth isn’t old then I’m gonna assume that means that the earth’s mountains wasn’t much different than they are now when they was created. I live in southern Appalachia, I’ve always been told and read that the Appalachians are the oldest mountain range in the world, and when they were formed they were even taller than the Himalayas (the youngest mountain range). I’m assuming also that a young earth belief doesn’t include Pangea, or any kind of continents breaking apart and moving along the mantle until they eventually came to where they are today after many different shifts, collisions, splits, etc over millions of years. But, if that’s the case then why do underground coal miners here in Appalachia constantly find fossils of tropical plants, not only that, but coal itself is composed of ancient plant matter that has been compressed under mountains for millions of years, hence why it’s a, “fossil fuel”. So my question is I guess, if the plates never shifted, and Appalachia was never a tropical landscape and environment then why are those fossils there, or why is there even coal there literally deep beneath mountains? Also, didn’t watch much of the video, so they may have talked about something in relation, sorry 😅.
You're "assuming" a lot. Starting with that all the processes you see in operation today never moved at any faster rate. Such as continental drift, formation of coal, etc. Might help your position if you actually watched the video before commenting.
@@mikebrines5708 a little snarky, I watched the video and kept thinking get to the point. I have a hard time agreeing with placing the age of the earth as 6k years old. It’s a theory but just that.
@@backboard13They fall in a trap that people like Kierkegaard or William James already exposed and brought light to it; the structure of faith and that of the gospels is that of secrecy or gift, it is not about logical paradigms or conceptual edifices. If there was not inconsistencies and flaws in the bible and all was just ‘absolute’ truth(ignoring the nature of linguistics/unconscious and so on) then there is no need for faith, making Christianity no different than any other cluster of ideas.
Coal can form from plant material very fast. It doesn't take millions of years. Next, think for a moment about the continents... they don't float on the ocean, they're connected by land under the water. If the continents "drifted" apart, where did all the land which connects them come from?
@Gecmajster123456 Yes, I believe it's aprox 6,000 years old.I don't believe it's millions of years old. Neither of us were there to see it form by itself or be created, so each of us are relying on evidence presented by people that believe like us. Since we cannot "know" for sure how old the earth is, well not like the same way we know gravity works, we all believe or have faith about it. Usually, what determines how you think about the age of the earth evidence, is whether or not you believe God exists. It's not a 100% correlation but I don't know any atheists who think the earth is young. I think the better question is, do you believe in the God of the Bible or any god at all?
@@OnivertInHouston if you don't understand how stupid trying to throw THAT back at someone is.. 💀💀💀 bruh... We KNOW how life works and what you need for it, and that is OUTSIDE of our planet too, and of the billions of possibilities out in space... How CAN'T there be life? Use your head once.
@@lxw6657 Bruh, yes compounds exist outside of earth to make organic compounds BUT just because life exist on Earth via organic compounds does not mean they can randomly assemble in other planets and spawn life. On earth life was created. If you're honest with yourself there is no way DNA code could randomly arrange itself, mathematically impossible. And if it did, no way it could evolve into humans through random mutations. If you believe that, you believe some pretty stupid assumptions.
That way of thinking leads you to false ideas. Listen carefully to people who have contrary views to your own. Keep doing this on a fegulat basis and truth will be yours. Grace
And if the dating laboratories say that young rocks are difficult to age accurately (being 350,000 to 2.8 million years off like with Mount Saint Helens), a young Earth of only about 6,000 years would also be difficult to age.
Dating laboratories? These frauds selected a test (Potassium Argon) that they KNOW is not suitable for material younger than 350,000. This is willful satanic deception
@@vickyesperanza8267 Something can well be round AND flat, just like yummy pancakes... just saying. Planets are not just "round", they are nearly spherical.
@@vickyesperanza8267 Everything is located in the firmament not millions or billions of miles away. You cannot land on the moon or another planet. Again they were known as wandering stars for millennia. In regards to your comment: The other planets are round so the earth must be round is akin to saying all the billiard balls on the pool table are round so the table must be round. Faulty logic.
30:00 The dating of rock. Lava is molton Rock, so once it has solidified from its molton state, it becomes a solid. In your statement, you said you could categorically say how old it was, but when did it become molton? It could have been in that state for tens of thousands of years. I make a block of ice from water, you know, when it became a block of ice, but how old is the water. Take a look at a very familiar rock, COAL. In my country, UK, this is usually mined from very deep pits, sometimes up to a mile deep. These coal seams are old forests and vegitation, which, over time, have become compressed over thousands of years as the earth above them gets thicker and thicker. In these coal seams, sometimes you can identify ferns and timber that have left their impressions in the coal. None of this happen within six thousand years. I do find what you have to say very interesting, but the foundation of your theories appears very weak.
But your problem with his assumption is at the very least the same, if not magnified when presented to the radio dating method's assumptions. The fact that your question even has the interrogative word "when" presents a major problem. The method in question is a method of dating something. However, according to you, and I don't necessarily think your wrong in asking, you need to know "when" a part of the process which is used by the method occurs. If your question for him is when did the rock become molten, I think the obvious question for the radio dating method would then be, when was the carbon(or whatever is being measured) added to the rocks? And how much? And how could you be sure?
The coal didn't form over a very long. It was dumped there rapidly by the Flood and was then covered rapidly by Flood born sediments and the process continued. Your belief that coal formed by old forests dying amd being covered slowly is seen nowhere in the world and is physically impossible. Think it through. And keep watching these kind of videos. Read some books. Contentious Bones by Rupe and Sandford is great. Genetic Entropy by Sandford. Enjoy.
@@oshiforb7445 There are broken tree trunks that run many meters through coal seams from top to bottom. No roots, no branches and no soil. They didn't grow in that location because the roots are missing. Logically, they were broken off violently from where they grew leaving their roots behind and ended up floating uoright in water. When they were too water-logged, they pencil dropped to the bottom heavy end first where they came to rest on plant matter. As water-boune material sank on the surface above, it accumulated around these tree trunks and eventually they were buried. This process continued for some time as seen by multiple polystrate fossils in the same coal seam. They are also found in cliff faces where they are surrounded by rock rather than coal. How would it work from your current perspective? Upright tree trunks with no roots or branches growing in plant matter that eventually turns into coal. No roots? No soil? How did they grow? And how do you get such trees to stand there for tens of thousands of years without rotting away while they are buried? Any idea?
I don't consider myself a Christian, never red the Bible, but creation became extremely obvious, once i understood the delicacy of all the interplay between all living and non living things. Everything so perfect, so masterfully crafted. There is just no mathematical chance of even tiny sub parts of this world came to be by chance. And when i found out about the dinosaur bone with soft tissue still intact, the picture of millions of millions years faded as well.
Creationists have long rejected scientific dating methods. Then the shroud of Turin was dated to about 2,000 years old and suddenly they love scientific dating methods.
@@stevepierce6467 Then you haven’t looked far enough. There are several UA-cam videos relating to new evidence that shows the shroud is much closer to the time of Jesus than previously thought. The 800 years you talk of was from 1988 but it was discovered that the fibres used were part of a repair dating from about 800:years ago. More recent wide angle x-ray scattering tests on original cloth indicate the shroud to be much older than previous radiocarbon dating suggested. Also, other biological evidence, not related to radiation dating techniques, supports a date more in line with the time of Jesus.
Not exactly true. AMS C14 is externally verifiable using archaelogical finds and written history. isochron dating is not, and that's what we reject as it's not verifiable with standard calibration methods.
This has to make sense, science tries to dismiss our belief that the earth is millions and billions of years old with dinosaurs and stuff. I was stuck on the mystery of dinosaurs and how there couldve been people before Adam if God first made Adam. Science is an assumption of creation instead of the belief of the creator. We must believe in the Lord. My mind is blown away. Everything makes sense to me. Thank you.
@@firstbornlohe7578 We are made in the image of God as a by product of his extension. There has to be a beginning and that beginning must've started with God. So if you say we created God, then you must say that we conceived the idea of God from God himself in the beginning because every idea of conception came after that. We cannot base our thoughts and emotions on feeling, history is factually documented that if we were to say history is false then how can we believe we really created God. You don't even know where you came from with factual evidence that was conceived over time. So I pray for you brother to conceive of a idea greater than yourself because ultimately you will pass away but your soul I want to be saved before you reject the gospel and perish in hell.
It all makes sense, it's clear and obvious, therefore we must stop skipping those parts of Genesis that assure us we're not living on a crazy ball turning and flying somewhere through the unknown.
A couple of obvious questions... How do you account for the existence of fossils of dinosaurs and creatures that even predate them? Also, how do you account for there being fossilized remains of sea creatures embedded within the rocks at the top of Mount Everest and the other Himalayan peaks? There also exist craters from asteroid strikes that are so large, the destruction would be at the level of extinction events and therefore, could not have occurred unbeknownst to the people, if any, who survived the cataclysm. What is your take on that?
I read...in the bible...that "God" created man male and female then the "Lord God" created Adam and Eve. Two creation stories? Two creations of humans? Are we being told God created the archaic humans and the Lord God then created modern humans? Or is Adam and Eve the first of a fabricated holy bloodline?
@@oliverroedel1111 How so? The fossils up there aren't the result of flood deposits... The ocean floor its self has been pushed up and relocated from a point of some depth below sea level, to an elevation of approximately 5 or 6 miles above sea level, by the action of plate tectonics and continental drift, which produced the Himilayan mountain range, among others around the world... and which is still at work, btw... rising at a rate of about 2 inches per year. So, you can do the math on the amount of time required to produce just that mountain range alone... Some mountain ranges have even had time enough to form and be completely eroded away by wind and rain, leaving no *obvious* signs of ever having existed. Geological processes take a very long time, when measured on a human time scale, that is... rocks and dirt and water stick around for a lot more than 100 years.
if you have the time i suggest you watch Noah's flood videos on the Young earth creation, basically on the time of the flood the contients shifted to where they are today, so fossils on the top of a mountain make sense Also even though i fully believe in young earth creationism i have to say dinosaurs are a problem, there is evidence that dinosaurs might have lived with humans, in the Bible we find the behemoth, which is described as a classic brachiosaur, and outside of it we find weird paintings and depictions of what appears to be dinosaurs but at the same time we dont really find any fossils of dinosaurs with humans, i have heard the argument that we simply didnt want to be close to them, however the average dinosaur wasnt all that big, and there are fossils of animals of similar size that do show signs of being hunted there is also the dragon thing, which are awfully similar between cultures i believe in the future we will find more evidence to support dinosaurs living with humans but as of right know i dont think there is
Yep and if you go by cycles we have 216 years till the next big shift as almost every major change has occurred almost 2000 years apart. Adam - Abraham was close to 2000 years. Abarham to Yeshua was approximately 2000 years and we have just past 2000 years since Jesus death. Much like in Exekiel 22 where Yahweh tells the Israelites their time is up and they have strayed far from him the Edomite time is up as they have become just like the princes and rulers of the Hebrews. Maybe he puts the original black Hebrew Israelites back in charge or just declares the end of days and kills off everyone, the world and the current heaven as written. No prophet, Angel or demon knows only the most high. However based on history and the current degredation of spirituality in the world its definitely soon. Maybe he lets humans make IA and end ourselves by attempting to play Gods.
It has always been a 7 day plan to redeem the earth/humanity from the beginning. And one day is 1000 years. jesus is coming back at year 6000. Also year 5784 is few hundred years off. Humans created on year 6000 and God rests at 7000 and we are about to go into Gods rest again :) just like in the beginning. Notice how enoch was taken up by God without dying (ruptured) and he was the seventh man from adam’s genealogy. It’s amazing!
Here are a few objections While it's true that determining the exact age of the Earth is challenging due to the limitations you've mentioned, several scientific methods collectively suggest that the Earth is billions of years old. 1. **Decay rates are constant**: Radioactive decay rates of isotopes such as Uranium-235 and Potassium-40 have been measured over the years and found to be constant - even under extreme pressures and temperatures. Furthermore, they're also consistent with decay rates calculated from Solar system modeling and the ages of the oldest known meteorites. This supports the constancy of the decay "clocks" used in radiometric dating. 2. **Multiple methods show similar results**: Not only do different radioisotopes on the same material frequently give very similar ages, but different types of dating methods applied to the same object (like ice core layers, tree ring counts, and sediment layer counts) are also consistent. This makes it less likely that there's a universal and consistent bias in all these measurements. 3. **Age of the universe also agrees**: Independent confirmation of the ages calculated via Earth-bound methods comes from astronomy. The age of the universe itself, derived from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck mission data, is in agreement with the ages derived from various methods on Earth, adding further validation to the immense age of the Earth. 4. **Past climates and biological activity**: The geological record provides proof of past climates and biological activity which could not possibly have occurred if the Earth were materially younger. While these methods are not infallible, the confluence of multiple lines of evidence makes it highly likely that the Earth is indeed billions of years old.
There have also been multiple studies showing that while temperature and pressure does not change rate of decay, foreign radiation that is strong enough can alter the rate of something decaying. Scientists have used meteors to date the Earth since upon reasonable assumption they should have been created at the same time, then how do you date a planet that has multiple sources of protection from foreign solar radiation with something that came from space with no protection to solar radiation. Due to these studies, I personally believe the Earth was misdated merely on the fact that a meteor could have shown much higher decay then that of the Earth, due to the foreign solar radiation interfering with the rate of decay. The past climates portion doesn't make sense, because we see even today how much our climate changes just going year by year and yet we can't believe that there were different climate conditions a couple thousand years beforehand? There are plenty of studies showing differences between dating the only one of which being considered accurate is the radiometric dating, that of which as mentioned in this video takes assumptions when inserting variables just to make it correct.
@johnglad5 - the age of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland was determined to be 3.60 ± 0.05 Ga (billion years ago) using uranium-lead dating and 3.56 ± 0.10 Ga (billion years ago) using lead-lead dating, results that are consistent with each other. Dalrymple, G. Brent (1994). The age of the earth. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780804723312. 142-143
They revisited this topic about a year later. You can see that second interview here: Earth Can't Be Old! - Answering the Critics - ua-cam.com/video/PFUxKgPbeDw/v-deo.html
It’s a good thing we have many different ways to date age now. They are all consistent with one another too. The cup analogy he used was an argument from ignorance.
@@usernametaken6659I’m interested to hear why you think that. Young earth creationism has not only been debunked for hundreds of years, but in a colossal amount of different ways as well. Don’t want to accept carbon dating data? Fine. Take your pick from the rest of the pile. It’s a huge pile to ignore and right off as “wrong”.
Yes, it can be old, RTB agrees orig. Genesis was written in Hebrew not English - the Heb for day (yom) can have 4 diff meanings , one being a finite but LONG period of time, not JUST 24hrs!
Okay. This is quite helpful. But there’s still one argument that I can’t find a way to overcome. It’s an argument that Bill Nye made in debate against Ken Ham, and this is the argument. It’s how they see the yearly additions of layers when they take ice cores. Or tree rings. If you could solve those two for me, that would be swell! Lol
Trees can produce more than one ring per year. Each tree ring is produced by seasons of drought, or heavy rain. Ice layers can form many layers per year also.
Glacial Girl. There a few P-38 Lightenings landed in Greenland during WW2. In the 1990s ateam searched for the aeroplanes and made what should have correct calculations based on the ideas contemporary regarding how long it takes for the snow and ice to cover the aircraft, how far under the surface and their co-ordinates. The estimated depth was about several metres. Where the found the aircraft was a few miles off from the estimated distance and more striking was the depth, which was about 270+ feet. Using the conventional ideas about Greenland ice layers would have meant these planes had landed centuries earlier, based on the depth alone. So there has to be a rethink as to how to interpret the Greenland ice layers. Layers do not indicate years or even change of season. In fact multiple layers can form over weeks with slight variations in temperature, a storm, wind direction changes and so forth. The surprised the scientists in the labs in mainland universities but not locals.
Quiet your doubts perhaps & laser beam your mind. A “quiet mind” is a New Agey thing. Meditation invites demons. Bad stuff. Christ RENEWS our minds!👏🏻👏🏻
Yep just throw the brain right out of the window. That's exactly what these organizations want. Throw out the science wave the genesis fairy dust and toy get noahs ark and Adam and Eve.
@@arushan54 Can you blame him? I get sick of it after 10 minutes of that type of interaction, but Dawkins has logged *thousands of hours* doing the same thing. I have no idea how he justified going as long as he did. Better to try once, and then just leave the idiots behind. Or just don't even try. People who can't figure such hideously basic things out on their own aren't going to suddenly become smart via outside help.
Praise the Lord Jesus! I’ve been saying this for years! I completely agree with you and the Bible! Great to hear a scientists say this. I love you guys !
Actually the problem is with the translation of the Hebrew word, "YOM". Yom is translated as "day" but it really is a period of time. It is sort of like the English word, "day". If I say, " The day of the dinosaur," I am speaking of a period of time when there were dinosaurs. In some parts of the Bible, YOM is translated as "Eternity". Unless you think we will live for only one day after death, and resurrection, this is a problem. This entire testimony is off because of a bad translation of old Hebrew. The Bible actually lines up well with science when the words, like YOM, are translated correctly, This video is suspect because two people that believe the same thing discussing the topic. Not a real exchange of ideas, but coming from an assumption that the world is 6000 years old and trying to prove it.
@@andrewsandeen8109 nope. A rabbi specializing in languages pointed out that “day” was never used in scripture in that poetic sense. Every time, it means specifically one day.
No kidding Ashame they can't teach catastrophic plate tectonics as an alternative to uniformitarianistic plate tectonics. Show folded mountains in Google images. Let the students see how logical a single global flood could be. Cold spots in the mantle. Man made items encased by coal So many anomalies explained by catastrophism
@@knightclan4 The only concern I have with CPT is the apparent conflict with the Great Earthquake of Revelation being said to be the worst tectonic event ever since mankind has been on the Earth up until that point. It has mountains and islands being destroyed, but no global flood. But yeah, I agree a variety of views should be taught.
@@Hydroverse Today we see fault lines opening up in africa, california, big Earthquakes reaching 9 or higher volcanic eruptions increasing in frequency and size, it is good to note that since 1900, both volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes have increased in frequency and magnitude so something really big is about to happen on a global scale. Only God will God cut the days short as is written in mathew ch 24.
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM Earthquake making mountains versus earthquake destroying mountains. Sounds similar enough to create concern with the model from a biblical perspective.
The problem isn't with science. The problem is when science goes outside the boundaries into philosophy. Surmising that the universe came into existence out of nothing with no intelligence involved is not testable and is not the same as 1+1=2. Surmising the universe has always existed is not testable and is a bit of an absurdity. Excluding intelligence when there are some things only intelligence can do is an ideology, not science.
@@meb280 there is no such thing as 'untestable' in science. Science accepts that it cannot prove it at the moment. In future, it will, that is for sure. Adding an intelligence into the equation only complicates matters because then you have to prove it and explain where it came from and who created it. Postulating that there is an entity which came from nothing and has no start or end yet the universe must have a source is simply absurd by all standards.
1+1 is 2 yes. But also zero × zero equals zero forever.... If there was a time when there was Nothing; nothing can possibly exist. ( Origins of matter, life and consciousness)
Simple math is easy. It becomes a religion of its own when it requires faith to believe that same simple math extends into millions or billions of years
There is a funny moment in Doctor Who, a clearly reliable source. He has to wait, so he pulled a book out of his pocket, "How it all Began." He opened the book and said, "He's got it wrong in the first paragraph! Why didn't he ask someone who was there?"😅
So if it guides you into all truths, why do you believe his lies? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the “Holy spirit” guides you to always believe in him regardless of what’s true?
Agreed. It was amazing how much Mark Harwood, who has a Ph.D in antenna design/computers suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect believing that he alone knows more about all the different methods of radiometric dating and sedimentation rates, tree rings, ice cores, geologic strata etc than every single expert in the field of geology, biology, and basically every single field of science that uses this technique. He must think that the oil/gas industry that uses evolutionary theory to prospect for new hydrocarbon deposits must be all pure luck and/or Satanic magic. Or perhaps he should be out protesting NASA's Mars rovers (and helicopter) whose missions depend on millions of years worth of erosion and mineral deposits in an ancient lake? And he didn't even provide a source to his either his own research paper or even his peer review of the existing papers! Oh he didn't write anything? I wonder why. Absolutely amazing discussion that perfectly demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@boxofstars5491 There are at least 5 levels of extreme complexities, that the first cell would have to cross, in order, but without a creator, some of those levels would have to take several millions of years for the next step, without the benefit of life !
Look I'm a Christian but yes the Earth is very very old. People take the Bible a little to literally sometimes. Look at the way Jesus even talks. It's in metaphors and anecdotes
If the universe was only 6000 years old we couldn't see stars such vast distances away. Stars are many light years away and their light has taken light years to get here. We would not be able to see stars billions of miles away if the universe was only 6000 years old. Their light would not have reachsd us yet.
There’s a lot of videos out there that obliterate the speed of light. The long story short, to calculate the speed of light, you have to assume the speed of light. Ventrulism did a video on it. I probably spelled that wrong but the guy’s pretty smart and has a big following.
I looked on YT for speed light with Ventrulism. I didn't find anything. Even so, speculating that speed of light might not be what we think is not the same as proof. Science does not change theories because of speculation of discoveries. The best explanation at the time is accepted as true until data comes in to shift presumed truth to a different explanation. As such, your comment still is the science supported view and I thank you for making it.
Lol.. when you think that processes were uniform billions of years ago to make radiometric dating reliable, then evolution (which means change, btw) can not be an acceptable event
Like I wrote in reply to another comment this is what religion (and Christianity in particular) does to people. It brainwashes them to the point they refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs no matter how strong the evidence.
Books of Job explains by God when He created us in the spirit body at the same time as He created dinosaurs millions millions years ago. There are more places in the bible that confirms this earth is millions and millions old.
I just started to read the bible recently. But I found that the age of the earth was about 6000 years old. I always believed it was millions of years old. But the bible gives you all answers. Thanks for sharing this information ❤
The earth is billions of years old. You were told this in high school. Now, you have forgotten how to research for yourself. In the bible, the entire earth was not created in 6 days. The earth was being repaired. These guys are too lazy to read the hebrew language. BARASHIYTH comes from the root word BARA meaning to "reconstruct or reconstruction" Barashyth is a replenishing and repopulating of a certain tribe of people existing in a particular region of the planet earth. People think that there were NO humans in existence on earth before Adam. This is wrong. On other regions of the earth, other tribes did exist. However, you would have to read THEIR recorded history which would predate Adam.
🐻 Got it. "I wanted to believe in a book, but it didn't match up to reality... but then I read another book that said the same things as the book I wanted to believe in...and I believed it" 🥴
If your definition of “reality” is based on a book assuring you of the accuracy of radiometric dating, perhaps you need to read a different book? One that lines up with the facts.
My best argument against evolution is that we would see all sorts of creatures in all stages of evolution. Where are they? It didn't happen once and just stop if it's a natural process.
@evilsnowman3231 well since you seem to know and I don't, why don't you give evidence of ongoing evolution up to our current day in the way it has described to have been. Ill wait.
@@steveeymann6374 Your ignorance and gullibility are not my problem. Nor do I care that you believe in some silly superstition. So just keep on waiting. On the other hand you might take some time to read your statement again and explain here in more detail why you think that this is the best argument against evolution. If you look around you will be able to see all kind of creatures.....and they are all in a "stage" of evolution. There is no need to see "all stages of evolution" at once for evolution to be true and as the matter of fact even in the early days of the Evolution Theory that has never been proposed.
I would very much like to know if the radioisotope decay rates have remained constant (static) over decades, centuries, and millennia. As well as if there are any natural phenomena which affect these decay rates. For example, does the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field have anything to do with changing the decay rates? More sun rays beating down on atoms.... etc. That's just one example, but there are probably thousands of factors that need to be considered and tested. I haven't personally seen any in-depth studies that seek to test this in detail. Are there any? Who is looking? Who is keeping track? What methods are they using? What questions are they asking? I have a feeling this would be very hard to get a grant to study in this current ideological imposition academia is being forced to live in today.
Well we have gone through a global flood, an ice age, and than the melting of the ice age, and heating and cooling since than. So id say, no..things have not been the same over time. Oceans have risen and disappeared, rivers have risen and disappeared, etc etc...
If you are referring to the work done by Stanford Univ. and Purdue Univ. physicists from 12 years ago they determined that the possible fluctuations in decay rates were measured as a fraction of one percent and would not affect anthropological dating methods. Swing and a miss.
Thanks for this interview.serendipidously it went through my mind today sunday when i was by the river alone" we suffer becuase of lack of knowledge"before seeing this video tonight!sometimes I've looked for testimony by trying to document the supernatural and had found that many bad miracles occur and that people still doubt bad or good miracles the same they have the miracle of Christ's ressurection.still I try with all my might to love like he did
@@Nai61a I mean you could debate the resurrection or if he was God, but he certainly existed historically. There's hardly an atheist historian anywhere who wouldn't say Jesus was a real historical person.
@tydude Basically, I agree. Normally, I write a slightly longer version which goes like this: "There is no good, credible, extra-biblical, contemporary evidence that the "Jesus" figure, as described in the New Testament, actually existed. You have been misled ... etc" I was obviously in a bit of a hurry two months ago and thought that writing "Christ", in inverted commas, would suffice. That said, I would make a couple of points. 1) There is a growing mythicist movement of scholars who make the case that "Jesus" is a myth. 2) Those scholars who assert that "Jesus" - the preaching man - existed, whether they be atheists or not, do so on the basis of the New Testament. I have a pet hypothesis that their inclination to take at face value some of what the New Testament says is a result of their having been Christians themselves at one point and/or having been exposed to Christian culture and tradition. For my part, I do not find Paul to be a reliable witness and I can see no reason to give weight to what he says. He was, in some senses, the Joseph Smith of his time.
This is why religion is dangerous to an extent that it might one day be our own demise. To each one of you, with humility I request you to whenever you find time go out and take time to ponder about your existence. As a species has created a construct to guide our morality, why has it become a tool of dogma and politics. The urge to rule and be ruled has led us to this point where we force ourselves to omit the line that separates fact from fiction. Whenever an individual thinks critically, the individual is applauded but when the individual does the same with religion, it becomes a topic of debate. I understand that religion is deep rooted into our emotions and heritage.
If I could ask him a question, it would be concerning star light and why, if creation is as young as he believes, we see light from stars many millions of light-years away? I would assume if I see light from a star 10 million light years away, that light had to have begun its journey 10 million years ago. I suppose one could say God created the light from these stars continuous with long distances, essentially stretching light out so that man can see this part of his creation.
The speed of light and its impact on time is relative. It is possible that the light we see from far distances does actually reflect millions of years at the outskirts of the universe
I've wondered this often! If time essentially slows down as you get closer to the speed of light, then why is light not subjected to the same reality? If I travel at the speed of light, then I will age at the same speed as the light particle that I am traveling next to... So curious!
You can't travel at the speed of light, because as your speed increases, so does your mass, and as you approached the speed of light you would have infinite mass, and time would stop.
@@loganfeller6737 No, I wondered whether the expansion of the universe is constant with respect to our perception of time. Could the expansion have been highly accelerated at the beginning?
@@loganfeller6737 @loganfeller6737 it's not necessarily obvious, I was simply answering a question, and I'm not particularly interested in your smug critique.
So what we have here is just one man out of all the 8 billion people on the planet that has read a few books and formed his own arguments against the whole field of science who have mountains of evidence for an old earth. I think I know which side I will choose. Next please !
I don't understand why people actually believe this nonsense. I have no problem with people putting their faith in God or Jesus but to actually think that the genesis story written in the old testament is true is mind boggling for me. He also the said writing history started with Adam and it was Moses who wrote the old testament, that is just plain stupidity. The evidence he gave for this was that God was the eye witness. The Bible is not meant to be taken literal, too bad many people just believe everything they hear or read is true before actually researching it.
@@amymolenberghs7392 Fully agree with what you say. The main culprit for believing in the tales of old is indoctrination and this can brainwash peoples mind's from an early age. When people reach adulthood it is still with them and they will defend their belief against anyone. Christians live their life in guilt and especially fear. This is terrible oppression and takes away your natural life. The concept of God and religion all began a long time ago in the minds of our ancestors. It is unfortunate all religious people do not realize this and read other things into it. When you see well educated people like William Lane Craig and John Lennox believing and preaching such nonsense, one feels embarrassed to be in the human race.But didn't you know that writing history did start with Adam .. he simply nipped down the cornershop to buy a birow and writing paper !😃
You can believe you came from monkeys with no purpose for life here on earth and no hope for eternal life after death. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm going to pass on that. Instead, I'll take the Biblical account of creation as inerrant, which is full of purpose and hope.
These religious people often preach humility to others, and they do not seem to get the ammount of arrogance needed to hold these beliefs and to try to justify them with scientific methodology. I am not against faith per se, believe what you want, but for science a due process needs to be carried out, mainly peer review and a high amount of scrutiny towards radical ideas like these.
Amen Brother, this not only goes for the black church, this is a message for the body of Christ Jesus. The whole church. The church in America is desperately in trouble. Heavenly Father please help us to stand strong in these last days and when we've done all we can do, STAND....❤ I love you all....
In this century, Islands have been created in a matter of a few days by underwater volcanic processes. Tsunamis can change the shoreline in a matter of hours. White moths can genetically alter to black moths or spotted if sudden pollution causes the flowers they rest on to change colour and make them vulnerable. Krakatoa changed the mountain in minutes. If the world was hotter previously these changes should have been more rapid than today.
The wine that jesus turned from water was a few minutes old but it was the same as a 100 year old fermented wine. In fact, if they could measure it, it would seem that way.
if you weren't 'versed enough to explain it' then why didn't you do the work (like scientists do) in order to fact check the claims. oh right - you let someone else convince you that you didn't need to bother.
@@rprestarri i'm a scientist so i can answer your question with confidence. there's no 'sticking' with anything since science is always repeating it's testing and acquiring new data. scientists a long time ago didn't know why things burned and came up with this hilarious hypothesis that there was this 'thing' in air called 'phlogiston'.....it was the best they could do at the time. and guess what, nothing's changed; science is still doing the best it can but it will have to wait just a bit before it can answer all the questions that we don't fully understand.....like where did life originate. science is what got you to reading this.....and science keeps you alive by knowing how the body works and repairing it when necessary. science allows you to cross the street without being run over. imagine you discover tomorrow that you have cancer. who are you going to be most grateful to......scientists?....or your local pastor/priest/rabbi/imam etc. as for your last comment.....so-called "scientists". so-called??what a hilarious thing to say. sweetheart go get your holy book out and masturbate about how cool it's gonna be in the afterlife. 😂😂🤟🏻
If you weren't well versed enough to explain it, you aren't knowledgeable enough to know whether what this guy is saying is correct either. And he isn't correct. Not even close. Seriously, look into Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the former YEC scientist who made the discovery he calls his "best evidence", and also the one who explained the findings, which proved ignorant people like Creation Ministries were lying about her research. Faith is not stupidity, but ignorance is. Mary is still a devout Christian, but she despises her research being abused in this way.
This is amazing! Thank you for this video! It makes sense. I've always felt like everything we have been taught is a lie. This video explains that perfectly 👍
Right but they utilize relative carbon dating for that. It doesn't matter if they use numbers around 10,000 years, 10 million years, or even 100 billion years. It would be consistent relative to other rocks and therefore the actual age is pointless.
On top of the other responses in this thread, more recent studies in oil have discovered that it could be produced through possible inorganic processes.
@CJ-ik8qf clearly wrong? Doubtfully. And scientists believe or have belief? Also Doubtful. I would suggest that scientists know, and they know what they've been taught, and the teachers also scientists, which make hypothesis and then test them, and based on the outcomes under hypothesis testing, they make determinations. It's far from "Belief". I wonder what a scientist's response would be to all this. 🤔
@@ScriptureOnlyIsTruth the arguments they bring up with, together with the whole "cup dripping water" is as accurate of a scientific argument as flat-earther trying to argue the earth is not a globe... Their arguments are heavily flawed and they make it appear as if science is just "guess-work" until the puzzle-pieces "fit"... If that was the case, we would have NEVER made it to the moon as every rocket would have exploded if we used mathematics and scientific methods in such a way nor would ANY scientific device remotely work if we just estimated things and then applied them... Science is an ever evolving field as we learn more and more (which is the opposite with religion as its conservative with nature and can NOT adapt to change without creating conflict) and historians never claimed 100% fool-proof that every date or historical event is/ was played out as they were, as we accept as we learn more about (for example dinosaurs) how they looked like as better methods and research becomes available to us... but that DOESN'T mean you just can say that "oh, so that means the earth is only a handful of thousands of years old afterall ".
@@roscius6204 The idea of millions of years is just that - an idea. The evidence from Science, however, support a young earth. As an example, many scientists believe the dinosaurs lived 65 millions years ago and this has been taught in schools as a fact. But science now shows this is wrong with the recent discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur bones which are found in many parts of the world. Like the Big Bang, this discovery sent shockwaves to the scientific world who take for granted that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Now Science has taught us that dinosaurs are not old.
Many don't talk about it because that information is not pertinent to one's salvation and has not been revealed to us. It's nice to speculate, but we really don't know.
There is no scriptual evidence for this but Adam was created as an adult with 20 or 30 years worth of history. Trees were created with varying numbers of yearly rings, showing their history at creation. Why not then could galaxies have been created a few days earlier with billions of years worth of history built in. Logical.
It's also logical that God might have just created me a few seconds ago and I found myself reading your comment. Similarly God might have created you just before you viewed the above the video and made your comment.
@stevearcus2963 This is the exact view I hold and seems to clearly bridge the gap between a Bible timeline and our estimations about the age of the universe.
Books of Job explains by God when He created us in the spirit body at the same time as He created dinosaurs millions millions years ago. There are more places in the bible that confirms this earth is millions and millions old.
uranium-lead dating, abbreviated U-Pb dating, is one of the oldest and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes. It can be used to date rocks that formed and crystallized from about 1 million year to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1-1% range.
But how do we know it is uniform all the way back? We don't have an absolute sample that we know is a billion years old to accurately test to know the system is accurate. Basically we have to believe it is accurate by faith.
@@jamminjimmy3848because if it was different...physics would have changed...and if that happens then ALL scientific theories are wrong...from germs to gravity.
and that is why you get numbers far from reality everytime you use this methode to messure the age of rocks with known age (Aetna, St. Helens. Krakatau, Hawaii, Island and many more)… very logical. We should determine the worth of a method by provable results, not by what a religion (Darwinism, evolutionism) commands
"When science supports the Bible, the science is true. When science appears to contradict the Bible, the science is false and the scientists are conspiring against us." This approach has been around for several hundred years and is the guiding principle for why heliocentricism, germ theory of disease, Darwinism, etc. was originally rejected by Christianity but eventually was accepted once the evidence became so overwhelming.
The problem with all the evidence is we personally can not verify. I know I can't date anything like that so much like the Bible science first people are taking the word of people they have never met telling them things that an average individual cannot verify. People who go science first and don't know science, not saying you don't but almost everyone on earth does not have the knowledge. Science is based on faith just like the Bible, at its core. At the end of the day science books, much like the Bible, were written in ways we common people will never be able to verify. It's all about faith. Faith in science? Faith in the Bible and Jesus? Very very similar.
Let's just take a moment to talk about the Big Bang Theory, which most who believe in evolution also believe in the Big Bang. Please stick around until the end if you want to learn some things that proves science surrounding this subject doesn't know what it's talking about, and even directly contradicts itself in a lot of ways. This in no way is meant to stir and argument, and if you disagree, or see that I made a mistake, feel free to let me know - I value the truth just as much as the next man, so an open discussion on my incorrectness would only mean that I am learning something new. This will be a long one, but I will keep it interesting and informative for those who can stand to read. For starters, what is the Big Bang? Well, it was not two subatomic particles that collided causing the endless expanse that we know as the universe. Evolutionists and Big Bang theorists say that "energy" accumulated at a point somewhere in space where it was so dense and hot that it began to expand rapidly - thus the name, "Big Bang". The contradiction here is that, scientists suggest that the Big Bang happened and then the universe was created, yet the the "energy" could only have accumulated if at one point is was not accumulated. To be blunt, that implies that the universe had to already exist, and that this "energy" was already moving around the universe in order for an accumulation of "energy" to take place. But wait, it gets better - or worse, depending on what you believe. The next issue you run into is, why is there such diversity in every plant we've ever seen, in every living creature we ever discovered, in every human who walks/has walked on the earth? How could it be possible that the same micro-organisms created such diversity? Well, you'll first want to understand what DNA is, as it is the thing that separates each living creature into its own species. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that contains genetic information for the development, growth, reproduction, and functioning of all life. In this way, and this way alone, are humans and animals similar - there is nothing other than the need for food and water, reproduction, growth and basic functions such as breathing that connects humans and animals. Saying that humans share 90% DNA with apes does not mean that we came from apes, it simply means that apes require a lot of the things that humans also require in order to survive. It's as they say, a beach ball can float like a boat, but you can't use them both for the same purpose.... depending on how big the boat is, or how many beach balls you have. Ridiculous analogies aside, lets talk about water molecules during the Big Bang. Let's start by imagining a pot of water sitting on a stove that is set to the highest temperature. Eventually that water will be vaporized into a gaseous state where it will then condensate until enough of it has accumulated causing it to rain because the water molecules become too heavy to be sustained in the sky. However, that only works on Earth, because space doesn't have an atmosphere, oxygen, nor gravity, so condensation and precipitation are not possible in space - only evaporation is. Keeping this in mind, stars emit unfathomable amounts of heat, and even in space this heat can not only vaporize water molecules, but out right destroy it entirely, as well as anything else that it comes into contact with. Sure, maybe it is practical to suggest that the water vaporized into a gaseous form, and then got to where it is now via condensation, and precipitation as it entered the earth's atmosphere. The issue being with this next question though... how come this "energy", which scientists actually suggest was 18 billion degrees Fahrenheit, which is hotter than anything humans could imagine, didn't destroy every living organism and all the water where the organisms had to be in order to survive? I'm not the arbiter of all things that are true and false, but that does not add up. Perhaps it's just me, or someone got a significant portion of their information wrong. It doesn't end there though. A fun science fact to send you through a loop about water in space is, water will rapidly boil away in space because the lack of air pressure. The lower the air pressure, the lower the heat required to boil water. You can verify this by boiling water at sea level, and then doing the same on top of Mt. Everest - you will observe that the heat required to boil the water is reduced. But wait, lets let science contradict science, because in the last 30 years massive bodies of water have been discovered floating in space. No, not just here and there... everywhere... No, not the gaseous form, the liquid form. A recently discovered, but far from the only, body of water in space scientists estimate to be 140 trillion times more than that of the total water on Earth. This very discovery would suggest that water does not vaporize rapidly, if at all, as we would see water in the gaseous form, not its liquid form. While it is possible for some, and I mean slim to none, water to be found in space as space is not a perfect vacuum with 0 air pressure, with the scientific facts that we know, more than 98% of that body of water discovered in space would not actually exist in the form that it is in. Here is where you add insult to injury - and while it might not be a contradiction, it certainly is notable on how much, or should I say little, most scientists actually comprehend the universe we live in, and should expand on how much they just make up and sell to people. They're saying that this body of water is 12 billion years old. That's right, 12,000,000,000 years old. Surely, everyone who actually ends up reading this has at one point heard of Carbon Dating. This is the process in which scientists claim they can measure the age of something without knowing when its origin was, and they do so by measuring the amount of carbon 14 (C-14) in any given object that contains organic material - yes, they also can do this to water by extracting the carbonates of the water. Coincidentally, this body of water happens to be billions of light years away. This would imply they actually travelled to the body of water, collected samples, and actually tested it. We all know full-well nobody ever did that. Even if they were on their way to do it, it would take billions of years in science's own logic before they could get close enough to touch the water, but then, likely billions of more years to send that information back to earth. A fun fact about carbon dating is that, even scientists suggest that carbon dating does not work on anything older than 20,000 years old, nor is it effective against non-organic materials. All the while, other scientists suggest that carbon dating works for up to 55,000 year old organic material - this is because the C-14 has already underwent 9 half lives in which the C-14 is not able to be properly tested due to there not being enough of it. So we see an endless spree of inconsistencies amongst all scientists on the subject of carbon dating. Clearly, if scientists are using the same process to carbon date something and constantly come up with different answers, the logical conclusion is that carbon dating is worse than just inaccurate and unreliable. If you think that's crazy, a scientist could claim that a rock is hundreds of thousands of years old, all the while having zero basis because the inconsistent carbon dating process does not work on rocks. I don't claim to be a genius, in fact, I am just a normal dude who went through the same indoctrination program that we call school as most of you did, but from what I have learned in school on the subject, and applying common sense to a lot of the things mentioned above - none of it adds up. That's because it was made up. I do not deny all science, as I actually agree with quite a bit of science, but I will always reject the scientists who go out of their way to contradict God, because, as mentioned above, (which doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the matter) scientists make up baseless points and arguments that a lot of people just take at face value without even looking into it themselves. If those people would look into it, and then put their thought into it, they will also find various contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out made up nonsense like the ones I have mentioned.
"Big Bang theorists say that "energy" accumulated at a point somewhere in space where it was so dense and hot that it began to expand rapidly - thus the name, "Big Bang". The contradiction here is that, scientists suggest that the Big Bang happened and then the universe was created, yet the the "energy" could only have accumulated if at one point is was not accumulated." Umm no. There was no space, and in fact, at this point no one really knows how the Singularity came into being. It is all conjecture. It was super hot and it was condensed energy. It did expand. As it did, space came into being. "The next issue you run into is, why is there such diversity in every plant we've ever seen, in every living creature we ever discovered, " The Theory of Evolution explains this. Not sure why you think it an issue. "Saying that humans share 90% DNA with apes" We share a huge amount of mistakes and broken genes with apes. (we are apes btw) "lets talk about water molecules during the Big Bang." There were none. In fact, molecules of any sort did not appear for a very long time. Water was not possible for millions and millions of years. You seem to have missed the fact that there a great many different temperatures happening in various parts of space. Extremely high temps and extremely low ones. Not sure why you think water cannot form- in gas, liquid and solid forms. Fun extra fact, many planets have atmospheres. Carbon dating is not, by any means, the only dating method. As you say, it is accurate within a very limited range. Why are you citing it? Maybe you have some killer arguments. None of this lot fit that category.
@AGuyNamedMarcus Fun fact. The Theory says that the only space that existed was at the point of the Singularity. It wasn't at a point in space. Space was at that point. All of it. Since the expansion, space has been expanding.
@@justinscheapguitarsandreviews It is certainly hard to get yr head around. That same space is expanding even as we speak. And the expansion is accelerating. We tend to think of space as nothing and at the same time we think of it as everything. However physics has shown space is weirdly a "fabric" we call the space/ time continuum. It expands, it is bent by mass (gravity) and time is absolutely linked to space as well. And, as far as we can tell, there is nothing our expanding universe is expanding into. Our brains fry on this stuff. But the evidence is what it is.
If you want to believe that God is sound in all ways, for example spiritually, morally, etc then He is also scientifically sound. The CMB (cosmic microwave background) as well as radiation waves in space recently discovered by the James Webb telescope all confirm that the universe is very close to 13.8 billion years old. There are many different facts that prove the earth is billions of years old, we just didn't have this knowledge and understanding thousands of years ago.
The problem for me comes in when you say that you cant scientifically state the age of something, then you claim you know something else based on no evidence
@@Mr.E1 Isn't the evolution theory not based on the same? Extrapolation of a limited timelapse proves the age of millions of years? The bible reaches the evidence of its truth each time again.
Assumptions are inescapable no matter where you stand. What you believe, you believe by faith. The old Indian said the world existed on the back of a turtle. At first glance this seems simplistic and ignorant. It is actually quite wise. It is all you need to know about the things that are unanswerable.
Because evolution has evidence? The "mountain of evidence" could be easily faked and made that up by scientists themself. Have you ever saw a being evolving into another? The answer is no, but still you believe in it because "oh there's evidence". The problem it's not believing in evolution, but consider it as a fact and condemn those who think it differently
@@FedeM_Reaper789you cannot actually see evolution because our civilization is so young in relation to the time it takes for the process of evolution to take place. Apes didn't just give birth to homo sapien, there was a lot in between and it is still going. We are not the final product unless we blow our selves up to extinction which is getting more likely these days.
@FedeM_Reaper789 then whatever imaginary friend you have there in your head did a bad thing while making us, a human embryo with a tail, I doubt it anyone can achieve the level of idiocy your imaginary friend has.
Potassium-argon dating - The half-life of potassium-40 is 1.3 billion years, far longer than that of carbon-14, allowing much older samples to be dated.
@@CapybaraTut I won't trust in young Earth creationists. I will trust in other science rather than those pushing the idea of a false god. Especially since they can't prove a god exists. If a god created something. Where did this God get the material if there was nothing. Something can't come from nothing, and nothing equals a god
Books of Job explains by God when He created us in the spirit body at the same time as He created dinosaurs millions millions years ago. There are more places in the bible that confirms this earth is millions and millions old.
False premise within the first 3 minutes that “there can’t be death and sin before the fall.” Satan fell and sinned and therefore many other angels were also sinning.
@@nichetcher1 the fall that brought death to Adam and Eve ( and you & me) and the earth was their fall/ their disobedience. The Bible tells us that all creation groans because of sin - human sin. I think you know this already. The discussion image of the earth, not when satan fell.
Satan fell in 1st age when we were all in spirit body and fallen angels fell on 2nd age now we live in flesh body because they came down in angel body and seduced women and giants were born. Peter explains there are 3 ages. We are in 2nd age now and 3rd age is eternal age where Satan and his followers are all trun to dust to parish.
Here's some further reading/viewing for those who are interested:
📄 101 evidences for the age of the Earth: creation.com/age
📄 How radiometric dating methods work: creation.com/how-dating-methods-work
📺 Does carbon dating prove millions of years? ua-cam.com/video/I6Xv-PxSRPc/v-deo.html
📄 Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important? creation.com/did-god-create-over-billions-of-years
@@JV-tg2ne No they're not.
People laugh when I say the Earth is 6 or 7000 years old
@@nickmorgan8434nobody knows how long earth been here ( it's not even scripted in the Bible) the Bible doesnt say ,ppl tryna predict something of the first day of earth and don't even know the day when it's gone end (nobody knows it but God)
Anybody want to learn holiness go search (gino pastor jennings) he preaches directly from the Bible (you'll realize yall been lied to)
Anybody want to learn the truth look up (pastor gino jennings) he preaches straight directly from the bible.
This gave me a similar Biblical revelation and now understand this quote so much more.
(The "natural man" is a man who only thinks of the world as a person would without God like a scientist would and try to explain a way of creation without God because the supernatural is foolishness to him!)
1st Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Didn't watch this video, but what is kinda baffling is the fact that these religions are all a scam. Ultimately a creator is not out of the equation... or we have the potential to become the "gods" ourselves. That is the craziest part. Honestly the word is "atheist" is say to broad. I used to belief I'm an atheist. But I rather call myself a cosmic rationalist.
That said, all your holy books are still a bunch of nonsense lol
@@bigbill42007 so true
You have to study the bible in ancient hebrew and greek. the so called "translations" into the tongues of the nations replace the scripture with a different text.
the text in 1corinthians 2:14 says "the soul man". The soul man is the first man adam who was made a living soul, the one through whom death entered the world, the one who has the power of death, called the devil.
Whoever desires to save his soul will destroy himself, but he who destroys his soul because of me will find himself.
The good news is covered for those who are destroyed, whose unfaithful minds have been blinded by the God of this world.
Beware of false prophets, they come to you in sheep clothes but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
The same science that cannot forecast the weather a week from now is trying to tell me it knows what happened millions of years ago.. I'm not sold on this one.
LOL... You are telling me that because you know what happened to you a week ago that you will be positively certain of what will happen to you a week from now with no error? What, do you have a gadget in your pocket that allows you to see into the future?
@@briansoltis9423 It has never been science. It's BS. Lies from demons.
@@jasonpenn5476 bruh
@@exxrray Yes it is... He is claiming that someone who can't accurately predict the future, can't possibly discern what happened in the past; and by default, he is claiming that he knows better than those who have spent a lifetime studying the science!
@@exxrray I'm talking about briansoltis
If you remember one thing from this conversation for me it is this....Don't park your brains outside the church......So it is really saying...If God gave you the brain and expected you to use it before you became aware of Him doesn't He expect you to continue to use it even more after you recognise Him in His fullness. Priceless
Paraphrasing, test all things and hold to the truth. The Bible has not failed to be true so far.
@@johnglad5The Bible has so many things factual wrong with it. Snakes don’t talk, virgins don’t give birth, people don’t come back from the dead, there wasn’t a worldwide flood, and Adam and Eve 100% did not exist. Those are few big things that it got wrong, and your entire worldview pivots on those factually incorrect, and frankly, silly things.
@@roscius6204 You say the Bible isn't true, example please. Grace
@@roscius6204 Bats are flying creatures that fits in with the Hebrew word. There is no comparable translation. The same goes for whales are fish. This information is easy to find. You are not trying very hard.
@@roscius6204
Different kind[s].
Gen. 1.21 - And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.
There can't be death before the fall is actually a brilliant approach to this debate.
Sin was first, then death. So, yeah.
@@Grzmnky it’s not a debate mate
@daryltonkin the point I made flew right above your head. Mate. I was speaking about the general topic that goes on between christians who believe in evolution vs young earth Christians.
@@Grzmnky ok, fair enough, my apologies. i did misread.
@daryltonkin no worries my brother. It happens to me alot lol.
I wasn't even a christian whenever I started seeing major flaws in the methods used for dating things and high holes in them when I studied them in college. After many many hours of studying the data and not taking the word of others for it I found that I could not trust these "experts" because they were as biased as anyone you could ever imagine. It wasn't until almost 10 years later until I found God. And after finding him I find that everything fits just fine.
There’s great information about scientific methods for geology available now openly via the internet, please try some of those rather than what some christian ministers are telling you.
This is me as well. After a while of seeing them leave out important variables or overlook clear mistakes, it started to look like a conspiracy; that thought evolved to groupthink, which evolved into the battle between good and evil. At this point science is lost; its purpose commandeered for all purposes in opposition to God.
The question I have is whether God wants us fighting this fight. As difficult as it is to convince people of the truth of the Bible without scientific backing, so far I say yes.
I found me a second brother in Christ with a strat pfp! I feel so happy right now!
@@sjl197 "college" I doubt his classes were taught by "Christian ministers"
Bob
I came to grips with this argument years ago when I realized that the Pentateuch was Jesus’ bible. If he was truly who he said he was, then he would have clarified any errors. He never sat the disciples down and said that the creation story wasn’t really six days, but several thousand, or millions of years. What many Christians tend to overlook is that His resurrection is what affirms a literal interpretation of scripture.
The writers of the gospels thought the Earth was a Flat Disk, covered by a solid plate (FIRMAMENTUM in the Vulgate or Rakia in the Hebrew) immersed in the infinite waters of Chaos. Exactly like the Babylonian and Egyptian creation stories say.. Yeah, the inerrant book screwed that one up. Too bad you are too full of pride, the sin of satan, to look into the real meaning of Christianity.
The literal creation story also tells us that the sabbath of the Lord is not Sunday, but the seventh day, which is the true Sabbath starting from Friday evening at sunset to Saturday sunset. But how sad that many Christians neglect researching the matter of the fourth commandment. They discard it and make all kinds of excuses that are not biblical.
@@beatricepineda5923
If you search you find that the Chabad, has nothing to do with Saturn's day or your god. Like the 7 day week, It comes from the Babylonians. The people of Mesopotamia feared the God Enlil would try to kill humanity again by sending a great flood as he had when humanity had become to numerous and noisy.
Noah is just the Jewish version of Athrahasis of Akkadia who built an ark and saved life. A thousand years later the myth was copied by the Babylonians as Unapishtin who was used by the Jews for the Noah myth.
Orthodox and conservative Jews to this day have a list of prohibited activities. It is not a day of "rest" and worship. It was a day of prohibited activities.
The Apostolic Catholic Church made Sun day Dominĭcus, the 1st day of the week, a day of Mass obligation because it marks the day of the resurrection.
@@beatricepineda5923I hear you, you are right, cuz that's what the Bible says
And it represents the soon coming 1000 years of the rest of Christ
This discussion is a whole game changer for the scientific community, where people's beliefs are base on observable test.
Mind blowing!
Would love to see discussion like this together with Dr. John Lennox with Dr. Mark.
@@joels5970 nothing new here just more ignorance
Perhaps. And I would love to see Dr. James Tour weigh in on these things. There is so much evidence which points to a very ancient Earth and even more ancient universe.
This is wisdom: God created the Truth of Scripture, AND He created the Truth of Nature. Truth cannot contradict Truth. When there seems to be a difference, it comes from a *_misinterpretation_* of scripture, nature or BOTH.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
And the Earth is flat with heavens rotating overhead. This has been known for 6000 years!
@@joels5970 Not all science is based on observation as this video points out, an easy place to start, how do you observe millions or billions of years without inference(the opposite of observation)
@@richardlawson6787 You're being to hard on yourself.
Faith is more of a heart issue than a head issue. Once you accept Jesus everything else just falls into place.
thats wrong. God said you doesn´t have to belive your heart. you have to use facts and logic, your brain!
I think there's a lot of truth in that, but we also have to be careful. I believe humility in the search for truth is what you're talking about. Christians often want to pretend that spiritual "truth" is in conflict with logic and reason, we can't trust in ourselves to know or find the truth of God through that, so we have to use our "faith", our "heart", which can only come about by reading the Bible. Never mind that it's through reason and logic that you would come to any sort of realization that you should believe a certain thing...which is true in ANY domain of life. Many Christians don't have a clue why they believe what they believe, but they probably have a good heart... but the lack of logic and reasoning shows, exemplified in the nature of these young-earth creationists who like to quickly call "heresy" against people that want to do something basic like showing how the earth is indeed very old, and that that's OK, and even warranted, because it fits very well with the text and the physical evidence we see all around us.
I am an agnostic on a journey and this is confronting to say the least.
You need to activate the "Return UA-cam Dislikes" browser extension for this
Dear God, I ask that during this person’s search for truth they discover the imprint of Your love and mercy in their heart. Amen! God already claims you as His. But sometimes it takes a little humility and legwork to feel His spirit within you. You’re headed in the right direction listening to these fine people.
Mount Saint Helens was the opening for me as it challenged my assumptions based on Charles Lyell's uniformitarian model for everything. From there I had to explore the historical nature of the Bible and it moved on from there. In 1988 or January 1993, had someone told me "you'll become a Christian, a believer in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and most importantly the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ", I would have said they were mad, an idiot. Then March 1993, that all changed with Mount Saint Helens- Evidence for Catastrophe. Later that year I put my faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Be a Christian, not a Creationist.
(You can believe in science *and* Christ.)
@@thatoneskinnykid....who had better scientific analysis on genetic inheritance, Darwin or Mendel.
Uniformitarianistism versus Catastrophism
This is the question that needs discussion more often.
Research in both theories should be compared.
Anomalies that uniformitarianistism can't explain are easily explained by a recent single catastrophic global flood
I personally think the Flood was cosmic. Looking at the volcanism on Io, Mars, and Venus. Galactic jets. Galaxy collisions. Isaiah 34:4, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 21:1 says the end will come by the fire of the stars falling towards the supermassive blackholes. Noah's Flood started it as a foreshadowing of what will become of our Solar System as it is vaporized to be part of the jets.
The biblical flood is nothing more than folklore storytelling. It originated in ancient Mesopotamia, and the same flood story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh... though told slightly different, and with different characters. Many aspects of the story are impossible without a crap ton of God magic or intervention. It's a bit silly and illogical as well.
Besides, YEC science can not explain the heat problem that comes with all of the shifting and radioactive decay of organic materials over such a short period of time. This is a known issue.
@@andrewc1205 God magic...? Try Amos 4:13. God is the mind that governs all things. Understanding how the painter paints doesn't negate the painter's existence.
@Hydroverse with all I mentioned, the only thing you could bring up was the god magic? Do you have a response to the bigger problems in question?
The only reason I mentioned god magic is because the story about Noah's Ark is not supposed to involve any god magic or divine intervention. Otherwise, why go through all of the trouble of building an Ark and loading it with all those animals when he could just poof the evil away. Yet, for the events to take place, and for everything work out the way it portrays, there would have to be a crap ton of divine intervention (aka god magic).
@@andrewc1205 If the Flood actually happened, why wouldn't several civilisations have the same story reflecting the same event, but told differently? Since it was known to be true, they would all have different explanations, not necessarily copying from each other? Next, you'll tell me the Vikings, the Aztecs, and the Chinese copied the Epic of Gilgamesh too!!
When I was in university I drove a ½ day down to ICR in Lakeside. The reason was I was surprised to be the only Christian in a creation v evolution debate. I got my hat handed to me. I wish I had the internet and tons of resources to use like now. Here, 40 years later I still remember what I could have done if only...
thanks for trying though, faith is what matters, the world will always be against God's word
@@daletaco835 you're a good man, Dale. See you up there.
@roscius6204 nice try. Explain the reality of soft tissue in dinosaurs from multiple specimens spanning 6 decades. ...or is your bias too scared to even do a Google search? Are you able to comprehend the ratification of this discovery?
How about the Organic Chemistry approach? There is no way to build left handed amino acid chains needed for life in the miniscule 4 billion years, not to mention carbohydrates, lipids, etc.
You sir, are the one leaning on faith: Not i.
This interviewee is woefully ignorant of science but don’t take my word for it, do like I do and research both sides of the issue.
@@robindhood9125 the burden of proof is on you in finding fault. I spoke of reasons why I don't believe in evolution. Please either counter them. I cannot see the evidence I've seen and evolution being viable.
Based on what I've seen in the world over the last 5 years, I can see weak minded people swallowing whatever the state spoons out. Masks any one?
Man it's like you took my beliefs on this young earth and verbalized it so precisely. Thank you for sharing, it is important. 🙏🏼
Sad.
Jesus = yasu
Once again pleasant to listen to this discussive style! Good job transforming your "how" without compromising any of the "what" as an organization.
It's actually called a Patsy discussion where the interviewer puts facile obstacles in the guest's path, and holds his cheek intoning Mmmmm whenever he tries to get some malarkey across the line .
@@mikev4621
Cynicism doesn't help prove an opposite view either.
@@Eddie33154 Someone has to say it
Totally agree, Dorothy Dix questions are created to appeal to non-thinking and weak willed personalities who are easily misled. Sorry thats the truth of it !!! @@mikev4621
@@mikev4621,
sorry, but you haven't contributed anything usefull yet ('Dude') !
Can't have death before sin. That is a super excellent point!
Oh really? Do you know that your Blood cells die every 3 months and your liver producers new red blood cells? And every 7 years every cell in your body is replaced? What do you call that?
Then what would have happened if Adam ate from the fruit of the tree of life?
It's pretty clear that according to the Genesis Fable he would only have lived forever after he ate the fruit.
Yes you can. Your blood cells in your body die every 3 months. Your entire body is replaced by new cells every 7 years. What do you call that?
PROVE IT.
@@Locust13 unfortunately your ignorance of scripture, while quoting from it, is your downfall here.
Brother Harwood revealed in his journey of understanding the absolute truth of the Biblical account of creation, one of the very important ministries of the Holy Spirt in the lives of believers. When presented with devine truth, the HS makes it real to our souls. The brother heard the truth, and it just clicked for him.
Very good interviewer! Others need to follow his example. Good questioning, listening, and not interrupting.
If you begin with the belief that the Bible is literally true, then you have to make everything agree with the Bible 😮
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FMSo begin without belief, or use equal priors if you like. You don't have to believe either position to investigate how things came to be.
There's plenty of evidence for the biblical account.... it's not difficult to come to the logical conclusion that it is reliable.
@@kellystone7501 It is impossible to begin to understand anything without presuppositions. Various philosophers have attempted to do so-Descartes, for one-and much has been written demonstrating his errors. Descartes tried doubting all of his assumptions until he could doubt no more and arrived at what he thought was an absolutely certain conclusion: cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). But notice that along his skeptical journey he has to assume many things just to begin his doubting: the laws of logic, regularity of events over time, trustworthiness of his memory and rational faculty, intelligibility of nature, that it is possible to make logical inferences at all, predication in language, meanings of words.
My point is not that these assumptions are incorrect, but that it’s impossible to begin to think about anything at all completely free of assumptions. The question we must ask ourselves is how we can account for the assumptions we must make in order to begin an investigations at all. Only in a cosmos created by a supernatural, good, intelligent creator can we assume the order, regularity, and intelligibility we must assume to begin reasoning at all. A cosmos brought about by a random act of violence has no inherent order and we should not expect it to be intelligible to us if we are merely meat machines adapted to reproduce our genes. Evolution selects for survivability and reproducibility, not an ability to discern truth-especially not transcendent truth about the nature of being itself.
Such a relief to find this comment. Felt like I was alone
Are you stating that if an individual does not believe in the strict biblical accounts then by default that individual believes in materialism or physicalism ? @Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM
i`m a Christian but i never thought seriously about a young earth. I have to think things over.
I am also a Christian and i have to say thay young Earth theory is basicaly the same as flat Earth, and denies the divinity of God.
@@Jimothy-723 How does a young earth deny the divinity of God? God literally said that He made the world in 6 days. "There was evening, and there was morning, the first day" then the second, then the third. Here it specifies what a day is, then proceeded to name the days, specifically. Not generally. Otherwise that is like me quoting a project duration of six days, but then end up charging for thousands of years. There is no logic here.
Also the genealogies can be counted backwards to Adam which add up to roughly 6000 years ago, which is another supporting confirmation of a young earth. If God wanted to take millions and billions of years to create an old earth He certainly could've done so, but don't you think the Genesis story would then reflect that?
The only reason we even think the earth is old, is because the theory of evolution doesn't work with a young earth model. The only reason evolution is even considered possible is because of this drive to make the earth seem far older than it is. Everything you learned and watched from a young age, all the documentaries and hollywood movies have this built in pre-conception that old earth and evolution is true. And by repetition even lies can be believed to be true. So we all grow up believing this.
But where is the ACTUAL evidence? None of it can be tested or observed. And there is ZERO reason to entertain an old earth if there is no evolution or old earth evidence.
1. There couldn't have been death before the first sin. Death is NOT good. When sin entered the world, the material world got corrupted. That's where you get your weeds and thorns from. They're most certainly NOT good.
2. No death means no evolution, so no reason to believe in an old earth.
3. “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” The statement “from the beginning of creation” (apo archñs ktiseōs-cf. Mark 13:19-20; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8) is a reference to the beginning of creation and not simply to the beginning of the human race. Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on day six, not billions of years after the beginning.
Jesus is the living Word. You can take God at His Word when He said days. You can accept the Word when Jesus confirmed the Genesis account. Jews believed that the earth was young, and created as it says in Genesis, so Jesus was essentially confirming that account. The disciple Luke traced Jesus genealogy back to Adam (Luke 3:23; 38). SO we have that length of time. And we know Adam was created in the foundation period, which is creation week. (Luke 11:50-51)
@@Jimothy-723 not at all!
Satans purpose is to confuse us about God’s Creation which proves we have a Creator. This is also how Satan has taken over the schools to teach everything contrary to God even taking out the Bible’s and school prayers. The world is in this Great Spiritual war of God saving us through Jesus death and resurrection and satan fighting to rule the earth through his seed humans and part man part technology but lost souls. He hates us and wants us to die, lose our Soul to him to live in eternity in the lake of fire with him. The curse began in the Garden. God gives us eternal Life and free will to choose. We make our own self God or follow God. God took human form through the Word, Jesus, to die for our sins so we can live. Only our God does this for humanity.
@@ELMQ That's when the sun was created yes.
God had already made the light, (Genesis 1:3) and decided what the day should be like before then. (Genesis 1:5).
The sun did not exist then. Yet there was night and day. Remarkable what an Almighty God can do, eh?
You're limiting your worldview, and thus your understanding, to the material.
I was raised to believe what Harwood concludes here.
Then I learned actual science and history, not the misrepresentation that he's offering. That made believing in a young Earth impossible.
If you want to drive educated people away from Christianity, you're doing an excellent job.
You've accused Dr Harwood of misrepresenting science and history. Please be specific.
@@creationministriesintl Specifically here, he's misrepresenting the techniques of radiometric dating. Scientists do not simply assume that radioactive isotopes decay at a uniform rate. Their rates have been tested repeatedly, and in many cases, there are multiple decay series that can be used as crosschecks, among other techniques for verifying constancy of decay. The same is true about historians.They do not merely assume human civilizations that are older than the mythological flood. They have multiple lines of evidence from numerous cultures, many that crossreference each other.
@@creationministriesintl I answered your question, and you deleted it. If you can't be honest, well, that's what I've come to expect from creationists.
@@gregcampwriter He deleted many comments here.
How do you account for carbon 14 in diamonds?
It used to be thought petrified trees had to be millions of years old, but when Mt. St Helen exploded the trees became petrified in a really short time (a couple of decades).
Nice. Yes, several things can happen quicker than normal or quicker than previously thought under the right conditions. How do you explain things like colliding galaxies though? That doesn't happen in a few thousand years, right?
I think it was only 10 years. I remember being so fascinated by that!!!
@@mdoerkseChristians have always believed that God created the Universe to look older than it is. We are talking about THE Almighty....Nothing is impossible. Scientists have always been hung up on the Big Bang theory. Unfortunately now they are scrambling for a new theory every since the newest telescope (James Webb telescope) found more galaxies where they didn't expect to find more galaxies...where it wouldn't be possible if the big bang were true.
Theres that crazy pond too. I love those shows where people put stuff in the water to petrify them. Wish I had a creek like that nearby
It is without a doubt certain that if you do not know the original state of a sample you CANNOT know how to properly age said sample. Another outstanding point!
@omutvtube3910 you can say that about absolutely every historical artifact in existence. Maybe all of history is a lie because none of us was alive to see it?
You are acting desperate with your logic. That is concerning....
@@chad1682 More faith than logic. Although, great faith usually leads to insightful logic because believing something is possible can lead to profound discovery. And I’m desperately trying not to laugh.
@@omutvtube3910 You are desperately trying not to laugh about what?
You are totally ignorant about a subject so you mock those who put in the time to learn about it.
That is the sin of pride. Repent now!
@@chad1682 Maybe I wasn’t specific enough. What I meant is that from the beginning, AND THROUGHOUT YEARS, no one can see what effects an object endures so that when dating anything it is easy to misdiagnose how old something is. That’s actually less logical & prideful ASSUMING things about a specimen without documenting its journey and what may alter its state to make a measurement illogical. This actually happened and why I laughed because it made me think about this time where layers were dated millions of years by a geological expert when the lake being observed was only 10 years old and the layers were only as old. I apologize if I sounded prideful that was not my intention. I hate pride and know it alls. When you can’t be wrong you’re already wrong. A wise man once said, “And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” Again I did not intend to sound arrogant, maybe I need to work on the way I present.
@@omutvtube3910 You are still repeating the exact same mistake. You need to learn the basics of a scientific concept before you can debate the subject with anyone. If you cannot be bothered to learn about it then nobody will be bothered to give you a serious conversation.
What if someone never read a single chapter of the Bible but then proceeded to lecture you on the subject? I suspect that you would be shocked and annoyed!
The flaw is: What do you mean by "age of a rock". If you take lava which is melted and resolidified rock, why do you take the moment of solidification as t= zero ?
Exactly. If rocks had an age,they should all be exactly the same age. Sedimentary rock isn't real rock just because it got hard. It's the lack of our language that we even call many types of matter by group names. Our labelling something is not a statement of anything factual. God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. And we have been naming sh!t ever since, and thinking that by naming something, we have somehow understood and defined it. We delude ourselves with our pattern seeking brains.
There is no flaw. If you date a piece of lava at 100 mln years, it is never younger, maybe its components are even older, but then the whole young earth story still falls apart.
@@urbanguardHow did you get that 100 million year age? We have documented age of the earth by men who witnessed and wrote it down. I'll go with that.
@@johnglad5 The men you speak of were ignorant of everything around them, couldn't read or write and probably died at 30 of something they couldn't see.
Everything was all handed down by word of mouth and written down a hundred years later by some other ignoramus who wasn't there.
We have scientists now who can actually read and write and know how to use radiometric dating, so we know how old the earth is. I'll go with that.
If the moment of solidification is not taken as t=0, you in turn have the same, if not a bigger problem with the same dating methods he's criticizing. Now you have to ask, when does t=0? If it's the moment it came into existence, let's say the Big Bang, then everything would have the same date. I think he has to take the moment of solidification as t=zero, since that's probably what the sciences say. At least for extrusive igenous rocks, and upon searching this, it appears that is when that rock is considered "born".
Thank you for pointing out that the age of the earth IS a gospel issue. I hear so many Christians say the opposite without ever really thinking about it
yet they still believe the earth is a ball flying through space rotating around the sun.
I am a Christian and believe that God created as described in the Bible, not through evolution as some Christians believe. I will detail my thoughts here because they may help others realize that there had to be a creator and that macro evolution is not plausible.
The evolutionary claim is that evolution needs a tremendous amount of time to create life at all at then a change in kinds because the changes that might occur at any point in time would be improbable (today we see minor changes within species happening very infrequently) and tiny. If all one is thinking about is that to get cumulatively big changes from many incrementally small changes, one will naturally conclude that we need much time. But there is a fly in the ointment.
The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve.
Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!!
Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms.
I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor.
Additionally, that DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek (not that I agree with everything he has said) gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)
@@mustaffa1611 Exactly, the earth is clearly a pyramid where giant trolls live underneath stealing socks, underpants and the remote control to the TV. The Bible clearly tells us that.
@@mustaffa1611
Rationalising with Rev. 1.7 somehow escapes them.
@@AntiCoruptionCentral And who is he leading back to earth ???
The church !!!
I knew God before it was taught to me. Then i got into science then dream of space exploration. Got angry with god. Blamed him for my unhappy life. Now that i came back to God. I felt happy. And realize that my unhappiness was. Because my faith weakened. And i realize that God wants my happiness and only evil causes suffering.
Thanks for a very informative talk. I really enjoyed it! I am part of a creationist ministry here in Norway, which was started 7 years ago. Just had Steven Austin and Rober Carter visiting us for a conference. This gave me some fresh ideas in arguing for a young earth!
@@MrGrimstad ima try this, this way. So Mr grimstad how old do you believe earth is?
Not trying to be on the opposition of anything, just genuinely curious. But, if the earth isn’t old then I’m gonna assume that means that the earth’s mountains wasn’t much different than they are now when they was created. I live in southern Appalachia, I’ve always been told and read that the Appalachians are the oldest mountain range in the world, and when they were formed they were even taller than the Himalayas (the youngest mountain range). I’m assuming also that a young earth belief doesn’t include Pangea, or any kind of continents breaking apart and moving along the mantle until they eventually came to where they are today after many different shifts, collisions, splits, etc over millions of years. But, if that’s the case then why do underground coal miners here in Appalachia constantly find fossils of tropical plants, not only that, but coal itself is composed of ancient plant matter that has been compressed under mountains for millions of years, hence why it’s a, “fossil fuel”. So my question is I guess, if the plates never shifted, and Appalachia was never a tropical landscape and environment then why are those fossils there, or why is there even coal there literally deep beneath mountains? Also, didn’t watch much of the video, so they may have talked about something in relation, sorry 😅.
^^ and the fountains of the deep opening up explains continental shift and mountains.
You're "assuming" a lot. Starting with that all the processes you see in operation today never moved at any faster rate. Such as continental drift, formation of coal, etc. Might help your position if you actually watched the video before commenting.
@@mikebrines5708 a little snarky, I watched the video and kept thinking get to the point. I have a hard time agreeing with placing the age of the earth as 6k years old. It’s a theory but just that.
@@backboard13They fall in a trap that people like Kierkegaard or William James already exposed and brought light to it; the structure of faith and that of the gospels is that of secrecy or gift, it is not about logical paradigms or conceptual edifices. If there was not inconsistencies and flaws in the bible and all was just ‘absolute’ truth(ignoring the nature of linguistics/unconscious and so on) then there is no need for faith, making Christianity no different than any other cluster of ideas.
Coal can form from plant material very fast. It doesn't take millions of years. Next, think for a moment about the continents... they don't float on the ocean, they're connected by land under the water. If the continents "drifted" apart, where did all the land which connects them come from?
Once again, great production value. CMI nails it!
full of nonsense...for sure
@@Gecmajster123456Why?
Do you have something better we should believe?
@@Apollos2.2 so you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?
@Gecmajster123456
Yes, I believe it's aprox 6,000 years old.I don't believe it's millions of years old.
Neither of us were there to see it form by itself or be created, so each of us are relying on evidence presented by people that believe like us.
Since we cannot "know" for sure how old the earth is, well not like the same way we know gravity works, we all believe or have faith about it.
Usually, what determines how you think about the age of the earth evidence, is whether or not you believe God exists. It's not a 100% correlation but I don't know any atheists who think the earth is young.
I think the better question is, do you believe in the God of the Bible or any god at all?
@@frigyou1078 shocking..
Religion tends to discourage honest questions as an unacceptable lack of faith. God does not, but wants to reason with us.
In other words, man is more intelligent than God, while he is not even able to defeat death.
so you determine what you want to believe and then make everything else fit?
@@OnivertInHouston if you don't understand how stupid trying to throw THAT back at someone is.. 💀💀💀 bruh...
We KNOW how life works and what you need for it, and that is OUTSIDE of our planet too, and of the billions of possibilities out in space... How CAN'T there be life? Use your head once.
@@lxw6657 Bruh, yes compounds exist outside of earth to make organic compounds BUT just because life exist on Earth via organic compounds does not mean they can randomly assemble in other planets and spawn life. On earth life was created. If you're honest with yourself there is no way DNA code could randomly arrange itself, mathematically impossible. And if it did, no way it could evolve into humans through random mutations. If you believe that, you believe some pretty stupid assumptions.
That way of thinking leads you to false ideas. Listen carefully to people who have contrary views to your own. Keep doing this on a fegulat basis and truth will be yours. Grace
I believe in God because that makes sense to me.
it's called "confirmation bias"
And if the dating laboratories say that young rocks are difficult to age accurately (being 350,000 to 2.8 million years off like with Mount Saint Helens), a young Earth of only about 6,000 years would also be difficult to age.
Dating laboratories? These frauds selected a test (Potassium Argon) that they KNOW is not suitable for material younger than 350,000. This is willful satanic deception
Peer review
@@matt8264is that why all the other planets are round...were the only flat planet aye? 🙄
@@vickyesperanza8267 Something can well be round AND flat, just like yummy pancakes... just saying. Planets are not just "round", they are nearly spherical.
@@vickyesperanza8267 Everything is located in the firmament not millions or billions of miles away. You cannot land on the moon or another planet. Again they were known as wandering stars for millennia.
In regards to your comment: The other planets are round so the earth must be round is akin to saying all the billiard balls on the pool table are round so the table must be round. Faulty logic.
Thanks again for your time, GOD BLESS your ministry
I also had that thought. If God is responsible for all goodness and evil (since he allowed it), he cannot tolerate millions of years of evil.
30:00 The dating of rock. Lava is molton Rock, so once it has solidified from its molton state, it becomes a solid. In your statement, you said you could categorically say how old it was, but when did it become molton? It could have been in that state for tens of thousands of years. I make a block of ice from water, you know, when it became a block of ice, but how old is the water. Take a look at a very familiar rock, COAL. In my country, UK, this is usually mined from very deep pits, sometimes up to a mile deep. These coal seams are old forests and vegitation, which, over time, have become compressed over thousands of years as the earth above them gets thicker and thicker. In these coal seams, sometimes you can identify ferns and timber that have left their impressions in the coal. None of this happen within six thousand years. I do find what you have to say very interesting, but the foundation of your theories appears very weak.
Call and debate Kent
But your problem with his assumption is at the very least the same, if not magnified when presented to the radio dating method's assumptions. The fact that your question even has the interrogative word "when" presents a major problem. The method in question is a method of dating something. However, according to you, and I don't necessarily think your wrong in asking, you need to know "when" a part of the process which is used by the method occurs.
If your question for him is when did the rock become molten, I think the obvious question for the radio dating method would then be, when was the carbon(or whatever is being measured) added to the rocks? And how much? And how could you be sure?
The coal didn't form over a very long. It was dumped there rapidly by the Flood and was then covered rapidly by Flood born sediments and the process continued. Your belief that coal formed by old forests dying amd being covered slowly is seen nowhere in the world and is physically impossible. Think it through. And keep watching these kind of videos. Read some books. Contentious Bones by Rupe and Sandford is great. Genetic Entropy by Sandford. Enjoy.
@@mattl3023 prove your theory, with physical evidence.
@@oshiforb7445 There are broken tree trunks that run many meters through coal seams from top to bottom. No roots, no branches and no soil. They didn't grow in that location because the roots are missing. Logically, they were broken off violently from where they grew leaving their roots behind and ended up floating uoright in water. When they were too water-logged, they pencil dropped to the bottom heavy end first where they came to rest on plant matter. As water-boune material sank on the surface above, it accumulated around these tree trunks and eventually they were buried. This process continued for some time as seen by multiple polystrate fossils in the same coal seam. They are also found in cliff faces where they are surrounded by rock rather than coal. How would it work from your current perspective? Upright tree trunks with no roots or branches growing in plant matter that eventually turns into coal. No roots? No soil? How did they grow? And how do you get such trees to stand there for tens of thousands of years without rotting away while they are buried? Any idea?
I don't consider myself a Christian, never red the Bible, but creation became extremely obvious, once i understood the delicacy of all the interplay between all living and non living things. Everything so perfect, so masterfully crafted. There is just no mathematical chance of even tiny sub parts of this world came to be by chance.
And when i found out about the dinosaur bone with soft tissue still intact, the picture of millions of millions years faded as well.
Ah yes so masterfully crafted that our feeding and breathing tube are one and the same
the soft tissue being found on a dinosaur bone didn't happen.
@@homebrewznz3482And even if it did happen, it wouldn’t change anything.
Jesus Christ loves you kid
@@sindanonegongo1199 Is he gay?
Creationists have long rejected scientific dating methods. Then the shroud of Turin was dated to about 2,000 years old and suddenly they love scientific dating methods.
As far as I could ascertain, the shroud has never been dated earlier than about 800 years old.
@@stevepierce6467 Then you haven’t looked far enough. There are several UA-cam videos relating to new evidence that shows the shroud is much closer to the time of Jesus than previously thought. The 800 years you talk of was from 1988 but it was discovered that the fibres used were part of a repair dating from about 800:years ago. More recent wide angle x-ray scattering tests on original cloth indicate the shroud to be much older than previous radiocarbon dating suggested. Also, other biological evidence, not related to radiation dating techniques, supports a date more in line with the time of Jesus.
Not exactly true.
AMS C14 is externally verifiable using archaelogical finds and written history.
isochron dating is not, and that's what we reject as it's not verifiable with standard calibration methods.
Time is irrelevant as we as humans invented time on a scale that only we as a species understands.
This has to make sense, science tries to dismiss our belief that the earth is millions and billions of years old with dinosaurs and stuff. I was stuck on the mystery of dinosaurs and how there couldve been people before Adam if God first made Adam. Science is an assumption of creation instead of the belief of the creator. We must believe in the Lord. My mind is blown away. Everything makes sense to me. Thank you.
cassim, we believers in God's Holy Bible DON'T believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old.
Human created religion ... We human we r God
@@firstbornlohe7578 We are made in the image of God as a by product of his extension. There has to be a beginning and that beginning must've started with God. So if you say we created God, then you must say that we conceived the idea of God from God himself in the beginning because every idea of conception came after that. We cannot base our thoughts and emotions on feeling, history is factually documented that if we were to say history is false then how can we believe we really created God. You don't even know where you came from with factual evidence that was conceived over time. So I pray for you brother to conceive of a idea greater than yourself because ultimately you will pass away but your soul I want to be saved before you reject the gospel and perish in hell.
For eternity*
@@firstbornlohe7578iohe, you speak just like Satan did to Eve.
.
Please repent.
It all makes sense, it's clear and obvious, therefore we must stop skipping those parts of Genesis that assure us we're not living on a crazy ball turning and flying somewhere through the unknown.
My book says we are on a spinning ball tho. How do we know who is right?
level and stationary
@@kye4216God is right.
@@justinscheapguitarsandreviews my book is right. Do you see how we have a problem here?
@@kye4216 lol I do. Your book is wrong. No more problem!
A couple of obvious questions... How do you account for the existence of fossils of dinosaurs and creatures that even predate them? Also, how do you account for there being fossilized remains of sea creatures embedded within the rocks at the top of Mount Everest and the other Himalayan peaks?
There also exist craters from asteroid strikes that are so large, the destruction would be at the level of extinction events and therefore, could not have occurred unbeknownst to the people, if any, who survived the cataclysm. What is your take on that?
Book of Job, God explains He created us in spirit body at the time He created dinosaurs. This earth is millions millions old according to God.
the flood
I read...in the bible...that "God" created man male and female then the "Lord God" created Adam and Eve. Two creation stories? Two creations of humans? Are we being told God created the archaic humans and the Lord God then created modern humans? Or is Adam and Eve the first of a fabricated holy bloodline?
@@oliverroedel1111 How so?
The fossils up there aren't the result of flood deposits... The ocean floor its self has been pushed up and relocated from a point of some depth below sea level, to an elevation of approximately 5 or 6 miles above sea level, by the action of plate tectonics and continental drift, which produced the Himilayan mountain range, among others around the world... and which is still at work, btw... rising at a rate of about 2 inches per year.
So, you can do the math on the amount of time required to produce just that mountain range alone...
Some mountain ranges have even had time enough to form and be completely eroded away by wind and rain, leaving no *obvious* signs of ever having existed.
Geological processes take a very long time, when measured on a human time scale, that is... rocks and dirt and water stick around for a lot more than 100 years.
if you have the time i suggest you watch Noah's flood videos on the Young earth creation, basically on the time of the flood the contients shifted to where they are today, so fossils on the top of a mountain make sense
Also even though i fully believe in young earth creationism i have to say dinosaurs are a problem, there is evidence that dinosaurs might have lived with humans, in the Bible we find the behemoth, which is described as a classic brachiosaur, and outside of it we find weird paintings and depictions of what appears to be dinosaurs
but at the same time we dont really find any fossils of dinosaurs with humans, i have heard the argument that we simply didnt want to be close to them, however the average dinosaur wasnt all that big, and there are fossils of animals of similar size that do show signs of being hunted
there is also the dragon thing, which are awfully similar between cultures
i believe in the future we will find more evidence to support dinosaurs living with humans but as of right know i dont think there is
This is why us Jewish people use the calendar we use. It’s the year 5784.
@@LeviAaronx tell us more please? Xx
@@LeviAaronx yea I heard about the Jewish calendar before and it being what we were actually supposed to be on. Can you explain a lil?
Yep and if you go by cycles we have 216 years till the next big shift as almost every major change has occurred almost 2000 years apart. Adam - Abraham was close to 2000 years. Abarham to Yeshua was approximately 2000 years and we have just past 2000 years since Jesus death. Much like in Exekiel 22 where Yahweh tells the Israelites their time is up and they have strayed far from him the Edomite time is up as they have become just like the princes and rulers of the Hebrews. Maybe he puts the original black Hebrew Israelites back in charge or just declares the end of days and kills off everyone, the world and the current heaven as written. No prophet, Angel or demon knows only the most high. However based on history and the current degredation of spirituality in the world its definitely soon. Maybe he lets humans make IA and end ourselves by attempting to play Gods.
It has always been a 7 day plan to redeem the earth/humanity from the beginning. And one day is 1000 years. jesus is coming back at year 6000. Also year 5784 is few hundred years off. Humans created on year 6000 and God rests at 7000 and we are about to go into Gods rest again :) just like in the beginning.
Notice how enoch was taken up by God without dying (ruptured) and he was the seventh man from adam’s genealogy. It’s amazing!
@@KateSanchez-mp2um I’m sorry Kate I’m just a lil lost lol
"I thought, I do believe that". That sums up everything to be said after that statement.
Wow you're pissed that evolution is wrong.
Well someone said “and I think, God isn’t real” tells me everything I need to know about evolutionary theory.
it usually comes down to, even if God was real, I wouldnt worship him.
When the Believers say that science First Problem is “believing” now things get fun.
The words, I believe, is used quite frequently buy secular scientists and the like.
"You don't believe in Climate Change!"
Here are a few objections
While it's true that determining the exact age of the Earth is challenging due to the limitations you've mentioned, several scientific methods collectively suggest that the Earth is billions of years old.
1. **Decay rates are constant**: Radioactive decay rates of isotopes such as Uranium-235 and Potassium-40 have been measured over the years and found to be constant - even under extreme pressures and temperatures. Furthermore, they're also consistent with decay rates calculated from Solar system modeling and the ages of the oldest known meteorites. This supports the constancy of the decay "clocks" used in radiometric dating.
2. **Multiple methods show similar results**: Not only do different radioisotopes on the same material frequently give very similar ages, but different types of dating methods applied to the same object (like ice core layers, tree ring counts, and sediment layer counts) are also consistent. This makes it less likely that there's a universal and consistent bias in all these measurements.
3. **Age of the universe also agrees**: Independent confirmation of the ages calculated via Earth-bound methods comes from astronomy. The age of the universe itself, derived from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck mission data, is in agreement with the ages derived from various methods on Earth, adding further validation to the immense age of the Earth.
4. **Past climates and biological activity**: The geological record provides proof of past climates and biological activity which could not possibly have occurred if the Earth were materially younger.
While these methods are not infallible, the confluence of multiple lines of evidence makes it highly likely that the Earth is indeed billions of years old.
Yes, creationists always hide these truths to keep their followers ignorant
There have also been multiple studies showing that while temperature and pressure does not change rate of decay, foreign radiation that is strong enough can alter the rate of something decaying. Scientists have used meteors to date the Earth since upon reasonable assumption they should have been created at the same time, then how do you date a planet that has multiple sources of protection from foreign solar radiation with something that came from space with no protection to solar radiation. Due to these studies, I personally believe the Earth was misdated merely on the fact that a meteor could have shown much higher decay then that of the Earth, due to the foreign solar radiation interfering with the rate of decay. The past climates portion doesn't make sense, because we see even today how much our climate changes just going year by year and yet we can't believe that there were different climate conditions a couple thousand years beforehand? There are plenty of studies showing differences between dating the only one of which being considered accurate is the radiometric dating, that of which as mentioned in this video takes assumptions when inserting variables just to make it correct.
2. You are wrong on a scale that is almost unbelievable. Different methods have given wildly different ages.
@johnglad5 - the age of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland was determined to be 3.60 ± 0.05 Ga (billion years ago) using uranium-lead dating and 3.56 ± 0.10 Ga (billion years ago) using lead-lead dating, results that are consistent with each other. Dalrymple, G. Brent (1994). The age of the earth. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780804723312. 142-143
Your comments are incredibly inaccurate and unsubstantiated.
Another great talk by CMI. THEY are amazing. Praise God for them ALL.
Ok, we need about 3 more hours of this conversation. Outstanding.
They revisited this topic about a year later. You can see that second interview here: Earth Can't Be Old! - Answering the Critics - ua-cam.com/video/PFUxKgPbeDw/v-deo.html
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i thank you!
Fantastic!, thank you cmi for producing this. May GOD bless you and your work
which god should bless him? allah? vishnu? or your special flavour of god?
In college 25 years ago, I learned carbon14 dating was affected by heat and pressure and can't be soley relied upon to discover age.
It’s a good thing we have many different ways to date age now. They are all consistent with one another too.
The cup analogy he used was an argument from ignorance.
@@Tabroski No they're not
@@usernametaken6659I’m interested to hear why you think that. Young earth creationism has not only been debunked for hundreds of years, but in a colossal amount of different ways as well. Don’t want to accept carbon dating data? Fine. Take your pick from the rest of the pile. It’s a huge pile to ignore and right off as “wrong”.
@@Tabroski "They are all consistent with one another too." I think they just proved they are not.
@@Tabroski "Young earth creationism has not only been debunked for hundreds of years" By whom and by which way?
I would like to see him debate all this with Brian Cox. This is not a debate just two people agreeing with each other.
I don't think this was meant to be a debate friend
@@anthonychiocca8835 maybe not 🤷
Dumb and Dumber
Who said it was a debate?
@@ronaldperry nobody
Yes, it can be old, RTB agrees orig. Genesis was written in Hebrew not English - the Heb for day (yom) can have 4 diff meanings , one being a finite but LONG period of time, not JUST 24hrs!
Okay. This is quite helpful. But there’s still one argument that I can’t find a way to overcome. It’s an argument that Bill Nye made in debate against Ken Ham, and this is the argument. It’s how they see the yearly additions of layers when they take ice cores. Or tree rings. If you could solve those two for me, that would be swell! Lol
Trees can produce more than one ring per year. Each tree ring is produced by seasons of drought, or heavy rain. Ice layers can form many layers per year also.
Can you find an ice core or tree ring that goes back a billion years???
Glacial Girl. There a few P-38 Lightenings landed in Greenland during WW2.
In the 1990s ateam searched for the aeroplanes and made what should have correct calculations based on the ideas contemporary regarding how long it takes for the snow and ice to cover the aircraft, how far under the surface and their co-ordinates.
The estimated depth was about several metres.
Where the found the aircraft was a few miles off from the estimated distance and more striking was the depth, which was about 270+ feet.
Using the conventional ideas about Greenland ice layers would have meant these planes had landed centuries earlier, based on the depth alone. So there has to be a rethink as to how to interpret the Greenland ice layers. Layers do not indicate years or even change of season. In fact multiple layers can form over weeks with slight variations in temperature, a storm, wind direction changes and so forth. The surprised the scientists in the labs in mainland universities but not locals.
@@1969cmp
Ah yes, the "if i see a hole in a wall, the wall doesnt exist" Fallacy
@@Ixiah27 no. However, a wall with a hole means the wall is not whole.
If you quiet your mind and listen with your spirit this makes perfect sense!
Lol if you quiet your mind...wow...
Quiet your doubts perhaps & laser beam your mind.
A “quiet mind” is a New Agey thing.
Meditation invites demons. Bad stuff.
Christ RENEWS our minds!👏🏻👏🏻
Yep just throw the brain right out of the window. That's exactly what these organizations want. Throw out the science wave the genesis fairy dust and toy get noahs ark and Adam and Eve.
You should try it 👍
Quiet your mind and believe in noahs ark and Samsons magical hair. Quiet your mind and give us 10% of your money.
Love to hear you interview Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins said, on his interview with Alex O'Connor, that he wouldn't bother giving his time for generic dumbasses anymore (I'm paraphrasing here).
@@arushan54 Can you blame him?
I get sick of it after 10 minutes of that type of interaction, but Dawkins has logged *thousands of hours* doing the same thing. I have no idea how he justified going as long as he did. Better to try once, and then just leave the idiots behind. Or just don't even try. People who can't figure such hideously basic things out on their own aren't going to suddenly become smart via outside help.
What John Lennox’s discussion with Dawkins, they’re excellent
Praise the Lord Jesus! I’ve been saying this for years! I completely agree with you and the Bible! Great to hear a scientists say this. I love you guys !
Actually the problem is with the translation of the Hebrew word, "YOM". Yom is translated as "day" but it really is a period of time. It is sort of like the English word, "day". If I say, " The day of the dinosaur," I am speaking of a period of time when there were dinosaurs. In some parts of the Bible, YOM is translated as "Eternity". Unless you think we will live for only one day after death, and resurrection, this is a problem. This entire testimony is off because of a bad translation of old Hebrew. The Bible actually lines up well with science when the words, like YOM, are translated correctly, This video is suspect because two people that believe the same thing discussing the topic. Not a real exchange of ideas, but coming from an assumption that the world is 6000 years old and trying to prove it.
Duh, what do you know? The English word us used same way. So what's your point?
@@kennethhiggins5508 The point is the world wasn't created in 6 day. Faulty translation.
@@andrewsandeen8109 nope. A rabbi specializing in languages pointed out that “day” was never used in scripture in that poetic sense. Every time, it means specifically one day.
Still a fan of the RATE Project.
No kidding
Ashame they can't teach catastrophic plate tectonics as an alternative to uniformitarianistic plate tectonics.
Show folded mountains in Google images.
Let the students see how logical a single global flood could be.
Cold spots in the mantle.
Man made items encased by coal
So many anomalies explained by catastrophism
@@knightclan4 The only concern I have with CPT is the apparent conflict with the Great Earthquake of Revelation being said to be the worst tectonic event ever since mankind has been on the Earth up until that point. It has mountains and islands being destroyed, but no global flood.
But yeah, I agree a variety of views should be taught.
@@Hydroverse
Today we see fault lines opening up in africa, california, big Earthquakes reaching 9 or higher volcanic eruptions increasing in frequency and size, it is good to note that since 1900, both volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes have increased in frequency and magnitude so something really big is about to happen on a global scale. Only God will God cut the days short as is written in mathew ch 24.
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM Earthquake making mountains versus earthquake destroying mountains. Sounds similar enough to create concern with the model from a biblical perspective.
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM True. I guess it seems sketchy to me that tectonics would cause the Flood, but that's my interpretation of the text.
Loved this video. Connected the dots for me finally 😊
so you were already delusional.....you just need the confirmation. kudos.
@@UrbFoxFact sure mate. Kudos
That was a very thoughtful discussion.
Very useful! Thanks so much for this
The good thing about science is it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. 1+1 is 2 regardless of what you or some ancient book tells you.
The problem isn't with science. The problem is when science goes outside the boundaries into philosophy. Surmising that the universe came into existence out of nothing with no intelligence involved is not testable and is not the same as 1+1=2. Surmising the universe has always existed is not testable and is a bit of an absurdity. Excluding intelligence when there are some things only intelligence can do is an ideology, not science.
@@meb280 there is no such thing as 'untestable' in science. Science accepts that it cannot prove it at the moment. In future, it will, that is for sure. Adding an intelligence into the equation only complicates matters because then you have to prove it and explain where it came from and who created it. Postulating that there is an entity which came from nothing and has no start or end yet the universe must have a source is simply absurd by all standards.
1+1 is 2 yes. But also zero × zero equals zero forever....
If there was a time when there was Nothing; nothing can possibly exist.
( Origins of matter, life and consciousness)
Simple math is easy. It becomes a religion of its own when it requires faith to believe that same simple math extends into millions or billions of years
You can't prove 1+1=2. Philosophy and logic disagree with you.
There is a funny moment in Doctor Who, a clearly reliable source. He has to wait, so he pulled a book out of his pocket, "How it all Began." He opened the book and said, "He's got it wrong in the first paragraph! Why didn't he ask someone who was there?"😅
Which Doctor was that? Season/episode please.
@thetravelerformallyknowasw7912 Tom Baker. I'm not a big enough fan to remember episode. The brig was involved.
@@pedalandpop783 Sorry, I don't do drugs😉
@@Torby4096 Makes more sense than this video.
Radiometric dating is little different than a police breathalyzer that starts at 5.
Because you said so?
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go
Thanks for that.
Strange, last time we spoke there was no signs of dementia.
@@sparkyy0007 Ad hominem? Your case must be really strong.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go
Indeed.
@@sparkyy0007 I guess you win.
So glorious that God has given us His Holy Spirit to guide us into all truths. I believe in what you are doing is so important
So if it guides you into all truths, why do you believe his lies?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the “Holy spirit” guides you to always believe in him regardless of what’s true?
Bull manure!
This was really quite an amazing discussion.
? what discussion? This is just childish propaganda by a couple of people who have such an agenda they have no clue about critical thinking.
Yes amazing…amazingly stupid and in fact quite childish!! 6,000 years old?? Hahahahaha You do know that is absurd right??!!
Agreed. It was amazing how much Mark Harwood, who has a Ph.D in antenna design/computers suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect believing that he alone knows more about all the different methods of radiometric dating and sedimentation rates, tree rings, ice cores, geologic strata etc than every single expert in the field of geology, biology, and basically every single field of science that uses this technique. He must think that the oil/gas industry that uses evolutionary theory to prospect for new hydrocarbon deposits must be all pure luck and/or Satanic magic. Or perhaps he should be out protesting NASA's Mars rovers (and helicopter) whose missions depend on millions of years worth of erosion and mineral deposits in an ancient lake?
And he didn't even provide a source to his either his own research paper or even his peer review of the existing papers! Oh he didn't write anything? I wonder why.
Absolutely amazing discussion that perfectly demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@boxofstars5491 There are at least 5 levels of extreme complexities, that the first cell would have to cross, in order, but without a creator, some of those levels would have to take several millions of years for the next step, without the benefit of life !
Are you a plant to away from the truth? 😂
The distance equivalent argument would be 3000 miles versus 21 feet.
Look I'm a Christian but yes the Earth is very very old. People take the Bible a little to literally sometimes. Look at the way Jesus even talks. It's in metaphors and anecdotes
This really helped me, thank you so much!!
helped you what?
If the universe was only 6000 years old we couldn't see stars such vast distances away. Stars are many light years away and their light has taken light years to get here. We would not be able to see stars billions of miles away if the universe was only 6000 years old. Their light would not have reachsd us yet.
There’s a lot of videos out there that obliterate the speed of light. The long story short, to calculate the speed of light, you have to assume the speed of light. Ventrulism did a video on it. I probably spelled that wrong but the guy’s pretty smart and has a big following.
I looked on YT for speed light with Ventrulism. I didn't find anything. Even so, speculating that speed of light might not be what we think is not the same as proof. Science does not change theories because of speculation of discoveries. The best explanation at the time is accepted as true until data comes in to shift presumed truth to a different explanation. As such, your comment still is the science supported view and I thank you for making it.
@@AnthonyAnderson. There is also the possibility that they are really close, like stars are discribed in the firmament
@@kk-xs3do NO. This isn't a possibility.
@@peterfarrelly2437 Not the universe just earth the universe is much older
Billions of years, my friend, not millions. I cannot believe that in this era there are those who still believe as you think
Lol.. when you think that processes were uniform billions of years ago to make radiometric dating reliable, then evolution (which means change, btw) can not be an acceptable event
Like I wrote in reply to another comment this is what religion (and Christianity in particular) does to people. It brainwashes them to the point they refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs no matter how strong the evidence.
Books of Job explains by God when He created us in the spirit body at the same time as He created dinosaurs millions millions years ago. There are more places in the bible that confirms this earth is millions and millions old.
I just started to read the bible recently. But I found that the age of the earth was about 6000 years old. I always believed it was millions of years old. But the bible gives you all answers. Thanks for sharing this information ❤
The earth is billions of years old. You were told this in high school. Now, you have forgotten how to research for yourself. In the bible, the entire earth was not created in 6 days. The earth was being repaired. These guys are too lazy to read the hebrew language. BARASHIYTH comes from the root word BARA meaning to "reconstruct or reconstruction" Barashyth is a replenishing and repopulating of a certain tribe of people existing in a particular region of the planet earth. People think that there were NO humans in existence on earth before Adam. This is wrong. On other regions of the earth, other tribes did exist. However, you would have to read THEIR recorded history which would predate Adam.
Great dissertation the young earth is truth. So awesome to not be in conflict with in my faith in understanding this for now many years.
I wish I could be that scientifically ignorant again, it was bliss.
🐻 Got it. "I wanted to believe in a book, but it didn't match up to reality... but then I read another book that said the same things as the book I wanted to believe in...and I believed it" 🥴
If your definition of “reality” is based on a book assuring you of the accuracy of radiometric dating, perhaps you need to read a different book? One that lines up with the facts.
@@worldsigh1788 Can you tell me what 'facts' those are?
@@worldsigh1788lmfao
@@wefinishthisnow3883The fact that radiometric dating is insanely unreliable
@@DanielBice That's it? Any others?
My best argument against evolution is that we would see all sorts of creatures in all stages of evolution. Where are they? It didn't happen once and just stop if it's a natural process.
To bad you did not pay any attention at primary school......
@evilsnowman3231 well since you seem to know and I don't, why don't you give evidence of ongoing evolution up to our current day in the way it has described to have been. Ill wait.
@@steveeymann6374 Your ignorance and gullibility are not my problem. Nor do I care that you believe in some silly superstition. So just keep on waiting.
On the other hand you might take some time to read your statement again and explain here in more detail why you think that this is the best argument against evolution. If you look around you will be able to see all kind of creatures.....and they are all in a "stage" of evolution. There is no need to see "all stages of evolution" at once for evolution to be true and as the matter of fact even in the early days of the Evolution Theory that has never been proposed.
Look around you. Every organism is potentially evolving into new forms. The same thing has been true in the past.
@@Andre_XXfalse
It's great to see someone else saying the same thing I've been saying about how old earth is!
Excellent excellent video and explanations with evidence thank you ❤
the converse is true.....baseless claims with zero evidence.
That’s not evidence Dum Dum!!
I would very much like to know if the radioisotope decay rates have remained constant (static) over decades, centuries, and millennia. As well as if there are any natural phenomena which affect these decay rates. For example, does the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field have anything to do with changing the decay rates? More sun rays beating down on atoms.... etc. That's just one example, but there are probably thousands of factors that need to be considered and tested.
I haven't personally seen any in-depth studies that seek to test this in detail. Are there any? Who is looking? Who is keeping track? What methods are they using? What questions are they asking?
I have a feeling this would be very hard to get a grant to study in this current ideological imposition academia is being forced to live in today.
I agree. I suspect most are happy with the present narrative, and probably not because of sufficient evidence.
Well we have gone through a global flood, an ice age, and than the melting of the ice age, and heating and cooling since than. So id say, no..things have not been the same over time. Oceans have risen and disappeared, rivers have risen and disappeared, etc etc...
The rate of radiocarbon decay has not been constant, and I am searching for the paper proving it at present. I'll post the link when I find it.
@@Mxxx-ii9bu There is stupendous amount of evidence for a global flood.
If you are referring to the work done by Stanford Univ. and Purdue Univ. physicists from 12 years ago they determined that the possible fluctuations in decay rates were measured as a fraction of one percent and would not affect anthropological dating methods.
Swing and a miss.
Thanks for this interview.serendipidously it went through my mind today sunday when i was by the river alone" we suffer becuase of lack of knowledge"before seeing this video tonight!sometimes I've looked for testimony by trying to document the supernatural and had found that many bad miracles occur and that people still doubt bad or good miracles the same they have the miracle of Christ's ressurection.still I try with all my might to love like he did
seth etc: "Christ" did not exist. You have been misled, as so many of us were.
@@Nai61a There is more evidence of Jesus, that any Roman leader, at or before that time !
Did Jesus suffer many things because of lack of knowledge? There's plenty of reasons why we suffer and lack of knowledge is only a small part.
@@Nai61a I mean you could debate the resurrection or if he was God, but he certainly existed historically. There's hardly an atheist historian anywhere who wouldn't say Jesus was a real historical person.
@tydude Basically, I agree. Normally, I write a slightly longer version which goes like this: "There is no good, credible, extra-biblical, contemporary evidence that the "Jesus" figure, as described in the New Testament, actually existed. You have been misled ... etc" I was obviously in a bit of a hurry two months ago and thought that writing "Christ", in inverted commas, would suffice.
That said, I would make a couple of points.
1) There is a growing mythicist movement of scholars who make the case that "Jesus" is a myth.
2) Those scholars who assert that "Jesus" - the preaching man - existed, whether they be atheists or not, do so on the basis of the New Testament. I have a pet hypothesis that their inclination to take at face value some of what the New Testament says is a result of their having been Christians themselves at one point and/or having been exposed to Christian culture and tradition. For my part, I do not find Paul to be a reliable witness and I can see no reason to give weight to what he says. He was, in some senses, the Joseph Smith of his time.
This is why religion is dangerous to an extent that it might one day be our own demise.
To each one of you, with humility I request you to whenever you find time go out and take time to ponder about your existence.
As a species has created a construct to guide our morality, why has it become a tool of dogma and politics.
The urge to rule and be ruled has led us to this point where we force ourselves to omit the line that separates fact from fiction.
Whenever an individual thinks critically, the individual is applauded but when the individual does the same with religion, it becomes a topic of debate.
I understand that religion is deep rooted into our emotions and heritage.
If I could ask him a question, it would be concerning star light and why, if creation is as young as he believes, we see light from stars many millions of light-years away? I would assume if I see light from a star 10 million light years away, that light had to have begun its journey 10 million years ago.
I suppose one could say God created the light from these stars continuous with long distances, essentially stretching light out so that man can see this part of his creation.
The speed of light and its impact on time is relative. It is possible that the light we see from far distances does actually reflect millions of years at the outskirts of the universe
The stars are fixed on the dome. There's no light-years...earth is flat ...
Adam was created as a full grown adult, yet you would assume he was around for at least 20 years
Las estrellas están mucho más cerca.
@jameyb3545 what?
Can you explain time dilation and how it might be impacting the perception of the age of the universe?
I've wondered this often! If time essentially slows down as you get closer to the speed of light, then why is light not subjected to the same reality? If I travel at the speed of light, then I will age at the same speed as the light particle that I am traveling next to...
So curious!
You can't travel at the speed of light, because as your speed increases, so does your mass, and as you approached the speed of light you would have infinite mass, and time would stop.
@@erinaceoustay obviously. It's a hypothetical question meant to understand how time is experienced at light speed.
@@loganfeller6737
No, I wondered whether the expansion of the universe is constant with respect to our perception of time. Could the expansion have been highly accelerated at the beginning?
@@loganfeller6737 @loganfeller6737 it's not necessarily obvious, I was simply answering a question, and I'm not particularly interested in your smug critique.
So what we have here is just one man out of all the 8 billion people on the planet that has read a few books and formed his own arguments against the whole field of science who have mountains of evidence for an old earth. I think I know which side I will choose. Next please !
I don't understand why people actually believe this nonsense. I have no problem with people putting their faith in God or Jesus but to actually think that the genesis story written in the old testament is true is mind boggling for me. He also the said writing history started with Adam and it was Moses who wrote the old testament, that is just plain stupidity. The evidence he gave for this was that God was the eye witness. The Bible is not meant to be taken literal, too bad many people just believe everything they hear or read is true before actually researching it.
@@amymolenberghs7392 Fully agree with what you say. The main culprit for believing in the tales of old is indoctrination and this can brainwash peoples mind's from an early age. When people reach adulthood it is still with them and they will defend their belief against anyone. Christians live their life in guilt and especially fear. This is terrible oppression and takes away your natural life. The concept of God and religion all began a long time ago in the minds of our ancestors. It is unfortunate all religious people do not realize this and read other things into it. When you see well educated people like William Lane Craig and John Lennox believing and preaching such nonsense, one feels embarrassed to be in the human race.But didn't you know that writing history did start with Adam .. he simply nipped down the cornershop to buy a birow and writing paper !😃
You can believe you came from monkeys with no purpose for life here on earth and no hope for eternal life after death. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm going to pass on that. Instead, I'll take the Biblical account of creation as inerrant, which is full of purpose and hope.
Blind sheep
These religious people often preach humility to others, and they do not seem to get the ammount of arrogance needed to hold these beliefs and to try to justify them with scientific methodology. I am not against faith per se, believe what you want, but for science a due process needs to be carried out, mainly peer review and a high amount of scrutiny towards radical ideas like these.
Amen Brother, this not only goes for the black church, this is a message for the body of Christ Jesus. The whole church. The church in America is desperately in trouble. Heavenly Father please help us to stand strong in these last days and when we've done all we can do, STAND....❤ I love you all....
In this century, Islands have been created in a matter of a few days by underwater volcanic processes. Tsunamis can change the shoreline in a matter of hours. White moths can genetically alter to black moths or spotted if sudden pollution causes the flowers they rest on to change colour and make them vulnerable. Krakatoa changed the mountain in minutes. If the world was hotter previously these changes should have been more rapid than today.
The wine that jesus turned from water was a few minutes old but it was the same as a 100 year old fermented wine. In fact, if they could measure it, it would seem that way.
and Santa Claus' Reindeer are are all adults except for Rudolph which is a juvenile , this is all making sense now !
@@MrLeonightis nope you dont make sense
@@MrLeonightisyeah, but how old is blitzen?
Are you saying that God created the earth to look old and that could be measured as old?
God didn't create the Earth to look "old", He created the Earth to look MATURE, get your facts straight...
I have always believed this but was not versed enough to explain it the way this guy has. Amen! Thank you God for people who test these things.
@@hongotedesco8931prove that he's wrong then.
if you weren't 'versed enough to explain it' then why didn't you do the work (like scientists do) in order to fact check the claims. oh right - you let someone else convince you that you didn't need to bother.
@@UrbFoxFact
And you just stick with your so called “scientists”
@@rprestarri i'm a scientist so i can answer your question with confidence. there's no 'sticking' with anything since science is always repeating it's testing and acquiring new data. scientists a long time ago didn't know why things burned and came up with this hilarious hypothesis that there was this 'thing' in air called 'phlogiston'.....it was the best they could do at the time. and guess what, nothing's changed; science is still doing the best it can but it will have to wait just a bit before it can answer all the questions that we don't fully understand.....like where did life originate. science is what got you to reading this.....and science keeps you alive by knowing how the body works and repairing it when necessary. science allows you to cross the street without being run over. imagine you discover tomorrow that you have cancer. who are you going to be most grateful to......scientists?....or your local pastor/priest/rabbi/imam etc. as for your last comment.....so-called "scientists". so-called??what a hilarious thing to say. sweetheart go get your holy book out and masturbate about how cool it's gonna be in the afterlife. 😂😂🤟🏻
If you weren't well versed enough to explain it, you aren't knowledgeable enough to know whether what this guy is saying is correct either. And he isn't correct. Not even close.
Seriously, look into Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the former YEC scientist who made the discovery he calls his "best evidence", and also the one who explained the findings, which proved ignorant people like Creation Ministries were lying about her research.
Faith is not stupidity, but ignorance is. Mary is still a devout Christian, but she despises her research being abused in this way.
This is amazing! Thank you for this video! It makes sense. I've always felt like everything we have been taught is a lie. This video explains that perfectly 👍
Petroleum geologists use an old Earth framework to successfully explore for and find natural resources.
Right but they utilize relative carbon dating for that. It doesn't matter if they use numbers around 10,000 years, 10 million years, or even 100 billion years. It would be consistent relative to other rocks and therefore the actual age is pointless.
@@h20deliriousfan82carbon dating is not used for anything more than 50k years old.... this is basic.
@@h20deliriousfan82 why do all the scientists believe the evidence for an old earth if it’s so clearly wrong?
On top of the other responses in this thread, more recent studies in oil have discovered that it could be produced through possible inorganic processes.
@CJ-ik8qf clearly wrong? Doubtfully. And scientists believe or have belief? Also Doubtful. I would suggest that scientists know, and they know what they've been taught, and the teachers also scientists, which make hypothesis and then test them, and based on the outcomes under hypothesis testing, they make determinations. It's far from "Belief". I wonder what a scientist's response would be to all this. 🤔
Very compelling arguments for a young earth, thanks for sharing this video. This strengthens my faith in the inerrancy of Scripture.
very ridiculous arguments for a young earth by deluded indoctrinatees
so arguments > science?
@@casualfungaming4356 they are arguments from science.
@@ScriptureOnlyIsTruth the arguments they bring up with, together with the whole "cup dripping water" is as accurate of a scientific argument as flat-earther trying to argue the earth is not a globe... Their arguments are heavily flawed and they make it appear as if science is just "guess-work" until the puzzle-pieces "fit"... If that was the case, we would have NEVER made it to the moon as every rocket would have exploded if we used mathematics and scientific methods in such a way nor would ANY scientific device remotely work if we just estimated things and then applied them... Science is an ever evolving field as we learn more and more (which is the opposite with religion as its conservative with nature and can NOT adapt to change without creating conflict) and historians never claimed 100% fool-proof that every date or historical event is/ was played out as they were, as we accept as we learn more about (for example dinosaurs) how they looked like as better methods and research becomes available to us... but that DOESN'T mean you just can say that "oh, so that means the earth is only a handful of thousands of years old afterall ".
@@roscius6204 The idea of millions of years is just that - an idea. The evidence from Science, however, support a young earth. As an example, many scientists believe the dinosaurs lived 65 millions years ago and this has been taught in schools as a fact. But science now shows this is wrong with the recent discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur bones which are found in many parts of the world. Like the Big Bang, this discovery sent shockwaves to the scientific world who take for granted that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Now Science has taught us that dinosaurs are not old.
Many don't talk about it because that information is not pertinent to one's salvation and has not been revealed to us. It's nice to speculate, but we really don't know.
Correct but fake religions purposely call Genesis fake to lead people away
The very fact that wherever discussing and existing is super natural
There is no scriptual evidence for this but Adam was created as an adult with 20 or 30 years worth of history. Trees were created with varying numbers of yearly rings, showing their history at creation. Why not then could galaxies have been created a few days earlier with billions of years worth of history built in. Logical.
You gotta ask why. Isn't it easier that the built in history is actually real. Or does the big old dude in the sky just want to f"ck with us?
It's also logical that God might have just created me a few seconds ago and I found myself reading your comment. Similarly God might have created you just before you viewed the above the video and made your comment.
@stevearcus2963 This is the exact view I hold and seems to clearly bridge the gap between a Bible timeline and our estimations about the age of the universe.
Books of Job explains by God when He created us in the spirit body at the same time as He created dinosaurs millions millions years ago. There are more places in the bible that confirms this earth is millions and millions old.
Excellent. I recent found this site and really love it!!
I learned a lot!!
uranium-lead dating, abbreviated U-Pb dating, is one of the oldest and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes. It can be used to date rocks that formed and crystallized from about 1 million year to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1-1% range.
But how do we know it is uniform all the way back? We don't have an absolute sample that we know is a billion years old to accurately test to know the system is accurate. Basically we have to believe it is accurate by faith.
@@jamminjimmy3848 physics don't change...
If you go back far enough the physics do change
@@jamminjimmy3848because if it was different...physics would have changed...and if that happens then ALL scientific theories are wrong...from germs to gravity.
and that is why you get numbers far from reality everytime you use this methode to messure the age of rocks with known age (Aetna, St. Helens. Krakatau, Hawaii, Island and many more)… very logical. We should determine the worth of a method by provable results, not by what a religion (Darwinism, evolutionism) commands
"When science supports the Bible, the science is true. When science appears to contradict the Bible, the science is false and the scientists are conspiring against us." This approach has been around for several hundred years and is the guiding principle for why heliocentricism, germ theory of disease, Darwinism, etc. was originally rejected by Christianity but eventually was accepted once the evidence became so overwhelming.
@@alandiehl3619 apparently you did not watch the video
@@joheinz1398 Watched all of it. I was raised young Earth creationist so very familiar with the arguments.
The problem with all the evidence is we personally can not verify. I know I can't date anything like that so much like the Bible science first people are taking the word of people they have never met telling them things that an average individual cannot verify. People who go science first and don't know science, not saying you don't but almost everyone on earth does not have the knowledge. Science is based on faith just like the Bible, at its core. At the end of the day science books, much like the Bible, were written in ways we common people will never be able to verify. It's all about faith. Faith in science? Faith in the Bible and Jesus? Very very similar.
It is just Blind Faith, believe it if you want to.
Why did I get a notification on this? Was my comment deleted?
Let's just take a moment to talk about the Big Bang Theory, which most who believe in evolution also believe in the Big Bang. Please stick around until the end if you want to learn some things that proves science surrounding this subject doesn't know what it's talking about, and even directly contradicts itself in a lot of ways. This in no way is meant to stir and argument, and if you disagree, or see that I made a mistake, feel free to let me know - I value the truth just as much as the next man, so an open discussion on my incorrectness would only mean that I am learning something new. This will be a long one, but I will keep it interesting and informative for those who can stand to read.
For starters, what is the Big Bang? Well, it was not two subatomic particles that collided causing the endless expanse that we know as the universe. Evolutionists and Big Bang theorists say that "energy" accumulated at a point somewhere in space where it was so dense and hot that it began to expand rapidly - thus the name, "Big Bang". The contradiction here is that, scientists suggest that the Big Bang happened and then the universe was created, yet the the "energy" could only have accumulated if at one point is was not accumulated. To be blunt, that implies that the universe had to already exist, and that this "energy" was already moving around the universe in order for an accumulation of "energy" to take place. But wait, it gets better - or worse, depending on what you believe.
The next issue you run into is, why is there such diversity in every plant we've ever seen, in every living creature we ever discovered, in every human who walks/has walked on the earth? How could it be possible that the same micro-organisms created such diversity? Well, you'll first want to understand what DNA is, as it is the thing that separates each living creature into its own species. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that contains genetic information for the development, growth, reproduction, and functioning of all life. In this way, and this way alone, are humans and animals similar - there is nothing other than the need for food and water, reproduction, growth and basic functions such as breathing that connects humans and animals. Saying that humans share 90% DNA with apes does not mean that we came from apes, it simply means that apes require a lot of the things that humans also require in order to survive. It's as they say, a beach ball can float like a boat, but you can't use them both for the same purpose.... depending on how big the boat is, or how many beach balls you have.
Ridiculous analogies aside, lets talk about water molecules during the Big Bang. Let's start by imagining a pot of water sitting on a stove that is set to the highest temperature. Eventually that water will be vaporized into a gaseous state where it will then condensate until enough of it has accumulated causing it to rain because the water molecules become too heavy to be sustained in the sky. However, that only works on Earth, because space doesn't have an atmosphere, oxygen, nor gravity, so condensation and precipitation are not possible in space - only evaporation is. Keeping this in mind, stars emit unfathomable amounts of heat, and even in space this heat can not only vaporize water molecules, but out right destroy it entirely, as well as anything else that it comes into contact with. Sure, maybe it is practical to suggest that the water vaporized into a gaseous form, and then got to where it is now via condensation, and precipitation as it entered the earth's atmosphere. The issue being with this next question though... how come this "energy", which scientists actually suggest was 18 billion degrees Fahrenheit, which is hotter than anything humans could imagine, didn't destroy every living organism and all the water where the organisms had to be in order to survive? I'm not the arbiter of all things that are true and false, but that does not add up. Perhaps it's just me, or someone got a significant portion of their information wrong. It doesn't end there though.
A fun science fact to send you through a loop about water in space is, water will rapidly boil away in space because the lack of air pressure. The lower the air pressure, the lower the heat required to boil water. You can verify this by boiling water at sea level, and then doing the same on top of Mt. Everest - you will observe that the heat required to boil the water is reduced. But wait, lets let science contradict science, because in the last 30 years massive bodies of water have been discovered floating in space. No, not just here and there... everywhere... No, not the gaseous form, the liquid form. A recently discovered, but far from the only, body of water in space scientists estimate to be 140 trillion times more than that of the total water on Earth. This very discovery would suggest that water does not vaporize rapidly, if at all, as we would see water in the gaseous form, not its liquid form. While it is possible for some, and I mean slim to none, water to be found in space as space is not a perfect vacuum with 0 air pressure, with the scientific facts that we know, more than 98% of that body of water discovered in space would not actually exist in the form that it is in.
Here is where you add insult to injury - and while it might not be a contradiction, it certainly is notable on how much, or should I say little, most scientists actually comprehend the universe we live in, and should expand on how much they just make up and sell to people. They're saying that this body of water is 12 billion years old. That's right, 12,000,000,000 years old. Surely, everyone who actually ends up reading this has at one point heard of Carbon Dating. This is the process in which scientists claim they can measure the age of something without knowing when its origin was, and they do so by measuring the amount of carbon 14 (C-14) in any given object that contains organic material - yes, they also can do this to water by extracting the carbonates of the water. Coincidentally, this body of water happens to be billions of light years away. This would imply they actually travelled to the body of water, collected samples, and actually tested it. We all know full-well nobody ever did that. Even if they were on their way to do it, it would take billions of years in science's own logic before they could get close enough to touch the water, but then, likely billions of more years to send that information back to earth.
A fun fact about carbon dating is that, even scientists suggest that carbon dating does not work on anything older than 20,000 years old, nor is it effective against non-organic materials. All the while, other scientists suggest that carbon dating works for up to 55,000 year old organic material - this is because the C-14 has already underwent 9 half lives in which the C-14 is not able to be properly tested due to there not being enough of it. So we see an endless spree of inconsistencies amongst all scientists on the subject of carbon dating. Clearly, if scientists are using the same process to carbon date something and constantly come up with different answers, the logical conclusion is that carbon dating is worse than just inaccurate and unreliable. If you think that's crazy, a scientist could claim that a rock is hundreds of thousands of years old, all the while having zero basis because the inconsistent carbon dating process does not work on rocks.
I don't claim to be a genius, in fact, I am just a normal dude who went through the same indoctrination program that we call school as most of you did, but from what I have learned in school on the subject, and applying common sense to a lot of the things mentioned above - none of it adds up. That's because it was made up. I do not deny all science, as I actually agree with quite a bit of science, but I will always reject the scientists who go out of their way to contradict God, because, as mentioned above, (which doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the matter) scientists make up baseless points and arguments that a lot of people just take at face value without even looking into it themselves. If those people would look into it, and then put their thought into it, they will also find various contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out made up nonsense like the ones I have mentioned.
"Big Bang theorists say that "energy" accumulated at a point somewhere in space where it was so dense and hot that it began to expand rapidly - thus the name, "Big Bang". The contradiction here is that, scientists suggest that the Big Bang happened and then the universe was created, yet the the "energy" could only have accumulated if at one point is was not accumulated."
Umm no. There was no space, and in fact, at this point no one really knows how the Singularity came into being. It is all conjecture. It was super hot and it was condensed energy. It did expand. As it did, space came into being.
"The next issue you run into is, why is there such diversity in every plant we've ever seen, in every living creature we ever discovered, "
The Theory of Evolution explains this. Not sure why you think it an issue.
"Saying that humans share 90% DNA with apes"
We share a huge amount of mistakes and broken genes with apes. (we are apes btw)
"lets talk about water molecules during the Big Bang."
There were none. In fact, molecules of any sort did not appear for a very long time. Water was not possible for millions and millions of years.
You seem to have missed the fact that there a great many different temperatures happening in various parts of space. Extremely high temps and extremely low ones. Not sure why you think water cannot form- in gas, liquid and solid forms. Fun extra fact, many planets have atmospheres.
Carbon dating is not, by any means, the only dating method. As you say, it is accurate within a very limited range. Why are you citing it?
Maybe you have some killer arguments. None of this lot fit that category.
Thank you for writing this.
@AGuyNamedMarcus Fun fact. The Theory says that the only space that existed was at the point of the Singularity. It wasn't at a point in space. Space was at that point. All of it. Since the expansion, space has been expanding.
@@ozowen it just makes no sense. All space that has existed and ever will exist existed at that single point?
@@justinscheapguitarsandreviews
It is certainly hard to get yr head around. That same space is expanding even as we speak. And the expansion is accelerating. We tend to think of space as nothing and at the same time we think of it as everything. However physics has shown space is weirdly a "fabric" we call the space/ time continuum. It expands, it is bent by mass (gravity) and time is absolutely linked to space as well.
And, as far as we can tell, there is nothing our expanding universe is expanding into.
Our brains fry on this stuff. But the evidence is what it is.
To take the facts and simply say that because we werent there to witness these things means they cant be true is ridiculous.
If you want to believe that God is sound in all ways, for example spiritually, morally, etc then He is also scientifically sound. The CMB (cosmic microwave background) as well as radiation waves in space recently discovered by the James Webb telescope all confirm that the universe is very close to 13.8 billion years old. There are many different facts that prove the earth is billions of years old, we just didn't have this knowledge and understanding thousands of years ago.
In his book Darwin mentioned pictures of flowers and dog breeds. He observed the evolution
The problem for me comes in when you say that you cant scientifically state the age of something, then you claim you know something else based on no evidence
@@Mr.E1 Isn't the evolution theory not based on the same? Extrapolation of a limited timelapse proves the age of millions of years?
The bible reaches the evidence of its truth each time again.
Assumptions are inescapable no matter where you stand. What you believe, you believe by faith. The old Indian said the world existed on the back of a turtle. At first glance this seems simplistic and ignorant. It is actually quite wise. It is all you need to know about the things that are unanswerable.
Because evolution has evidence? The "mountain of evidence" could be easily faked and made that up by scientists themself. Have you ever saw a being evolving into another? The answer is no, but still you believe in it because "oh there's evidence". The problem it's not believing in evolution, but consider it as a fact and condemn those who think it differently
@@FedeM_Reaper789you cannot actually see evolution because our civilization is so young in relation to the time it takes for the process of evolution to take place. Apes didn't just give birth to homo sapien, there was a lot in between and it is still going. We are not the final product unless we blow our selves up to extinction which is getting more likely these days.
@FedeM_Reaper789 then whatever imaginary friend you have there in your head did a bad thing while making us, a human embryo with a tail, I doubt it anyone can achieve the level of idiocy your imaginary friend has.
Potassium-argon dating - The half-life of potassium-40 is 1.3 billion years, far longer than that of carbon-14, allowing much older samples to be dated.
We r living in a simulation created by the matrix
It is highly recommended to watch/read the material first before commenting since many of these things could be addressed there ;)
@@CapybaraTut I've already seen it. Ken Walters is a liar
@@CapybaraTut I won't trust in young Earth creationists. I will trust in other science rather than those pushing the idea of a false god. Especially since they can't prove a god exists. If a god created something. Where did this God get the material if there was nothing. Something can't come from nothing, and nothing equals a god
Books of Job explains by God when He created us in the spirit body at the same time as He created dinosaurs millions millions years ago. There are more places in the bible that confirms this earth is millions and millions old.
False premise within the first 3 minutes that “there can’t be death and sin before the fall.” Satan fell and sinned and therefore many other angels were also sinning.
@@nichetcher1 the fall that brought death to Adam and Eve ( and you & me) and the earth was their fall/ their disobedience. The Bible tells us that all creation groans because of sin - human sin. I think you know this already. The discussion image of the earth, not when satan fell.
The fall of man is the fall he was talking about. Read the biblical account of “sin entered the world through the first man.”
Satan fell in 1st age when we were all in spirit body and fallen angels fell on 2nd age now we live in flesh body because they came down in angel body and seduced women and giants were born. Peter explains there are 3 ages. We are in 2nd age now and 3rd age is eternal age where Satan and his followers are all trun to dust to parish.
that´´s another class of beings, not the sin of man
Good stuff! Thanks 👍