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)
For all you hard-core "Science" people they said petrified trees were millions of years old. When Mt. St Helen exploded it petrified trees in mere years. Also a man sent samples of 1 these trees to be measured by radiometric dating which came up with the age of these trees to be a 100,000 years to millions of years old.. The trees were not older than 10 years.
You do realize that one example of innacurrate radiometric dating doesn't mean that all radiometric dating is innacurrate right? Also I love how creationists despise radiometric dating saying how innacurrate it is but when it supports their world view they accept its accuracy without question.
@jamesonbolen9058 They found a pair of cowboy boots from the 1800s and they were petrified. How did that happen? Lol! I was raised Catholic, and as we read the Bible in catechism, we were told that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was just a story and wasn't really true. It was just a parable so to speak which confused me. Then I started learning evolution in school and I thought it was fascinating because my little mind was science oriented. I still am very science oriented but not like before, I am interested in the science of the Bible, his creation, and the truth of God. And with the evidence so striking throughout the world, regarding the flood and fossils there is no doubt to me!!! I thank God for revealing this to me during my life! God's accomplishment, not man's achievements!
The man you mention was Dr. Steven Austin. Dr. Austin's conclusion was that radiometric dating is uselessly unreliable. Critics found that Dr. Austin chose a dating technique that is inappropriate for the sample tested, and charged that he deliberately used the wrong experiment in order to promote the idea that science fails to show that the Earth is older than the Bible claims.
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.
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
I love this! I hrew up sooo sheltered by my mom. Sadly, she didn’t offer apologetics as she didn’t have the resources. I went to school and heard "billions" of years and evolution, I just didn’t believe it. When I found out what a theory was and evolution, big bang were all theories, I thought there you go, they don't really know. Oh how satisfying it was to listen to my first creationist! And this video is just as delightful! Will sit down with my grandchildren and Genesis and add up the years of the Earth!
God bless you man. Dk what their problem is or who handed that person the mic to speak on it and market as a theory. But clearly the biased views came from area deeper than human existence.
Did you not pay attention in class? You were never taught the definition of scientific theory? Evolution is a fact. Scientific theories explain facts. There is no higher level of explanation in science than scientific theory. Scientific theories can even incorporate scientific laws. The Germ theory of disease, for example, explains the facts pertaining to microbes and how they cause illness and disease. Evolutionary theory explains biodiversity of life on Earth. Evolutionary theory is an extremely important scientific theory, as much of modern medicine is based directly upon evolutionary theory. It just doesn't get any 'better' than theory in science.
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.
@@criztuyou say that it does. Please show and identify the source of the Greek text and lexical definitions. I would translate it as, “But, [the] natural soul [of] man…”. It’s not saying “the soul man”. Thus, it’s not referring specifically back to Adam and is a general overall statement of mankind’s natural spiritual condition.
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.
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.
I don't need to be a scientist to know this world was created. All I have to do is look at one beautiful creature and I know that didn't happen by random chance.
The fact you say random chance means you really have no clue. It's called selection pressures. Selection focuses on alleles that work for the given ecosystems.
There's so much beauty around us, true. But why would God need to create 400,000 different species of Beetles? Better question: did God create beautiful creatures in other planets?
@@robertdennis3892 hey brother I'm am a young Christian and I have heard a couple of other people talk about this subject and I believe in the earth being as old as GOD has said so I haven't heard it yet but I will I have a 2 pound brain and I worship a being that we can't understand in the Trinity of being 1 and 3 at the same time so I love these bible scholars and other sciencetis that have lost there jobs because of wanting to tell the truth and our gov. And the devil suppressing information from us so I really think he runs this country just my opinion but thanks for speaking out our GOD is to great to understand now when we get better bodies and everything else then we will understand but I think by that time our minds will be focused on the job that he has intended for us in the first place just my thoughts though thanks for your opinion GOD loves us so I love you take care stand strong and keep your head up!!!!!
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.
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.
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!!
@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.
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?
@@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
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.
Most important verse in the Bible. Hebrews 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
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!
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
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
@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?
Ummm I’m a Christian but this one’s tough to prove. We know the speed of light, so when we look at stars and the near eternity of how big space is even at that speed, we know how long it takes for light to reach us. It takes millions of years to cover this distances. How can this be disproven or just thought about? Anyone?
Authentic science isn't technically a declaration of the nature of reality. It is a tool for observing the natural environment in order to make predictions about it. All conclusions in true science must be considered tentative, no matter how convincing they may be. Isaac Newton's ideas about the laws of physics dominated that field of science for more than a century before Albert Einstein presented a wholly different hypothesis which is now shown to be more accurate. _But we still use Newton's content because it is still useful._ Science is a tool. A testimony of faith is not a tool.
I'd point out that no one's ever measured the distances to stars with a tape measure; the distances are only ever calculated, and some of the ways that the distances are calculated are dubious. Halton Arp was a secular scientist who showed that redshift is unreliable, for example. I don't know what Pierre-Marie Robitaille's faith is, but he's been calling into question all of stellar physics, arguing that stars are made of liquid metallic hydrogen rather than gaseous plasma. If he's right, then our understanding of white dwarves is completely wrong, which would mean that our understanding of type 1a supernovae (assumed to be white dwarf explosions) is completely wrong, which would mean that the brightness of type 1a supernovae can't be used to calculate distances on cosmic scales. But even if we take all the distances on faith for the sake of argument, Jason Lisle showed that the distant starlight problem really only exists if the world is Newtonian. As soon as you accept Einsteinian physics, there is no longer a problem. Because space and time are woven together in relativity theory, the notion of simultaneity itself is no longer absolute. Event A and event B could happen at the same time in one person's frame of reference, but not in another person's frame of reference. In order to get around this problem, you need to introduce something called a synchronicity convention, which is a fancy way of saying how you're defining how distant clocks are synchronized to each other. Einstein knew that he had to pick a synchronicity convention for the sake of doing calculations, but he was aware that it was an arbitrary choice and that one is free to pick different synchronicity conventions. The physics itself is completely equivalent if you use a different synchronicity convention, it's just that points in spacetime would be labeled by different coordinates, and in relativity theory, no coordinate system is less valid than any other. Anyway, Jason Lisle discovered a synchronicity convention that would allow for distant starlight to reach earth instantaneously no matter the distance. Since the relativity of simultaneity implies that we have to invent synchronicity conventions, and since no synchronicity convention is more valid than any other, if we accept relativity, we also have to accept that, in the right coordinate system, light would reach the earth instantaneously. He therefore argues that the Bible probably just uses a different synchronicity convention than the one Einstein used. God bless
@@aaroncadena6398 please have an open mind and go find pastor Dean Odle. He'll explain everything. He has a web page with all of his sermons. Knowing we've only been here 6,000 years is a great starting point. Now you need to understand where we are.
@@justinjozokos1699 No one has measured distances to stars with a tape measure, true, but within our solar system (or just our planet) the distance light has traveled in a specific time has been measured. But lets just accept your entire thesis as is. If your logic is sound, you have essentially proven that both the scientific account for age of Earth/universe can simultaneously true along with Biblical account for age of Earth/universe. In which case the point of this video is moot.
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.
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”.
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.
Thank you CMI, it's not fundamentaly about science but a worldview, belief or framework of how to interpret the past. When examining and probing the core issue, people get nervous and often react emotionally on both sides, Christian or not. That's why I am persuaded to think Peter writes to "season with grace" when giving an answer. Grace for the negative emotional reaction saved or not sometimes.
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!
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.
@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
@@UrbFoxFact The one true God. Jesus Christ. As an evangelist I know a bit about all the many false religions put there, but know Jesus is the truth. John 3:16,18 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
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 don't know if anyone will ever answer me, but I'll try to ask my questions anyway. If anyone reads this: pls try to understamd my thoughts and i would appriciate any comment, response and explanation. I've been trying to understand how the earth and this universe came to be for a long time, but this video has only raised more questions for me instead of answering them. I agree with the point that our belief in God (or no God) affects our view of creation. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then the world could have been created 6000 years ago, that's true. Nothing is impossible for God. But does the theory of evolution really rule out a God? I don't think so. Of course this theory arose from the belief that there is no God, but it does not rule out an omnipotent God. So which of the two theories seems more plausible? As a devout Christian, I am not convinced by the theory in this video because it still leaves gaps. God exists outside of space and time, so we cannot say that seven days for God are the same as seven days for humans. One of the Gospels even states that for God, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. Furthermore, I don’t think God is a God who wants to lead us astray, giving us methods to date objects that turn out to be inaccurate. God wants us to discover and study His creation. He doesn’t want us to believe in Him first to understand how the world was created. He wants us to understand how the world was created, and in doing so, come to believe in Him, because the most logical explanation for creation is a Creator. It may be that the dating of rocks and bones etc is not 100% reliable, but we have found bones, like dinosaur bones, that don't fit into the creation story of the Bible, yet these bones are here and they obviously don't belong to a being that is still alive because they are far too big. So how did the bones come to earth? Were there dinosaurs and if so, when? In the last 6000 years? Then why are they no longer alive? Why is there nothing in the Bible about gigantic lizards? If everything written in Genesis really happened exactly as described, then there should be something about dinosaurs in it. This scientist has a good point when he says that death and suffering only came into the world after the Fall. And this world, as we know it through the theory of evolution, has been marked by death and suffering from the very beginning. Therefore, the theory of evolution cannot be correct. That’s definitely true, but Genesis also states that after the Fall, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, or from Paradise. This means the Garden of Eden cannot have been on this earth. Could it be that Adam and Eve first lived in Paradise and were then banished to this earth? How did God create the world then? If the world was created 6,000 years ago, He would have had to create everything with a snap of His fingers. One moment, there’s nothing; the next moment, everything is as we know it. That’s not how I imagine God as a Creator. As we see today, every new creation is a process of development. A new tree doesn’t just appear out of nowhere; it must grow from a seed. A baby doesn’t simply pop into existence in the womb; it undergoes an entire process of development. And as Christians, we believe that a man and a woman in marriage have the honor of participating in creation, of being co-creators, and thus bringing forth new life. When I look at creation today, and see that new life is born daily with all the children being born, the theory of a young earth seems less plausible to me than the theory of evolution. This kind of creation described in the Bible doesn’t align with the image of God we know. God is someone who takes His time to bring creation to completion. He never created anything out of nothing with a snap of His fingers. Everything He has created has gone through a process of development, and we can observe this in creation today. That’s why the theory of evolution seems more plausible to me than this other theory. The seven days of creation should only be understood symbolically.
That’s exactly how it happened lol… He created Adam as a man from dust… He’s God. He can do whatever He wants however He wants. I would say that it wouldn’t be very awe-inspiring if God could only create things in a manner most similar to how we see things happening today.
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.
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.
One stake in the ground for all believers is Hebrews 11, particularly verses 1 and 6, regarding the indispensable requirement of faith. By extension, that is permanently coupled to the inerrancy of the Word of God. As pointed out here in this wonderful presentation, God is the Alpha, the Creator. He says…is all we really need to know, however, over and over again God reveals through a myriad of mechanisms proofs/evidences if you will of Himself and His Word. Thank you for this important video. Very well done.
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 !
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.
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.
@@M00nGlitz What you just said didn't refute anything stated or any evidence presented here. John 3:16,18 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
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.
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.
@@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 !
Hi guys. Love your work but you mention at 36:20 that the river systems around the world dump about 20B tonnes of sediment into the oceans every year, which is roughly 6-8km^3 of sediment (assuming that it mainly comes from sandstone, silt and clays, roughly 2.6-3.3tonnes per m^3 in situ material), and I know that this was the current accepted geological stat agreed upon sometime in the 1980s and posted in current geologic textbooks but I was wondering if you could cross reference this figure with current GIS data? The reason I ask this is because lately I've been seeing claims of 40,000km^3 per annum based on surveying shoreline profiles of sediment build up at the end of these main rivers and smaller tributaries, which is a factor of nearly 10,000x that figure. If the latter figure is correct, then that would mean that the earth is eroding at a far greater rate than previously claimed. Using this latter rate and dividing it into the current known landmass of the earth this would erode the current surface to sea level in ~4,600 years (discounting the addition of landmass due to uplift of the continents, which would be in the METERS if this were actually true)! I'm trying to find recent papers presenting this current GIS surveying info and can only find some obscure paper that I don't have time to scrutinize properly. Do you mind if I ask that you check this GIS data for yourselves?
I watched something on the history channel were people doubted Noah’s flood and it was proven that there was a village that once was ans was covered with water at the time of the dlood
@joannea1686 the flood was global. It destroyed the entire earth ..in fact tectonic plates broke up and reshaped the land masses ..it was a complete and total catsriphic event for the entire globe..where 8 people were saved..possible more than a billion people perished in that disaster ..it was judgement on the earth by God..and it will be destroyed again..this time by fire ..you can count t on it as it's biblical and speaks of the future destruction by fire
There is also uplift due to plate tectonics that push mountains higher. There is also volcanism that puts solid material from the mantle onto the surface of Earth. This is happening today. Erosion estimates are just that, estimates. Today with Earth mapping satellites it is possible to refine that estimate.
@@Mamadukes1953 There are numerous villages and even cities being found all the time that are currently under water. Look at the example of Doggerland (many videos with scientific studies are available on UA-cam).
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 lemme ask, when Cain got banned from the garden of Eden and he got the mark on his forehead so no one would harm him, who were the other people? It clearly shows their were other people already
Cain wasn’t in the garden. Genesis isn’t an index on all knowledge of the beginning. It’s a narrative. It tells only the story it means to. Like any other book.
@@jessefontenot9846you didn't answer the point of the question at all, forget the garden, who were the other people when the Bible makes it sound like there were basically 4 people at that point.
Adam and Eve had many children after Seth, implying that they likely had many children before. That means Cain would’ve had brothers and sisters younger than him at the time, he and Abel being fully grown adults at this time
I don’t think the mark ever said he would be protected. Just says whoever does, vengeance would be 7 fold. Live by the sword… then Lamech says he’s cursed. Mmmmm
37:25 here you talk about the erosion rate and I was thinking about this last night. How and where are you measuring this erosion rate? I was reading an article last night that said due to human involvement all of our natural topsoil will be eroded in 60 years. Key phrase being human involvement. Please if you can give a link to your erosion tests.
Ever heard of The Dust Bowls? Industrial-scale tractor farming, government mis-interventions, lobbyists demanding extra mis-interventions, and drought all combined to strip dozens of feet of top soil across millions of square miles… Usually leaving single-digit feet of soil, or mere inches. Compare soil reports and records across multiple biomes in the 1700s-1800s. Now compare with the Dust Bowls. Then compare that to the results of “Go Big Or Go Home” mega-farms.
1 Timothy 1:4 applies. It doesn't matter if the earth is 6 thousand years or 6 billion years. All that matters is God did it. This sort of discussion ranks right up there with Church vs Galileo regarding Heliocentricity; you'd think we would have learned from that.
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.
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.
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?"😅
I love how confident they are when there is not someone with opposing views to correct or confirm weather or not they are expressing what scientists actually think. I can tell you that they definitely do not express what I know at all. They make up a lot of assumptions and beliefs. I would love to see them talk with real scientists. I would love to talk with them. Lol
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.
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.
🐻 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.
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 👍
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.
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.
Of course it is. Have you ever been in a plane? Looked out at the horizon? Isaiah 40:22 says it’s a circle + our experience. I don’t know if this is serious Q but ppl actually think otherwise. Strange.
Which one of you 2 are scientists? Which one if you 2 is a geologist? Would it not make sense to have someone in this conversation who would hold a different view? Or do you like hearing yourself talk?
I would say your on the right track.I appreciate the unpacking of their concepts it brings to light some god points about how we date things. However, it expressly states in genesis, time is not to scale when talking about the creation. It then flips to the documentation of family bloodlines (people lived longer) that's the 6k-12k After Adam is walking the earth. I'm not sure who injected this idea Science and scripture are apposed. Scripture left the time period ambiguous for a reason. said a "day is like a thousand years" and "let the EARTH bring forth animals of its kind" that's clearly a description of evolution and a powerful automation aka mother earth. God never made the animals he made a automated system that made the animals.
@@imFruzzyyou don’t need a political Degree inorder to vote because it’s a right.. if people wants to exercise there rights to vote then let them ..who are you to deny there right to vote and tell them not to vote because they don’t have a degree in politics… I certainly don’t believe you your self have a degree in politics if you did have a degree in politics you’d know that people do have the Right to vote and wouldn’t be trying to deny them that right to vote by telling them not to vote if they don’t have degree in politics.. 15th Amendment Primary tabs Amendment XV Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation… Do you have a degree in politics? If you don’t have
Really? I cannot understand how a adult could possibly believe in this insane concept? How could anyone believe Noah lived 600yrs? Let alone the rest of this ludicrous myth.
@@anthonymullins2861 There are adults who think for themselves and adults that need guidance a faith, a cult and leader to tell them what to think....l think l know which section you are in.
@srs2283 Show me the evidence, not what you were told before you could think for yourself, or even know how to ask a question! My evidence for God is, go outside, open your eyes, and look around!
@glenmcarthur.....yes, really! We live in a contained system. High pressure cannot exist adjacent to a vacuum, not even with the THEORY of "grabbbity" as a reason.
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.
A question that arises is the origin of defensive/offensive structures in animals and plants. Where did fangs and poison glands come from? Did these things have other functions before sin and death came into the world? Scripture mentions thorns coming about after man's fall. Perhaps these things came about because of the curse, but some of them are so complex that they seem like a second creation.
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
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
Did you consider that lucifer sinned before Adam and was cast out of heaven? Could he have tried to create life and it was destroyed pre-Adam? It always was on my mind that God asked Adam to replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28) as if something was there before? Most versions use "fill the earth" but KJV says replenish... Then again He asks Noah to replenish the earth in Genesis 9:1 KJV so the same word is used and the 2nd time, it means exactly that...reolenish. So i expect the 1st time it meant the same thing too.
The Bible doesn’t say the Earth is only 6000 years old. When it’s talking about creation, it’s talking about the creation of a covenant people, a kingdom. It’s not talking about the creation of heaven and earth as literal, they’re being used metaphorically to describe the peopleof God’s kingdom, covenant.
@@Dallas-Quinley how do you know that is metaphorical and not other stuff in the Bible is also that. Say that Jesus rised. That could also be a metaphor then.
@@tippsish you tell me :) what could “risen” metaphorical mean for Jesus. Of course you can see sky and air as a metaphor for how the atmosphere was formed during the evolution of earth. Same as you can see “risen” as that Jesus / gods spirit rose to return to heaven. And that he physically did not lift off so to speak
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?
As you say, we could have written records from all the way back to Adam, but we also know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16. Therefore we can trust that every bit of the Bible is accurate and true, because it was inspired to man, through the Holy Spirit.
@@MutsPub also I mean there's soooo much power to be gained by telling everyone to give up all of what you have to the poor and go and love your enemies, even if they kill you
There again is that circular reasoning: "... but we also know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16.", in order to try and make their claim: "... every bit of the Bible is accurate and true, ..." appear to be true, and they finish with another circular reasoning: "... because it was inspired to man, through the Holy Spirit."
In the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, there are dozens of petrified forests, stacked one upon the other. These are separate and distinct episodes of forest growth that were in turn covered in sequential layers of volcanic ash. And to the northeast of these is yet another sequence of dozens of petrified forests, one on top of the other, in the Absaroka Mountains which pre-date the Yellowstone volcanic formations. And these two are just a small part of the entire geologic record found on the earth. I guarantee they far outweigh the flimsy explanation proffered in Genesis 1 & 2, especially since those two chapters use the word "day" three different ways to describe the creation. Oops.
I don't think he's listening close enough to what he's saying.When God said after creation that everything was good, did he say, '' except for the radioactive elements which are actually in a state of decay? He's arguing for the necessity of Christ that death and decay did not exist before sin, yet the only problem he has with radiometric dating is the rate of decay?. Walt Brown has a very good argument against radiometric decay in the beginning as a part of creation. It's simple. It didn't happen until the flood. We can now, in a lab, through pressure and electric charge, alter the proton count and change one element into another where it then begins a rate of decay that can be measured in millions of years (I may be off on the exact process, it's been a while). Earth's crust is composed of , I think, 70% quartz which has a massive amount of stored electrical potential, the same electricity that lights your bbq when you press a button and a small hammer hits a piece of quartz and releases some of that stored energy in the form of a small lightening bolt. Now think about an ocean of water on top of all this quartz during Noah's flood with an electrical storm being activated in the ground below , the same process we can influence proton count with in laboratory's today. This seems to be the best explanation to me. For the record I'm not a scientist and my explanation may have many mistakes, or exclusions, but to me this was the only way I could explain it. Great video thank you.
There's a misconception here relating to the naming of terms: It seems you're saying that radioactive *decay* must necessarily be a _bad_ thing because it includes the word *decay* . But this is not the case. It's just the name that has been given to a scientific process of change in (non-living) things. (By way of analogy, it would be a bit like calling gravity a _bad_ process because it makes things *fall* , and falling is bad, right? E.g. people 'fall' into sin, Satan 'fell', etc. But this is clearly a bad argument.) Just because a process has 'decay' in it's (English) name doesn't ncesessarily mean it's a _bad_ process in and of itself. That said, I don't think there is any place in the video where Dr Harwood explicitly says (or refers to) radioactive decay happening between Creation and the Fall? Regarding Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, we have an in-depth analysis of this on our site: creation.com/hydroplate-theory Also, see: creation.com/hydroplate-theory-difficulties
I think Walter Brown has the best explanation of the Genesis flood and the world as we see it today. Adding a canopy of ice would explain the waters above the firmament and the windows of heaven in the Genesis account. And can also scientifically explain other things like giant plants which can be duplicated in hyperbaric chambers with increased co2, giant insects could not fly or breathe in today's atmosphere and venomous critters with thermal detection and ranging couldn't possibly be called "good", and may have been medicinal and able to detect inflammation heat in the preflood conditions. I don't think there was rain or rainbows before the flood either.
@@creationministriesintl Sure but radioactive elements damage our cells. Hardly something , it would seem, God would call good. I read the in depth analysis, and I am merely speaking of the beginning of radioactive elements. The gravity scenario seems to be somewhat of a equivocation fallacy. Gravity is constant and doesn't decay. So you really have two things to explain now. Why decaying material was part of creation week, and now you must explain why for us Christians it is okay to inject our own presupposition on the rate of decay which differs from known empirical observation. If the answer is, "it must be because the age of the earth is young", your argument is no better than the evolutionist when they say we know evolution is true because we exist. I do appreciate however, your ministry and in particular the helium dating process which, correct me if I'm wrong, was developed my a team from CMI?
The canopy theory was once popular, but has been rejected-with good reason-by informed creationists for a long time now. (In fact, it has long been on our list of 'Argumetns we thin creationists should NOT use' - creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#canopy ) I'm sure you'll be interested to read some reasoning: creation.com/vapour-canopy-problems Also we think it most likely that there were both rain and rainbows before the Flood (and this is totally compatible with the relevant Bible texts). For reasoning, see: creation.com/rainbows-and-the-flood
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.
For all you hard-core "Science" people they said petrified trees were millions of years old. When Mt. St Helen exploded it petrified trees in mere years. Also a man sent samples of 1 these trees to be measured by radiometric dating which came up with the age of these trees to be a 100,000 years to millions of years old.. The trees were not older than 10 years.
Do petrified trees only exist near volcanos? Checkmate.
You do realize that one example of innacurrate radiometric dating doesn't mean that all radiometric dating is innacurrate right? Also I love how creationists despise radiometric dating saying how innacurrate it is but when it supports their world view they accept its accuracy without question.
@jamesonbolen9058 They found a pair of cowboy boots from the 1800s and they were petrified. How did that happen? Lol! I was raised Catholic, and as we read the Bible in catechism, we were told that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was just a story and wasn't really true. It was just a parable so to speak which confused me. Then I started learning evolution in school and I thought it was fascinating because my little mind was science oriented. I still am very science oriented but not like before, I am interested in the science of the Bible, his creation, and the truth of God. And with the evidence so striking throughout the world, regarding the flood and fossils there is no doubt to me!!!
I thank God for revealing this to me during my life! God's accomplishment, not man's achievements!
@@Th69571
Inaccurate results from a known calibration sample does indeed render the test method completly useless.
The man you mention was Dr. Steven Austin. Dr. Austin's conclusion was that radiometric dating is uselessly unreliable. Critics found that Dr. Austin chose a dating technique that is inappropriate for the sample tested, and charged that he deliberately used the wrong experiment in order to promote the idea that science fails to show that the Earth is older than the Bible claims.
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.
Good for you--I went through a similar evolution in belief and it made me strong in the final analysis.
Hahahaha
@@rangefighter4038 how did evil come about who created it and why
@@yuperrs9905 atheists? I don’t know why they created it. Do you?
@@yuperrs9905 is “evil” even a created thing? Perhaps “evil” is simply the conceptual antithesis to obedience (good) and love?
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!
I love this! I hrew up sooo sheltered by my mom. Sadly, she didn’t offer apologetics as she didn’t have the resources. I went to school and heard "billions" of years and evolution, I just didn’t believe it. When I found out what a theory was and evolution, big bang were all theories, I thought there you go, they don't really know. Oh how satisfying it was to listen to my first creationist! And this video is just as delightful! Will sit down with my grandchildren and Genesis and add up the years of the Earth!
God bless you man. Dk what their problem is or who handed that person the mic to speak on it and market as a theory. But clearly the biased views came from area deeper than human existence.
Did you not pay attention in class? You were never taught the definition of scientific theory?
Evolution is a fact. Scientific theories explain facts. There is no higher level of explanation in science than scientific theory. Scientific theories can even incorporate scientific laws.
The Germ theory of disease, for example, explains the facts pertaining to microbes and how they cause illness and disease. Evolutionary theory explains biodiversity of life on Earth.
Evolutionary theory is an extremely important scientific theory, as much of modern medicine is based directly upon evolutionary theory.
It just doesn't get any 'better' than theory in science.
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.
Joe vs the Volcano. Joe is a natural man and wears one Red Shoe. Joe is ok. Joe is just like you. Joe now lives in Greece. Who is, Joe?
@@criztuyou say that it does. Please show and identify the source of the Greek text and lexical definitions. I would translate it as, “But, [the] natural soul [of] man…”. It’s not saying “the soul man”. Thus, it’s not referring specifically back to Adam and is a general overall statement of mankind’s natural spiritual condition.
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.
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
I don't need to be a scientist to know this world was created. All I have to do is look at one beautiful creature and I know that didn't happen by random chance.
The fact you say random chance means you really have no clue. It's called selection pressures. Selection focuses on alleles that work for the given ecosystems.
Smh atheists 😂😂😂😂
There's so much beauty around us, true. But why would God need to create 400,000 different species of Beetles?
Better question: did God create beautiful creatures in other planets?
@@randomvintagefilm273 Look at the video of more than a dozen large maggots being removed from 2 baby birds to get a vision of this beautiful world.
@@GameTime-yj6qvPerhaps he created a few species and evolution followed?
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.
You are right and I will take it one step further. Scripture actually commands us to question it
You’re not God so that’s not your part to speak upon.
@@enzo-br7iustop huffing paint and writing comments you know nothing about.
@@robertdennis3892 hey brother I'm am a young Christian and I have heard a couple of other people talk about this subject and I believe in the earth being as old as GOD has said so I haven't heard it yet but I will I have a 2 pound brain and I worship a being that we can't understand in the Trinity of being 1 and 3 at the same time so I love these bible scholars and other sciencetis that have lost there jobs because of wanting to tell the truth and our gov. And the devil suppressing information from us so I really think he runs this country just my opinion but thanks for speaking out our GOD is to great to understand now when we get better bodies and everything else then we will understand but I think by that time our minds will be focused on the job that he has intended for us in the first place just my thoughts though thanks for your opinion GOD loves us so I love you take care stand strong and keep your head up!!!!!
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.
Faith is not a heart issue. It is a spiritual one. It is also not in conflict with reality.
It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God❤
Yea, like all those who’s children get diagnosed with brain cancer, all part of the plan 👍
As a Christian. I approve this message. God is good
I Don't I Hate The Young Earth Thing Sorry
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
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!!
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.
Very good interviewer! Others need to follow his example. Good questioning, listening, and not interrupting.
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?
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"
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.
Most important verse in the Bible.
Hebrews 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
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?
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') !
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?
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
You can google petrified cowboy boots … that’s not millions of years
I think the data is to suit scientists conclusions 😢
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
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".
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?
Thanks again for your time, GOD BLESS your ministry
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.
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..
Ummm I’m a Christian but this one’s tough to prove. We know the speed of light, so when we look at stars and the near eternity of how big space is even at that speed, we know how long it takes for light to reach us. It takes millions of years to cover this distances. How can this be disproven or just thought about? Anyone?
Authentic science isn't technically a declaration of the nature of reality. It is a tool for observing the natural environment in order to make predictions about it. All conclusions in true science must be considered tentative, no matter how convincing they may be. Isaac Newton's ideas about the laws of physics dominated that field of science for more than a century before Albert Einstein presented a wholly different hypothesis which is now shown to be more accurate. _But we still use Newton's content because it is still useful._ Science is a tool. A testimony of faith is not a tool.
@@aaroncadena6398 GOD put the stars in the sky as a display of His Greatness 🥰
I'd point out that no one's ever measured the distances to stars with a tape measure; the distances are only ever calculated, and some of the ways that the distances are calculated are dubious. Halton Arp was a secular scientist who showed that redshift is unreliable, for example. I don't know what Pierre-Marie Robitaille's faith is, but he's been calling into question all of stellar physics, arguing that stars are made of liquid metallic hydrogen rather than gaseous plasma. If he's right, then our understanding of white dwarves is completely wrong, which would mean that our understanding of type 1a supernovae (assumed to be white dwarf explosions) is completely wrong, which would mean that the brightness of type 1a supernovae can't be used to calculate distances on cosmic scales.
But even if we take all the distances on faith for the sake of argument, Jason Lisle showed that the distant starlight problem really only exists if the world is Newtonian. As soon as you accept Einsteinian physics, there is no longer a problem. Because space and time are woven together in relativity theory, the notion of simultaneity itself is no longer absolute. Event A and event B could happen at the same time in one person's frame of reference, but not in another person's frame of reference. In order to get around this problem, you need to introduce something called a synchronicity convention, which is a fancy way of saying how you're defining how distant clocks are synchronized to each other. Einstein knew that he had to pick a synchronicity convention for the sake of doing calculations, but he was aware that it was an arbitrary choice and that one is free to pick different synchronicity conventions. The physics itself is completely equivalent if you use a different synchronicity convention, it's just that points in spacetime would be labeled by different coordinates, and in relativity theory, no coordinate system is less valid than any other. Anyway, Jason Lisle discovered a synchronicity convention that would allow for distant starlight to reach earth instantaneously no matter the distance. Since the relativity of simultaneity implies that we have to invent synchronicity conventions, and since no synchronicity convention is more valid than any other, if we accept relativity, we also have to accept that, in the right coordinate system, light would reach the earth instantaneously. He therefore argues that the Bible probably just uses a different synchronicity convention than the one Einstein used.
God bless
@@aaroncadena6398 please have an open mind and go find pastor Dean Odle. He'll explain everything. He has a web page with all of his sermons. Knowing we've only been here 6,000 years is a great starting point. Now you need to understand where we are.
@@justinjozokos1699 No one has measured distances to stars with a tape measure, true, but within our solar system (or just our planet) the distance light has traveled in a specific time has been measured. But lets just accept your entire thesis as is. If your logic is sound, you have essentially proven that both the scientific account for age of Earth/universe can simultaneously true along with Biblical account for age of Earth/universe. In which case the point of this video is moot.
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.
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?
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.
Thank you CMI, it's not fundamentaly about science but a worldview, belief or framework of how to interpret the past. When examining and probing the core issue, people get nervous and often react emotionally on both sides, Christian or not. That's why I am persuaded to think Peter writes to "season with grace" when giving an answer. Grace for the negative emotional reaction saved or not sometimes.
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!
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.
Very useful! Thanks so much for this
I didn't want this to end! What a wonderful discussion. Thank you both.
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 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
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?
@@UrbFoxFact The one true God. Jesus Christ. As an evangelist I know a bit about all the many false religions put there, but know Jesus is the truth.
John 3:16,18 ESV
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Illuminating. Wonderful. Thank you. Praise God!
Loved this video. Connected the dots for me finally 😊
so you were already delusional.....you just need the confirmation. kudos.
@@UrbFoxFact sure mate. Kudos
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 don't know if anyone will ever answer me, but I'll try to ask my questions anyway. If anyone reads this: pls try to understamd my thoughts and i would appriciate any comment, response and explanation.
I've been trying to understand how the earth and this universe came to be for a long time, but this video has only raised more questions for me instead of answering them. I agree with the point that our belief in God (or no God) affects our view of creation. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then the world could have been created 6000 years ago, that's true. Nothing is impossible for God. But does the theory of evolution really rule out a God? I don't think so. Of course this theory arose from the belief that there is no God, but it does not rule out an omnipotent God. So which of the two theories seems more plausible? As a devout Christian, I am not convinced by the theory in this video because it still leaves gaps.
God exists outside of space and time, so we cannot say that seven days for God are the same as seven days for humans. One of the Gospels even states that for God, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. Furthermore, I don’t think God is a God who wants to lead us astray, giving us methods to date objects that turn out to be inaccurate. God wants us to discover and study His creation. He doesn’t want us to believe in Him first to understand how the world was created. He wants us to understand how the world was created, and in doing so, come to believe in Him, because the most logical explanation for creation is a Creator.
It may be that the dating of rocks and bones etc is not 100% reliable, but we have found bones, like dinosaur bones, that don't fit into the creation story of the Bible, yet these bones are here and they obviously don't belong to a being that is still alive because they are far too big. So how did the bones come to earth? Were there dinosaurs and if so, when? In the last 6000 years? Then why are they no longer alive? Why is there nothing in the Bible about gigantic lizards?
If everything written in Genesis really happened exactly as described, then there should be something about dinosaurs in it. This scientist has a good point when he says that death and suffering only came into the world after the Fall. And this world, as we know it through the theory of evolution, has been marked by death and suffering from the very beginning. Therefore, the theory of evolution cannot be correct. That’s definitely true, but Genesis also states that after the Fall, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, or from Paradise. This means the Garden of Eden cannot have been on this earth. Could it be that Adam and Eve first lived in Paradise and were then banished to this earth?
How did God create the world then? If the world was created 6,000 years ago, He would have had to create everything with a snap of His fingers. One moment, there’s nothing; the next moment, everything is as we know it. That’s not how I imagine God as a Creator. As we see today, every new creation is a process of development. A new tree doesn’t just appear out of nowhere; it must grow from a seed. A baby doesn’t simply pop into existence in the womb; it undergoes an entire process of development. And as Christians, we believe that a man and a woman in marriage have the honor of participating in creation, of being co-creators, and thus bringing forth new life.
When I look at creation today, and see that new life is born daily with all the children being born, the theory of a young earth seems less plausible to me than the theory of evolution. This kind of creation described in the Bible doesn’t align with the image of God we know. God is someone who takes His time to bring creation to completion. He never created anything out of nothing with a snap of His fingers. Everything He has created has gone through a process of development, and we can observe this in creation today. That’s why the theory of evolution seems more plausible to me than this other theory. The seven days of creation should only be understood symbolically.
We either believe the bible or we dont. He didn’t even have to snap His fingers. He spoke.
That’s exactly how it happened lol… He created Adam as a man from dust… He’s God. He can do whatever He wants however He wants. I would say that it wouldn’t be very awe-inspiring if God could only create things in a manner most similar to how we see things happening today.
Hugh Ross is the most logical person I have found with this. And he has actual credentials.
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!
Just asking, if a volcano erupts Its rock matter was anyways millions of years old while in magma form.
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.
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.
One stake in the ground for all believers is Hebrews 11, particularly verses 1 and 6, regarding the indispensable requirement of faith. By extension, that is permanently coupled to the inerrancy of the Word of God. As pointed out here in this wonderful presentation, God is the Alpha, the Creator. He says…is all we really need to know, however, over and over again God reveals through a myriad of mechanisms proofs/evidences if you will of Himself and His Word. Thank you for this important video. Very well done.
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? 😂
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.
Another great talk by CMI. THEY are amazing. Praise God for them ALL.
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.
@@M00nGlitz What you just said didn't refute anything stated or any evidence presented here.
John 3:16,18 ESV
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
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.
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.
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 learned this a few years back from Chuck Missler et al..thanks for speaking openly about it !!
Excellent. I recent found this site and really love it!!
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
The distance equivalent argument would be 3000 miles versus 21 feet.
Less than 4 minutes in, and I'm enthralled!
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 !
Hi guys. Love your work but you mention at 36:20 that the river systems around the world dump about 20B tonnes of sediment into the oceans every year, which is roughly 6-8km^3 of sediment (assuming that it mainly comes from sandstone, silt and clays, roughly 2.6-3.3tonnes per m^3 in situ material), and I know that this was the current accepted geological stat agreed upon sometime in the 1980s and posted in current geologic textbooks but I was wondering if you could cross reference this figure with current GIS data?
The reason I ask this is because lately I've been seeing claims of 40,000km^3 per annum based on surveying shoreline profiles of sediment build up at the end of these main rivers and smaller tributaries, which is a factor of nearly 10,000x that figure. If the latter figure is correct, then that would mean that the earth is eroding at a far greater rate than previously claimed. Using this latter rate and dividing it into the current known landmass of the earth this would erode the current surface to sea level in ~4,600 years (discounting the addition of landmass due to uplift of the continents, which would be in the METERS if this were actually true)! I'm trying to find recent papers presenting this current GIS surveying info and can only find some obscure paper that I don't have time to scrutinize properly.
Do you mind if I ask that you check this GIS data for yourselves?
Massive event of Noah’s flood caused most of the sediment dump, about 5000 years ago
I watched something on the history channel were people doubted Noah’s flood and it was proven that there was a village that once was ans was covered with water at the time of the dlood
@joannea1686 the flood was global. It destroyed the entire earth ..in fact tectonic plates broke up and reshaped the land masses ..it was a complete and total catsriphic event for the entire globe..where 8 people were saved..possible more than a billion people perished in that disaster ..it was judgement on the earth by God..and it will be destroyed again..this time by fire ..you can count t on it as it's biblical and speaks of the future destruction by fire
There is also uplift due to plate tectonics that push mountains higher. There is also volcanism that puts solid material from the mantle onto the surface of Earth. This is happening today. Erosion estimates are just that, estimates. Today with Earth mapping satellites it is possible to refine that estimate.
@@Mamadukes1953 There are numerous villages and even cities being found all the time that are currently under water. Look at the example of Doggerland (many videos with scientific studies are available on UA-cam).
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.
Who wrote the Bible and where did they get their information ?
So lemme ask, when Cain got banned from the garden of Eden and he got the mark on his forehead so no one would harm him, who were the other people? It clearly shows their were other people already
Cain wasn’t in the garden.
Genesis isn’t an index on all knowledge of the beginning. It’s a narrative. It tells only the story it means to. Like any other book.
@@jessefontenot9846you didn't answer the point of the question at all, forget the garden, who were the other people when the Bible makes it sound like there were basically 4 people at that point.
Adam and Eve had many children after Seth, implying that they likely had many children before. That means Cain would’ve had brothers and sisters younger than him at the time, he and Abel being fully grown adults at this time
I don’t think the mark ever said he would be protected. Just says whoever does, vengeance would be 7 fold.
Live by the sword… then Lamech says he’s cursed. Mmmmm
@@007gracie vengeance would have been 7 fold against whom?
This really helped me, thank you so much!!
helped you what?
37:25 here you talk about the erosion rate and I was thinking about this last night. How and where are you measuring this erosion rate? I was reading an article last night that said due to human involvement all of our natural topsoil will be eroded in 60 years. Key phrase being human involvement. Please if you can give a link to your erosion tests.
Go to their website. The research on Mt. St. Helens is there.
Ever heard of The Dust Bowls? Industrial-scale tractor farming, government mis-interventions, lobbyists demanding extra mis-interventions, and drought all combined to strip dozens of feet of top soil across millions of square miles… Usually leaving single-digit feet of soil, or mere inches.
Compare soil reports and records across multiple biomes in the 1700s-1800s. Now compare with the Dust Bowls. Then compare that to the results of “Go Big Or Go Home” mega-farms.
1 Timothy 1:4 applies. It doesn't matter if the earth is 6 thousand years or 6 billion years. All that matters is God did it. This sort of discussion ranks right up there with Church vs Galileo regarding Heliocentricity; you'd think we would have learned from that.
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.
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.
The first trees may not have had rings - just like Adam probably didn't have a navel.
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.
I love how confident they are when there is not someone with opposing views to correct or confirm weather or not they are expressing what scientists actually think. I can tell you that they definitely do not express what I know at all. They make up a lot of assumptions and beliefs. I would love to see them talk with real scientists. I would love to talk with them. Lol
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.
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.
🐻 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?
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 👍
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...
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.
Could the earth be round?
Of course it is. Have you ever been in a plane? Looked out at the horizon?
Isaiah 40:22 says it’s a circle + our experience.
I don’t know if this is serious Q but ppl actually think otherwise. Strange.
Flat
@@007gracie”circle” and “sphere” are very different things, my friend. I’m not telling you what to believe or how to interpret…but they’re different.
Man this is mind blowing 🤯 on an epic scale!
Which one of you 2 are scientists? Which one if you 2 is a geologist? Would it not make sense to have someone in this conversation who would hold a different view? Or do you like hearing yourself talk?
I would say your on the right track.I appreciate the unpacking of their concepts it brings to light some god points about how we date things. However, it expressly states in genesis, time is not to scale when talking about the creation. It then flips to the documentation of family bloodlines (people lived longer) that's the 6k-12k After Adam is walking the earth. I'm not sure who injected this idea Science and scripture are apposed. Scripture left the time period ambiguous for a reason. said a "day is like a thousand years" and "let the EARTH bring forth animals of its kind" that's clearly a description of evolution and a powerful automation aka mother earth. God never made the animals he made a automated system that made the animals.
Now 5d earth is around 12k years old that one will come out soon.
Do you have a degree in politics? Otherwise stop voting in elections 🤡
Let the Earth bring forth.... is not clear to me to be speaking of evolution. Read the next verse. See also Exodus 20:11.@@DLR_Palehorse
@@imFruzzyyou don’t need a political Degree inorder to vote because it’s a right.. if people wants to exercise there rights to vote then let them ..who are you to deny there right to vote and tell them not to vote because they don’t have a degree in politics…
I certainly don’t believe you your self have a degree in politics if you did have a degree in politics you’d know that people do have the Right to vote and wouldn’t be trying to deny them that right to vote by telling them not to vote if they don’t have degree in politics..
15th Amendment
Primary tabs
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation… Do you have a degree in politics? If you don’t have
Really? I cannot understand how a adult could possibly believe in this insane concept?
How could anyone believe Noah lived 600yrs?
Let alone the rest of this ludicrous myth.
....i just can't understand how an adult could believe that we live on a spinning ball...
@@anthonymullins2861 There are adults who think for themselves and adults that need guidance a faith, a cult and leader to tell them what to think....l think l know which section you are in.
@srs2283 Show me the evidence, not what you were told before you could think for yourself, or even know how to ask a question! My evidence for God is, go outside, open your eyes, and look around!
@glenmcarthur.....yes, really! We live in a contained system. High pressure cannot exist
adjacent to a vacuum, not even with the THEORY of "grabbbity" as a reason.
@@anthonymullins2861 You need to go back to school, start again, stop listening to insanity and learn how to spell
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.
A question that arises is the origin of defensive/offensive structures in animals and plants. Where did fangs and poison glands come from? Did these things have other functions before sin and death came into the world? Scripture mentions thorns coming about after man's fall. Perhaps these things came about because of the curse, but some of them are so complex that they seem like a second creation.
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.
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
Did you consider that lucifer sinned before Adam and was cast out of heaven? Could he have tried to create life and it was destroyed pre-Adam?
It always was on my mind that God asked Adam to replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28) as if something was there before? Most versions use "fill the earth" but KJV says replenish...
Then again He asks Noah to replenish the earth in Genesis 9:1 KJV so the same word is used and the 2nd time, it means exactly that...reolenish. So i expect the 1st time it meant the same thing too.
The Bible doesn’t say the Earth is only 6000 years old. When it’s talking about creation, it’s talking about the creation of a covenant people, a kingdom. It’s not talking about the creation of heaven and earth as literal, they’re being used metaphorically to describe the peopleof God’s kingdom, covenant.
@@Dallas-Quinley it's possible. The world and bible is full of mysteries.
@@Dallas-Quinley the repetition of “day and night” for each day emphasizes that it is speaking of literal days and nights
@@Dallas-Quinley how do you know that is metaphorical and not other stuff in the Bible is also that. Say that Jesus rised. That could also be a metaphor then.
Idk it's pretty specific for a metaphor.. first created light, then the sky and air? What is sky and air metaphorically referring to?
@@tippsish you tell me :) what could “risen” metaphorical mean for Jesus.
Of course you can see sky and air as a metaphor for how the atmosphere was formed during the evolution of earth. Same as you can see “risen” as that Jesus / gods spirit rose to return to heaven. And that he physically did not lift off so to speak
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!
As you say, we could have written records from all the way back to Adam, but we also know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Therefore we can trust that every bit of the Bible is accurate and true, because it was inspired to man, through the Holy Spirit.
And so the holy spirit gave a different account of Jesus to different authors of the new testament?
@@MutsPub the Old testament was written in Hebrew, the New testament in Greek and Aramaic
@@MutsPub I mean you can take the Bible go to the Dead Sea Scrolls and compare the accuracy for yourself, it's really not that difficult
@@MutsPub also I mean there's soooo much power to be gained by telling everyone to give up all of what you have to the poor and go and love your enemies, even if they kill you
There again is that circular reasoning: "... but we also know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16.", in order to try and make their claim: "... every bit of the Bible is accurate and true, ..." appear to be true, and they finish with another circular reasoning: "... because it was inspired to man, through the Holy Spirit."
In the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, there are dozens of petrified forests, stacked one upon the other. These are separate and distinct episodes of forest growth that were in turn covered in sequential layers of volcanic ash. And to the northeast of these is yet another sequence of dozens of petrified forests, one on top of the other, in the Absaroka Mountains which pre-date the Yellowstone volcanic formations. And these two are just a small part of the entire geologic record found on the earth. I guarantee they far outweigh the flimsy explanation proffered in Genesis 1 & 2, especially since those two chapters use the word "day" three different ways to describe the creation. Oops.
I don't think he's listening close enough to what he's saying.When God said after creation that everything was good, did he say, '' except for the radioactive elements which are actually in a state of decay? He's arguing for the necessity of Christ that death and decay did not exist before sin, yet the only problem he has with radiometric dating is the rate of decay?. Walt Brown has a very good argument against radiometric decay in the beginning as a part of creation. It's simple. It didn't happen until the flood. We can now, in a lab, through pressure and electric charge, alter the proton count and change one element into another where it then begins a rate of decay that can be measured in millions of years (I may be off on the exact process, it's been a while). Earth's crust is composed of , I think, 70% quartz which has a massive amount of stored electrical potential, the same electricity that lights your bbq when you press a button and a small hammer hits a piece of quartz and releases some of that stored energy in the form of a small lightening bolt. Now think about an ocean of water on top of all this quartz during Noah's flood with an electrical storm being activated in the ground below , the same process we can influence proton count with in laboratory's today. This seems to be the best explanation to me. For the record I'm not a scientist and my explanation may have many mistakes, or exclusions, but to me this was the only way I could explain it. Great video thank you.
There's a misconception here relating to the naming of terms: It seems you're saying that radioactive *decay* must necessarily be a _bad_ thing because it includes the word *decay* . But this is not the case. It's just the name that has been given to a scientific process of change in (non-living) things. (By way of analogy, it would be a bit like calling gravity a _bad_ process because it makes things *fall* , and falling is bad, right? E.g. people 'fall' into sin, Satan 'fell', etc. But this is clearly a bad argument.) Just because a process has 'decay' in it's (English) name doesn't ncesessarily mean it's a _bad_ process in and of itself.
That said, I don't think there is any place in the video where Dr Harwood explicitly says (or refers to) radioactive decay happening between Creation and the Fall?
Regarding Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, we have an in-depth analysis of this on our site: creation.com/hydroplate-theory
Also, see: creation.com/hydroplate-theory-difficulties
I think Walter Brown has the best explanation of the Genesis flood and the world as we see it today. Adding a canopy of ice would explain the waters above the firmament and the windows of heaven in the Genesis account. And can also scientifically explain other things like giant plants which can be duplicated in hyperbaric chambers with increased co2, giant insects could not fly or breathe in today's atmosphere and venomous critters with thermal detection and ranging couldn't possibly be called "good", and may have been medicinal and able to detect inflammation heat in the preflood conditions. I don't think there was rain or rainbows before the flood either.
@@creationministriesintl Sure but radioactive elements damage our cells. Hardly something , it would seem, God would call good. I read the in depth analysis, and I am merely speaking of the beginning of radioactive elements. The gravity scenario seems to be somewhat of a equivocation fallacy. Gravity is constant and doesn't decay. So you really have two things to explain now. Why decaying material was part of creation week, and now you must explain why for us Christians it is okay to inject our own presupposition on the rate of decay which differs from known empirical observation. If the answer is, "it must be because the age of the earth is young", your argument is no better than the evolutionist when they say we know evolution is true because we exist. I do appreciate however, your ministry and in particular the helium dating process which, correct me if I'm wrong, was developed my a team from CMI?
The canopy theory was once popular, but has been rejected-with good reason-by informed creationists for a long time now. (In fact, it has long been on our list of 'Argumetns we thin creationists should NOT use' - creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#canopy ) I'm sure you'll be interested to read some reasoning: creation.com/vapour-canopy-problems
Also we think it most likely that there were both rain and rainbows before the Flood (and this is totally compatible with the relevant Bible texts). For reasoning, see: creation.com/rainbows-and-the-flood
Thank you for posting this!
"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!"
Good stuff! Thanks 👍