3 Signs the Solar System is Young

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 235

  • @jacklinpcc
    @jacklinpcc 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +21

    When we think deeper we see how great God is.

    • @leongkhengneoh6581
      @leongkhengneoh6581 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

      Totally opposite

    • @jelly7310
      @jelly7310 15 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@leongkhengneoh6581you are really everywhere today, Beelzebub

    • @eugenehuyser
      @eugenehuyser 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@leongkhengneoh6581 jy is dom.

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      No. When you think AT ALL you will realise that all religion is nonsensical. There are about 1000 different religions known today. Just like any atheist you already reject 999 of them as nonsense. Then, without any logic or evidence to support it, you simply throw your brain overboard and say: sure, the world was created by a magic man in the sky, in six days, snakes can really talk, there was this big flood thing, three day dead corpses can be reanimated again, water can turn into wine... the list of nonsense doesn't end.

  • @rlittlefield2691
    @rlittlefield2691 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    I am 67, I wanted to be a scientist when I grew up, I read all of the science Magazines, Popular Science etc. Well I kept reading that the scientists could not determine the correct age of the Sun, because they had the math of how fast it would burn down, after a million years it would no longer work. I read this several times. At least 4.
    When I got to be 12, I opened one of these magazines and it said they had solved the problem, but did not say how. So I went to my Jr. High Science teacher with the magazine in hand and asked him if he knew. He said he did not know, but would find out. A couple of weeks later he showed up with the answer.
    He said they added some exponents to the math. I asked why they did that, and he thought it was really very reasonable, but did not say way. Turns out, by changing the math, they came up with the answer they wanted.
    The fact is if they Sun were billions of years old and life took billions of years to evolve. The temperature on Earth would have changed by at least 100 decrees centigrade.
    History tells us, that in the 1700's the Bankers in Europe established something called the "Illuminate" with the goal of destroying Christianity. Their job was to monitor, the news and science to make sure it conformed with the their out outcome.
    The fact there is something called Reverse Entropy, there seems to be two definitions of it, good luck finding the one I am meaning here.
    Though there are problems with the theory, as it requires the initial expansion of the Universe to be be faster than light. ( out of the gate many scientists have a problem with that. It is easy to explain.)
    The thing is it conforms to what is observed. By the way it does not require God to work. or it could be the method God used to create complex life.
    Evolution does not work without God if you did not know. We are in forward entropy. Nothing can evolve in forward entropy.
    The reason they cover it up, is that it proves they have been lying and twisting things all this time.

    • @TheRotnflesh
      @TheRotnflesh ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@rlittlefield2691 some things you arent factoring: atomic fusion, solar pressures at depth, atomic transmutation, 'liquid metallic hydrogen' versus 'flaming hydrogen'.
      Your assumptions need a huge update.

    • @TheRotnflesh
      @TheRotnflesh ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@rlittlefield2691 you also talk as if scientists havebeen to the sun and have a conspiracy to hide the truth.
      It is ALL assumption. But they, at least, are doing the work to figure it out, while you are a mighty armchair warrior.

  • @Onofrioonofrio-y2f
    @Onofrioonofrio-y2f 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +10

    My favourite doctor Mr Harwood thank you from Spain.

  • @antbrown9066
    @antbrown9066 15 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +15

    “The bible claims that….” . Actually it makes no such claim. The scholars that read it and interpret it make the claims. It is kind of important to get that right.

    • @tomesplin4130
      @tomesplin4130 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@antbrown9066 Absolutely.

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      The bible does not claim that god created the universe , earth and all we see on it. Has it been edited then.

    • @TheRotnflesh
      @TheRotnflesh 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@JohnNewby-o8dits a book written by men to control other men.

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      As was said, in the video, "... scientists can & do tell stories ..." when they do not have, or cannot use scientific evidence, to explain things. Well, the 'Bible' is just a book of stories, used by religious "scientists" / people to explain things that they cannot explain, or do not want to accept a scientific explanation for.

    • @colinsmith1495
      @colinsmith1495 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      This is EXACTLY the first thing I came here to post. The '6,000 years old' idea is heavily dependent on human interpretation, math, and assumption. The Bible also doesn't say the 6 days of creation were 'just like the days we have now'. In fact, one of the oldest views of this all the way back to early rabbinical teaching is that these six days were 'categorically unlike' modern days.

  • @mikeolczak125
    @mikeolczak125 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +9

    Time is relative. The age of the universe is based on what clock, in what location?

    • @iam7712
      @iam7712 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Time is a way for you to understand its passage. It wouldn't matter what system you used. For years we measure them by how long it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. Days are how long the earth takes for one solar cycle. Months are one lunar cycle. Hours and minutes are days subdivided. It's not even close to random. Now your educated, here is a fact. The furtherest galaxies we can currently see are 14,000,000,000 light years away. That means the light took 14,000,000,000 years to get here. That means the universe is 14,000,000,000 years old. You have been debunked.

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Have you been fooled into believing Einstein's nonsense? Time is a measure using an abstract concept, numbers, they only exist in a mind, claiming time has properties is no different than making the claim the number 6 can be bent or the number 3 can be slowed down.

    • @TheRotnflesh
      @TheRotnflesh 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      ​@@spamm0145Prove Einstein wrong; it should be easy since you have the perfect grasp of scientific principles.

  • @Stigtoes
    @Stigtoes 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +7

    If you're going to start off with the assumption of a supernatural explanation and the reliance on 2000 year old books (written by who knows who) in preference for measurable constants that can't change without the release of heat that will destroy the world, then these conclusions are hardly surprising. Just because you can tell a story about the unobserved past, doesn't mean that that story is true.

    • @IronMatt
      @IronMatt 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

      The unobserverd past is the millions of imaginary years. Deep time was invented recently for moral issues, not anything observable. Charles Lyell admitted it in his personal writings. The theory is more important than the facts. That's religious belief, not science.

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@IronMatt Deep time is a conclusion drawn from the observable physical evidence of geology, paleontology, radiometric dating, astronomy, etc. It was not invented.

    • @i7Qp4rQ
      @i7Qp4rQ 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@BmoreGrrrrl It was invented, in a priori agenda:
      "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
      -Richard Lewontin

    • @IronMatt
      @IronMatt 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @BmoreGrrrrl radiometric dating starts off with assumptions.They assume the decay rate is a constant for one. They assume deep time to get a deep time. That's circular reasoning.
      Paleontology clearly has shown 17 different soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, which excludes a deep time conclusion.
      Carbon 14 found in diamond and coal again excludes deep time.
      That's just a few I can recall, and I'm not a scientist.
      I don't have enough faith to believe what they are theorizing about deep time. You're repeating talking points.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@i7Qp4rQ "God did it " has never been a rationnal explanation of anything.

  • @richardlaiche8303
    @richardlaiche8303 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    All this chowder head needs to do is demonstrate that radioactive elements don't decay at specific rates.
    His Nobel Prize awaits...

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      The RATE studies published about 2005 documented various problems with radioactivity dating. Did you know that new rocks from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens' eruption was sampled in 1990 and was dated as being as much as 2,000,000 years old?
      There are no prizes for young earth discoveries because it is against the current religion of those in power.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@roblangsdorf8758 No there are no nobel prizes for YEC because it's bollocks. Case in point, the half life of Potassium 40 is 1.25 billion years (1.25x109 years) so how are you supposed to make a measurement on something this young? That's the thing, you're not and the "scientist" knew this. Besides what was his uncertainty interval?
      In other words, misapplying a method is not a valid showcase of it's failure.

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @roblangsdorf8758 - I guess those sampled rocks are old

  • @BmoreGrrrrl
    @BmoreGrrrrl 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    19:55 The explanation for recycling of volcanic materials over 100x in the 4.5 billion year history of Io's vulcanism is hand-waved away as '"exceedingly unlikely" with zero supporting evidence given. That is not a scientific critique, it's simply personal incredulity.

  • @andrewlevick1015
    @andrewlevick1015 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +13

    I suggest reading the book Universal: A Journey Through The Cosmos by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Then you'll see that the evidence for the Solar System being 4.55 billion years old is overwhelming.

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Written in 2016 and blown apart by the discoveries of the JWT, when the observations are wrong the theory is wrong, except in the big bang and evolution, then you ignore the observations and invent other theories to continue the fiction that academia is so invested in. No way will they ever let a divine foot in the door, its much better to understand all the worlds technologies required immense engineering and intelligent design but the engineers themselves did not.
      Maybe spend some time researching the astounding amounts of presupposition, assumption, circular reasoning, and pure imagination propping up millions/billions of years. Count how many times you see the words "maybe, could have, possibly, probably, etc'.

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@spamm0145 What physical evidence shows the true age of the earth is 6000 years then?

    • @SteveWhite-vl5jk
      @SteveWhite-vl5jk 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

      “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” prov 18-17

    • @i7Qp4rQ
      @i7Qp4rQ 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +7

      All evidences are _interpreted_ .
      The reason why you interpret it as such is:
      "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
      -Richard Lewontin

    • @rlittlefield2691
      @rlittlefield2691 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      So are you saying it is not 13 billion years old?

  • @kitemanmusic
    @kitemanmusic 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

    Photons travel at the speed of light. At that speed time stands still.

    • @panoslymperidis6748
      @panoslymperidis6748 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@kitemanmusic in a vacuum but yes

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      No such thing as a photon, light does not travel, time has no properties. The enzymes inside your body execute processes at the speed of light, does that mean that time inside your body stands still? If so its not working for me as I'm aging.

    • @sammyd7857
      @sammyd7857 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Time can't stop

    • @jacobostapowicz8188
      @jacobostapowicz8188 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      I have been pondering this concept, light does not experience the passage of time,, perhaps what is being measured as c is an accurate representation of causality,, the maximum speed at which mass can physucally propagate. Light has no mass so it does not share these limits

  • @poliincredible770
    @poliincredible770 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    The universe displays the glory of God!

  • @zel506
    @zel506 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    If given that all of this was true, this is quite compelling evidence, BUT I would like to hear the other side speak about this and if they cant respond with something to counter this, then I would really consider beliving in young earth. I am in the middlefield of those two worldviews and also I am a christian, I would actually like that the earth was 6000 years old and all that stuff because you would be able to answer some questions more easily.

  • @BmoreGrrrrl
    @BmoreGrrrrl 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    From NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey:
    "During a pole reversal, Earth’s magnetic north and south poles swap locations. While that may sound like a big deal, pole reversals are common in Earth’s geologic history. Paleomagnetic records tell us Earth’s magnetic poles have reversed 183 times in the last 83 million years, and at least several hundred times in the past 160 million years. The time intervals between reversals have fluctuated widely, but average about 300,000 years, with the last one taking place about 780,000 years ago."

    • @Mario_Sky_521
      @Mario_Sky_521 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      I take all this with a grain of salt. No one was around and the evidence is circumstantial. What bothers me is they can't even predict tomorrow's weather right then start talking with certainty about what happened eons ago. More predictions!

  • @lkyc3537
    @lkyc3537 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +13

    Great video and insights. Thank you!!🙏🏼

  • @Thomass7586
    @Thomass7586 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Man doesn't know squat.

  • @glennshrom5801
    @glennshrom5801 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +6

    Even if the solar system was only created on day 4 of creation week about 6,000 years ago, that still doesn't tell us how long days one, two, and three of creation week lasted. On day 4, God created our current reckoning of time, according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. God could have taken as long or as short as He wished going through a cycle of morning and evening on days 1, 2 and 3. The 24-hour (approximate) day as we know it, may have only been a thing since day 4 of creation week.
    The word yom in Joshua 10.13-14 is used two different ways. In 10.13 it refers to a period of time like 24 hours (or 12 hours), but in 10.14 it refers to a period of light and darkness (or just a period of light) that was longer than 24 hours (or longer than 12 hours). Likewise, on the first three days of creation week, yom could refer only to a cycle of evening and morning, regardless of duration, but then beginning on day 4, there was a cycle or evening and morning that finally matched our modern reckoning of how long a day lasts.
    We shouldn't trust modern science to tell us how long a day lasted for days 1, 2, and 3 before the creation of the sun, because God could have made a day last as long or as short as he desired. After all, there were no people on earth yet, so he could have made it last only a few nanoseconds, or could have stretched it out to periods of longer than 40 hours each. We are not God to know those things; we can only go by what our limited human reasoning tells us.
    Bottom line: Facts about how old the solar system is are irrelevant when trying to see biblically how old the universe or earth is. The length of days from the biblical account are not limited to only two interpretations - one the evolutionary view and another the young earth view. Evolutionary accounts may be completely wrong, yet the earth could still be very old.

    • @antbrown9066
      @antbrown9066 15 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Excellent assessment. Agree. Light was called day. Day did not begin until there was light. There is no biblical mention of time, prior to light. The lights in subsequent verses after the initial light - appear to be sun and moon. After the original light? Vague and ambiguous account of precision of time. Requires considerable inference

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      You can waffle on all you want about the length of a day the fact remains the earth is 4.5 billion earth years old. It was not created by god but purely natural events however the creation of the universe is a different matter to which nobody has come up with a credible answer . My money is on zeus and odin starting it 13.7 billion years ago

    • @SteveWhite-vl5jk
      @SteveWhite-vl5jk 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@antbrown9066I agree. The question of how long is no where near as important as the question of WHO created the heavens and earth?

  • @discerningacumen
    @discerningacumen 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +26

    However. I am sure that all evolutionists will reject any obvious proofs presented, because the person is not only stupid but also blinded by the region of the theory of evolution.

    • @panoslymperidis6748
      @panoslymperidis6748 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

      What does evolution have to do with the subject matter?

    • @paulbryden-bradley7846
      @paulbryden-bradley7846 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +7

      @@panoslymperidis6748 Everything, if you don't have an old earth you can't have billions of years of "evolution" and demons can't show up as benevolent space brothers come to save humanity from itself. The entire thing is one cohesive religion that has been present throughout the entirety of history, it has a thousand different names but it's always the same once you strip back the superficial differences.

    • @blablacar7886
      @blablacar7886 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Where is this region? I would love to go there ^^

    • @centariprime9959
      @centariprime9959 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@panoslymperidis6748Yes, the theory of evolution is a religion. It requires much more faith to believe in evolution than in Jesus.

    • @kennethswenson6214
      @kennethswenson6214 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

      Several points, it's "religion" not "region".
      And please pardon my incredulity, but in the past 5 months, I have watched a staggering amount of videos where the initial premise is dealing a death blow to evolution, or trying to, and all of us in the science and theology camp, barely having the intellectual equivalent of a scraped knee. We are looking for palpable evidence that can be independently verified, and sadly come up short time and time again.
      One also should realize that the purposes of the Bible, are to teach by understandable means a moral lesson, not just reanimating what may or may not be factual.

  • @therealbiblechannel
    @therealbiblechannel 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    This is a great discussion, and what a great channel! God bless your ministry! It's interesting reading through the comments, and seeing the discussion here, and realising that at long last, God is really allowing this kind of traditionally taboo subject to be talked about. I think this really kicked off with Ken Ham's The Creation Explanation for me, and what a wonderful realization that it was possible to counter the secular narrative with a staunchly Biblical worldview. The thing is though, if we're honest, and we look at the attitude and posturing of atheists, we really are actually encountering a spiritual blindness here, a complete unwillingness to seriously consider that the Bible might be true, for fear of the consequences of that truth. And of course, what makes the Bible true is not just that it matches the results of honest inquiry, but also the fact that as a born again Christian, we get to meet the Bible's Author, Yeshua! The Bible tells us that towards the end, all men will know that the earth is created, but they still won't repent and turn to God. The day's of ideologies like Evolution may be numbered, but it's going to take more than proving these kinds of things wrong to win hearts for Jesus. Let's pray for hearts willing to hear the truth, and to get to know their Creator in a positive Christian way.

  • @jsphfalcon
    @jsphfalcon 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

    It's not you they rejected but me said God.

  • @alpscraftshack599
    @alpscraftshack599 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    LOL - Whether you have a "spiritual" or "secular" worldview, your beliefs / conclusions / results are / have to be based on some assumptions. There is no getting around that.

  • @refuse2bdcvd324
    @refuse2bdcvd324 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Thanks for telling us the truth!

  • @Vernon-Chitlen
    @Vernon-Chitlen 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +12

    The sun has 99% of the solar systems mass, yet less than 2% of it's angular momentum. Nearly completely backwards for the nebular theory of it's formation to be true.

    • @ChipsAplentyBand
      @ChipsAplentyBand 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      The issue of the 'displaced' angular momentum in the Solar System was solved decades ago by Thomas Gold, and you can read more about that in the Bible-science harmonization written by astrophysicist/Bible scholar Dr. Robert C. Newman (et al.) titled GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH (second edition, 2006).

    • @Vernon-Chitlen
      @Vernon-Chitlen 16 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      @ChipsAplentyBand No it wasn't, just speculations. Just so stories.

  • @torhedin
    @torhedin 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    I woould like to see Dr Harwood on the Joe Rogan show!

  • @leahsantos1664
    @leahsantos1664 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

    Brilliant!

  • @johndoiron9615
    @johndoiron9615 16 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    Good stuff!

  • @cmlacosta
    @cmlacosta 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    I don't have a problem accepting that "god did it" regardless he did it in a magical way or naturalistic approach... but we must first prove that particular god do exist...

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Spinoza did it by first defining God as infinite. Then he proved that nature is God

  • @boheinerz
    @boheinerz 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

    Great! Thank you

    • @boheinerz
      @boheinerz 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      i have a question can i share the link in bluesky? and do you think that you go to bluesky too

  • @sammyd7857
    @sammyd7857 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    The Sun is sustaining the magnetic field of mercury. The Sun does not stay the same. If the there was no Sun the planets without sufficient chemical energy would have virtually no magnetism(gravity)

  • @larky368
    @larky368 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Is your belief in God so shaky that you feel the need to prove he exists with faulty science?

  • @BmoreGrrrrl
    @BmoreGrrrrl 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +10

    Lunar recession is caused by the slowing of the moon's orbital rate due to tidal drag. This is heavily dependent on the position of the continents affecting the tides, positions which have changed considerably over time due to plate tectonics. The rate of lunar recession has not been constant but has varied quite a bit due to those factors. Calculations using the current rate of 3.8cm/year as are done here are therefore wrong. The average rate of recession over the Earth's history as calculated by the historic locations of tectonic plates was a bit less than 2cm/year which is about half the current rate. Doing the math aligns with a lunar formation of slightly less than 4.5 BY which closely matches the radiometrically determined age of the Earth/Moon system.

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

      For your interest, here's some more reading on the major problems for naturalistic origin theories that are posed by our moon:
      • The moon’s recession and age - creation.com/moonage
      • Moon madness: Spurious billions-of-years lunar ‘ages’ - creation.com/moon-madness
      • Lunar formation-collision theory fails - creation.com/lunar-formation-collision
      • Confusion over moon origins: Naturalistic origin of the moon comes under hard times - creation.com/confusion-over-moon-origins
      • The mystery of the moon - creation.com/moon-mystery

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

      @@creationministriesintl Do you have any actual scientific references and not creationist religious sites? Why does the 4.5 BY age of the moon as determined by the actual historic rate agree so closely with the radiometric ages of the lunar rock samples brought back by the Apollo missions?

    • @mmaimmortals
      @mmaimmortals 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

      Bmore,
      The "agreement" is forced. Lunar recession is not a clock, even in the secular view.
      Your OP misses the fact that the recession is exponential regardless of the position of the continents. And their position doesn't influence the recession rate nearly as "heavily" as you suggest. Having the continents closer together actually makes the problem worse.
      I've personally calculated and graphed the recession over time and the secular explanations cannot make sense of it.
      And don't worry about the creationists sources they have provided. They do a good job of giving secular references for their material.

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      The articles I linked have plenty of references to the secular scientific literature. 👍 If you are genuinely open-minded, then I'm sure you will be happy to evaluate what we say based on THE EVIDENCE and sound logic, rather than dismissing us because you know in advance that we came to creationist conclusions. (FWIW, much of our material is actually written by Ph.D. scientists.)
      We have written MUCH about radiometric dating-and dating methods in general. An early section in this video is actually on the topic of dating methods. Also, the first two links in the "links and show notes" of this video are on the matter of dating methods, how they work, and what the problems are. But there is MUCH more on our site (search creation.com for "radiometric dating"). The key issue to note is that different "scientific" dating methods give vastly contradictory answers. For example, see creation.com/age for 101 examples of scientific dating methods that point to YOUNG age. Clearly, they contradict the scientific dating methods (such as radiometric dating, often) that are said to point to OLD age. There IS something to talk about here. Dating methods need reexamination, with particular acknowledgement of the assumptions that underlie them.

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

      @@creationministriesintl So no actual scientific references, just the usual creationist "science". So be it.

  • @TheBiblicalRecord
    @TheBiblicalRecord 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Thank-you friends ... sensible and reasoned evidences regarding a young creation. And by extension, clarity toward the problem of dark matter as well. Would you possibly consider speaking to that as well?

  • @leongkhengneoh6581
    @leongkhengneoh6581 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    When we accepted the big bang theory some of us assume god started the big bang when they not even can proof the existence of god.

    • @tyemaddog
      @tyemaddog 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@leongkhengneoh6581 and yet alternatives are what? Infinite multiverse, simulation, whatever grasping for anything other than a creator god.

    • @leongkhengneoh6581
      @leongkhengneoh6581 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      @@tyemaddog Maybe IDK is the most honest answer when we are really having no answer rather than making up some imaginary being

    • @MuzaffarKrylov
      @MuzaffarKrylov 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Do you exist? If so, prove it.

  • @jdphotograph
    @jdphotograph 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    I can not view the stream. It keeps on saying it has expired every time you make it free.

  • @kitemanmusic
    @kitemanmusic 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    If the moon is receding from the Earth, then how close was it when it started receding? Also, why is it receding? Gravitational attraction has not altered presumably?

  • @dirkmoolman
    @dirkmoolman 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

    So many haters in the comments. It makes me sad.

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      LOL - Just because people doubt / question your beliefs / views does not make them "... haters..."

  • @petejung3122
    @petejung3122 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    I believe it was created last week!

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Oh for Goodness Sake 🙄 Stop it's A Lie

  • @andrewoliver8930
    @andrewoliver8930 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    God could clarify it to someone like he allegedly did to Moses.
    Anytime he likes.
    Why does he not?

  • @callumclarke1733
    @callumclarke1733 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +8

    Great video insight. I only see a young solar system and a young Earth'.✝️

  • @paradigmbuster
    @paradigmbuster 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    The universe was created in the beginning, an undisclosed time before the first day. But the earth was made (transformed for service) in six days. Here the earth was finished 6000 years ago.
    One indication of a recent finishing is that there are dark areas on the moon. If the dark regions were made at the great bombardment, billions of years ago, they would be covered by micrometeorite dust. This would make them invisible.

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Haha!

  • @gregoryvandugteren4553
    @gregoryvandugteren4553 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    All well and good but can you make a "supernatural" explanation for how God was created so that this God could "speak" into existence all that we observe in the universe?
    Was there anything at all anywhere before God came into being ?
    Is the very word "God", that we use to describe the idea of a sentient omnipotent "creator", also nothing more than a creation from the imaginings of humans?
    Before any sophisticated forms of oral and then written language first coming into existence how could even the idea of a God be described ?
    If the answers to this are not easily available to all then surely, just as is stated to the questions around our ability to accurately date matter, we are forced to make some assumptions based on observations in the "now" that cannot be proven .......therefore if "creationism" is accepted as "true", this "acceptance" is also only supported by a faith devoid of absolute proof?

  • @peterruiz6117
    @peterruiz6117 16 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Humanity believes they are so big and important the the rotation of the universe 😅....I would not care if anyone at all believes in creation...Scriture speaks to me and showed me that in death, I will be so very alive.

  • @seanmarshall7529
    @seanmarshall7529 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    I gather you do not belong to those that profess sola scriptura .. it would seem that they would be against modern technology. it would seem, that modern technology rests on more modern cosmology

  • @lylez00
    @lylez00 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    There is star light coming from billions of light years away from the earth. The speed of light is invariant. Therefore the universe is billions of years old.

    • @SheridanFalkenberry
      @SheridanFalkenberry 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      See this article here: creation.com/distant-starlight-and-the-biblical-timeframe

  • @williamrice3052
    @williamrice3052 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Also if IO's volcano energy were driven by tidal flexing, should there not be a price to pay in terms of conservation of energy, i.e. orbital decay, loss of angular momentum.. Conversely as our moon being slowly boosted to a higher and higher orbit, where is that energy coming from.

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Jupiter's mass is more than 7 orders of magnitude larger that Io's. The loss of angular momentum of Jupiter caused by Io's gravitational flexing would be negligible.

  • @neelanj6375
    @neelanj6375 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +6

    Everyone can claim something without needing proof. This is just another example of that.

    • @flyingtime5501
      @flyingtime5501 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

      Than you for explaining evolutionary THEORY!

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@flyingtime5501 LOL - "creation" is also a "... THEORY!". If there is a "God" and He wanted people to love, adore, worship Him, and to know the truth about how things came to be - one would think that He would done it , in such a way, that it would be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, leaving no room for question or doubt, that He was the One who did it.

  • @davidwood2387
    @davidwood2387 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Mercury. Is a lot smaller than earth . Earth went through a lot of of collisions., with other planets . Which would make a robust magnetic field .
    Billions of years ago . Not 6000 years .

  • @TheRotnflesh
    @TheRotnflesh 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Just explain atomic decay.

  • @louiefallon8633
    @louiefallon8633 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    How do you explain diamonds 💎 and dinosaur bones and petrol ⛽️ that all take millions of years to produce.

    • @jotunthe11thhyman65
      @jotunthe11thhyman65 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      Diamonds can be made now in a small amount of time. Any bones can be made in a short time. I don't know about petrol. Interestingly, on another video, he mentions that diamonds can't be as old as claimed in particular, because of the amount of carbon in them (or something along those lines).

    • @seanmarshall7529
      @seanmarshall7529 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@jotunthe11thhyman65have you read about the hypothesized size of the diamonds in the mantle? Huge! And plentiful

    • @SheridanFalkenberry
      @SheridanFalkenberry 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      See this article for oil! creation.com/algae-to-oil
      And these articles for dinosaurs: creation.com/en-us/topics/dinosaurs

  • @TechnologyHive
    @TechnologyHive 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    No. What we read in Genesis, chapter one about creation, is based on Moses' perception of God's creation of sun, moon, and earth. Moses did not have billions of years to live to experience all these things in detail, so God broke it down for him in 6 days. Picture yourself standing over an ocean of water in the darkness, this is of course impossible, but this is what God caused Moses to experience, in order for him to write what he saw before him in simple terms.
    How can one make such a claim? In the book of Genesis, chapter 4: verse 2, we read: "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Here, Moses compiles all the 6 creation days into one day! Clearly, "days" simply mean periods of time. It could be months, years, decades or millennia. We simply do not know the exact number.
    Another scripture to site is Genesis 2:2, where it reads: "And by the seventh day, God had completed the work that he had been doing, and he BEGAN to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing." When did the 7th day end? Would you be surprised to know that we are still in the seventh day?

  • @rubengonzalez5155
    @rubengonzalez5155 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Don’t forget the Bible was written by humans not GOD. And humans are not to be trusted too much.
    How do you measure a solar day when the sun was made yet?
    Serious question, no hate required please.

  • @DanielJames-h9h
    @DanielJames-h9h 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Obviously, an older Universe would have had sufficient time to grow a long white beard, yet it clearly does not. Case closed.

  • @johnhuston650
    @johnhuston650 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Who knows how the days were counting off? Gods days or mans days which is it. It would be nice if God didn’t talk about days as being utter meaningless in time.

  • @paulgomez381
    @paulgomez381 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    scripted questions scripted answers

  • @panoslymperidis6748
    @panoslymperidis6748 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    I haven't watched the entire video, does he mention if the age of the universe is also 6k years old, or will that be the subject of another video?

    • @vincentpinto1127
      @vincentpinto1127 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      There is a subtle gotcha in your question where you trip yourself up. It is very common; I too have done it.
      Here is the exact phrasing you use: "does he mention if the age of the universe is also 6k years old".
      Now notice how I phrase it, and then think upon it very closely. If you troll, I will not reply. But if you truly ask a reasonable question, I will.
      Here goes: "does he mention if the universe came into being 6k years ago" ...?
      The answer to this is Yes. With jaw dropping question of "then how can stars actually be millions and light years away in a universe created just 6k years ago!!?"
      For this, we need to understand the two Lorentz equations of relativity, and more importantly, the implications of what it really MUST mean is v=c. But this is another matter.

  • @nextworld9176
    @nextworld9176 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    If you start, as Harwood tells us, with the assumption that the Christian god of the Bible is correct based on your faith--then you are not at all a "scientist" of any kind.

    • @TheBiblicalRecord
      @TheBiblicalRecord 12 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      If you are willing to consider another side to the argument ... it's understood in apologetics particularly that all who consider the issue either knowingly or unknowingly presume one way or the other. The heart of the matter is whether the presumptions hold true throughout each of the resulting consequences.

    • @nextworld9176
      @nextworld9176 12 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@TheBiblicalRecord Understood. Harwood is standing on the Bible as the primary record of truth. Bad choice. My objection is his use of the word "Creation scientist." If you are a scientist, you would use a scientific method. Starting with an ancient text written by ancient Talian-like men who have no knowledge of the real universe, the existance of atoms, or the causes of disease. That's not science.
      Science books change when evidence is found. Creatiionists assume the correctness of God, and look for evidence to fit their belief.

    • @nigeltremain1900
      @nigeltremain1900 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      By your and Harwood's definition then, Newton was not a scientist. Sorry, but all the world recognizes Newton as a scientist.

  • @pearladams4900
    @pearladams4900 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

  • @yazicib1
    @yazicib1 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Are you joking?

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      It's not True The 60.000 Years Old Thing is A Lie

  • @roblangsdorf8758
    @roblangsdorf8758 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    It would be interesting to investigate whether the earth's magnetic field decay may have triggered Noah's Flood.

  • @sammyd7857
    @sammyd7857 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    The real meaning of the bible is not being taught.

  • @bevanbasson4289
    @bevanbasson4289 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +10

    How does this guy sleep at night? All scientists are wrong including 99% of Christian scientists. Love this channel, so entertaining to watch the hoops they have jump through. It is soo ridiculous it gets entertaining.

    • @mmaimmortals
      @mmaimmortals 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      "All scientists are wrong including 99% of Christian scientists."
      You're elephant hurdling and clearly the one "jumping through hoops".
      Most science has nothing at all to do with origins and isn't in contention in this way.
      And it's highly unlikely 99% of Christian scientists are old earthers because around 50+% of Christians in general are not old earthers and don't believe in evolution.

  • @rubengonzalez5155
    @rubengonzalez5155 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Why was Jesus Christ born and lived in the Middle East and not in Asia, Europe, or the American continent?
    Could he be treated better and not been crucified like the Israeli did to him ?

    • @Mario_Sky_521
      @Mario_Sky_521 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Because the Jews were the chosen people to bring the Gospel to the world. They didn't live in Asia, Europe or America. That Jesus should rise from the dead was God's way of proving who Jesus was. It was the best miracle to make people believe. Yet, some do and some don't. God is counting!
      cheers!

    • @rubengonzalez5155
      @rubengonzalez5155 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @ the jews were chosen ones to spread the gospel ? ( Christianity)?
      Aren’t they the ones that killed ( crucified) Jesus?
      Thank you for your answer.

  • @rodwitzel9260
    @rodwitzel9260 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Very unscientific video . The Holy Scriptures do NOT deny a very very ancient world and universe. So called " literal extremists" do not understand Genesis due to shallow reading. The heavens and nature declare the glory of the Lord. Why are some Christians trying to limit God ? Billions of years are easily within His powers and processes. Yes His "book of works " - the comos clearly proves this. PTL. Christ is Saviour and King.

  • @Dwd-m1s
    @Dwd-m1s 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Got a real question please. Verses and chapter is the earth round or flat. Not your opinion what does the Bible say

    • @TjarkoTarnen
      @TjarkoTarnen 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

      The Bible doesn’t have a lot to say on the matter, it’s very easy to tell with everyday observations. But there are a couple of verses that mention the earth is hung on nothing and is the shape of a circle/rounded in shape, the word can mean either. Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22.
      Some people may bring up Isaiah 48:13 talking about the foundations of the earth, but the word just means things are set and cannot be changed from how God made them.

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      We've covered this topic extensively-both the biblical and the scientific side of things-here:
      creation.com/flat-earth
      (Conclusion: The Bible absolutely does NOT teach a flat earth, and observational science soundly refutes it too.)

    • @pakasiphokompe4017
      @pakasiphokompe4017 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@Dwd-m1s the earth does not move
      The four corners of the earth
      The firmament

    • @Dwd-m1s
      @Dwd-m1s 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @ thank you for the in-depth reply verse and scripture referenced are outstanding

    • @ChipsAplentyBand
      @ChipsAplentyBand 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      If you look in a concordance (Strongs, based on the KJV, is fine) you'll find that the English word the Bible uses is "earth" (not capitalized). The lookalike word most contemporary speakers/readers of English are familiar with--"Earth" (capitalized)--DOES NOT APPEAR in the Bible. This is because those two lookalike words have different meanings usages:
      "earth" = an improper noun which renders the Old Testament word 'eretz' which itself refers to the land, to a country/territory/region or its people, to the ground, or (occasionally) to the soil. The word 'eretz' in biblical Hebrew is a ground-level perspective word.
      "Earth" = a proper noun that's used as the name of our entire world/planet. It is typically a high-altitude perspective word because high altitude is where you'd have to be to SEE shape of our entire world and also to see it rotating (or not, as the case may be).
      Bible translators AVOIDED using the world/planet name "Earth" in their work because the original language words 'eretz' (OT) and 'ga' (NT) are not names for our world/planet the way "Earth" is.
      The upshot of the earth/Earth distinction and how it applies to the Bible is this: There are no 'proof texts' within scripture which say anything about the shape or celestial mechanics of "Earth." The Bible is merely SILENT about the shape and celestial mechanics of our world, and therefore it says nothing that is in conflict with what science has discovered about those matters since the time when the Bible was written. When the Bible says the "earth" shall not be moved it's talking about the stability of the the land or the stability of a country/its people.
      For addressing common idioms and pertinent exegetical questions on this topic let me recommend the Amazon Kindle e-book by Bible scholar Robert C. Newman titled THE BIBLICAL FIRMAMENT: VAULT OR VAPOR? to you. His book is a systematic study of the relevant words in scripture and of the passages which are often cited as support. In some cases Dr. Newman clarifies or corrects the translation work.

  • @BeefT-Sq
    @BeefT-Sq 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    "...man must be guided by reason "
    -Ayn Rand-

  • @jimmiewomble416
    @jimmiewomble416 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

    Conclusive evidence > religious belief .

    • @mikeolczak125
      @mikeolczak125 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +6

      Show me CONCLUSIVE evidence of evolution, or the age of the universe 😊

  • @ronnysundqvist7809
    @ronnysundqvist7809 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    What a bs.

  • @larryfromchicago6526
    @larryfromchicago6526 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    How can a young universe look old? 👉Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,”

  • @nextworld9176
    @nextworld9176 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

    Oooh, this guy has experience with space satelites, so let's all believe him when he speaks about physics, geology, history, and astrophyics.
    He says, "If you limit yourself to natural...what if the physical universe was supernaturally created?" He says "The Bible tells us all we need to know..." Puleez... If you believe Harwood, your knowledge is even less than his.

    • @jotunthe11thhyman65
      @jotunthe11thhyman65 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      So, are you claiming to know science better than him?

    • @nextworld9176
      @nextworld9176 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@jotunthe11thhyman65 I claim to take lessons from experts in those subjects, not from a hardware engineer. His faith in the nothingness--the supernatural--guides his mind to believe stuff that is easily shown to be crap--even by me. LET'S EVEN suppose there is a supernatural creator: The Christian god is still just as much Bronze Age superstition as the Bible.

  • @sscalercourtney5486
    @sscalercourtney5486 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    So I'm being told that if the earth is billions of years then God cannot exist? That the purpose of the Bible is to be God's Science Textbook, not to be a moral guide? Christianity has misled me all my life. I always thought the Bible was a moral guide to save your soul. Now I'm informed it's real purpose is to prove how old the earth is. I'm curious, if you believe the Earth is actually several billions years old, and you profess Christ as your savior, then you cannot go to the Christian Heaven?. Because when you meet St. Peter, if you say the Universe is billions of years old, you will go to Hell even though you professed Christ as your savior. Evidently.
    Do you have to understand the science of our Universe the same as God to enter Heaven? Forget living a good life, knowing the age of the Universe is the purpose of the Bible.
    I don't know the answer and can't say either side is wrong. But one thing I do notice, scientist often say this is their best guess, but new evidence can change things. True believers generally say they are absolutely right and no new evidence will ever occur.

    • @mmaimmortals
      @mmaimmortals 13 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Only one history has happened to the planet. It does not change because you found "new evidence".
      And YEC's do not think, say, believe, or endorse your idea of "cannot go to the Christian heaven" or that the Bible is a scientific text book. You are way, way off base with your entire post.

  • @blank-964
    @blank-964 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    👍

  • @thepostofficeprince8819
    @thepostofficeprince8819 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Research FLAT EARTH

  • @truecatholic1
    @truecatholic1 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    FYI it is likely that the Copernican model is incorrect. The correct model is the neo-Tychonian model. In this model, the Sun revolves around the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun.

    • @andrewrowney7601
      @andrewrowney7601 12 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@truecatholic1 you need to provide evidence

    • @truecatholic1
      @truecatholic1 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @andrewrowney7601 I am repeating what others have found. I do not know exactly their own evidence.

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@truecatholic1 Then how can you claim it to be true, if you have not read / seen the evidence to back it up / prove it?

    • @truecatholic1
      @truecatholic1 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@alpscraftshack599 Humans must rely on others to an extent. Do you personally verify every statement that is presented to you as true? Generally, it is rational to rely on an intelligent and honest person.

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@truecatholic1 LOL - How do you know if one is "... an intelligent and honest person.?" I consider myself an intelligent & honest person. If I say that the god 'Apollo' is the one true god, are you going to accept / believe that? In answer to your question, I am like the Bereans. I attempt to review evidence, before I accept / believe important statements that may / will affect my life.

  • @Stimulation334
    @Stimulation334 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Where in the Bible does it say the universe only 6000 years old? In exodus that time period is when Moses and the first of the jews leaving Egypt is 4000 Bc. Genesis is the beginning of time to when people were still caveman.

    • @DaveH8905
      @DaveH8905 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +7

      Just follow the genealogies and that will give you your age

    • @TjarkoTarnen
      @TjarkoTarnen 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

      You obviously have no idea on the implications that has for sin and why Jesus died to save us from it. Plus the Bible records the genealogies right back to Adam, it does not stutter or say things in a difficult way to understand.
      On top of that the Biblical creation story is extremely specific on how long creation took.
      Ask any scientist or philosopher the question of “are we living in a simulation.” And all they can tell you is, if we are were we wouldn’t know unless we were to leave the simulation.
      Why try to disprove what the Bible says is true when you can’t even prove that reality is reality lol.

    • @mmaimmortals
      @mmaimmortals 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +4

      "...when people were still cavemen." is a ridiculous statement.
      All indicators of human intelligence in archeology show that people were never "cavemen" intellectually.
      And the Bible does not tell you the age of the earth per se. But rather gives you the chronologies necessary to calculate the time since Creation to any particular event in its history.

    • @andrewrowney7601
      @andrewrowney7601 12 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      2000 years from creation to Abraham's sacrifice of his son, another 2000 years to God's sacrifice of Himself on the cross, another 2000 years to now = 6000 years

  • @America-TG
    @America-TG 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    the Bible is true. don't believe the demons who hate God/Jesus and don't want to be judged for their sinful life.

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      The Bible is A Lie