3 Signs the Solar System is Young

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 605

  • @geoffnoyes520
    @geoffnoyes520 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

    Simon and Garfunkel said a deep truth in one of their songs.... 'A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest', as aetheist tend to do.

  • @jacklinpcc
    @jacklinpcc 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +45

    When we think deeper we see how great God is.

    • @leongkhengneoh6581
      @leongkhengneoh6581 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

      Totally opposite

    • @jelly7310
      @jelly7310 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@leongkhengneoh6581you are really everywhere today, Beelzebub

    • @eugenehuyser
      @eugenehuyser 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@leongkhengneoh6581 jy is dom.

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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.

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      If God is The Big Bang

  • @torhedin
    @torhedin 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +13

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

  • @saladdays180s9
    @saladdays180s9 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Its always the same stories with evolutionists, "Its even stranger than we thought, we now know..."
    In other words, we were completely wrong, but weve explained it away by calculating our margin of error in a new category we invented called "dark matter."
    Everything we can't justify fits perfectly within its ever expanding sphere and we'll call everything we ignore, "black" or "dark" so we don't miss anything we might lay claim to in the future. Any time we prove ourselves wrong, "dark matter" will be our answer.

  • @antbrown9066
    @antbrown9066 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +27

    “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.

    • @ulrichkuhlmann5459
      @ulrichkuhlmann5459 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +8

      "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth." Exodus 20:11.

    • @tomesplin4130
      @tomesplin4130 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@antbrown9066 Absolutely.

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

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

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      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.

  • @discerningacumen
    @discerningacumen 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +36

    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 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

      What does evolution have to do with the subject matter?

    • @paulbryden-bradley7846
      @paulbryden-bradley7846 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +10

      @@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 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @centariprime9959
      @centariprime9959 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @kennethswenson6214
      @kennethswenson6214 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      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.

  • @rlittlefield2691
    @rlittlefield2691 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +11

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      @@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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      @@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.

    • @Milites-Christi
      @Milites-Christi 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      Thank you for sharing your early childhood experience. One can look around and see that there is a Creator. I have to agree with you on your topic as such as science today is doing all they can to disprove the Bible. God's Word has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny and still stands true and always will. It doesn't really surprise me that 50 years later they are still trying to violate the veracity for the Bible. God Bless you brother, finish the race strong.

    • @rexgoodheart3471
      @rexgoodheart3471 วันที่ผ่านมา

      The story of a man who wanted to be a scientist but became a faithist, instead, based on false presumptions and conclusions... you should write a book.

    • @KenJackson_US
      @KenJackson_US วันที่ผ่านมา

      Up until the 20th century, all calculations about the sun assumed the hydrogen was burning in a chemical reaction that required oxygen and formed water. Those calculations said the sun should burn out quickly. Of course we now know the hydrogen is fusing into helium in a nuclear reaction, no oxygen needed, and it puts out orders of magnitude more energy. Were you discussing a chemical reaction or nuclear?

  • @glennshrom5801
    @glennshrom5801 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +11

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

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

    • @anttisalminen1110
      @anttisalminen1110 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      When did 24 hour day start, after earth started rotating, if it ever started

    • @antbrown9066
      @antbrown9066 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@anttisalminen1110 good question. Inference from what is known. No way to measure. Not mentioned

  • @Onofrioonofrio-y2f
    @Onofrioonofrio-y2f 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +12

    My favourite doctor Mr Harwood thank you from Spain.

  • @Vernon-Chitlen
    @Vernon-Chitlen 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +13

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

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

  • @lkyc3537
    @lkyc3537 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +15

    Great video and insights. Thank you!!🙏🏼

  • @mashah1085
    @mashah1085 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    So how is it we see stars and galaxies 10s of 1000s, 100s of 1000s, millions, even billions of light-years away...if the Universe was only a few thousand years old, the light wouldn't have reached us yet?

    • @medicisounds1384
      @medicisounds1384 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@mashah1085 maybe the measure of these stars are wrong?

    • @monty3322
      @monty3322 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Because they lie about the distances. They are simply 'lights in our firmament'.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@monty3322 A bold claim that isn't supported.

    • @monty3322
      @monty3322 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Neither is their claim. In fact theirs is scientifically impossible. Every vacuum not 'maintained' will collapse, yet they say it's expanding? Come on use your brain. Then there's all those 'bodies' falling around other bodies...not possible.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@monty3322 _"Neither is their claim"_
      Oh but it is, measurements are done and used to determine the distances.
      _"Every vacuum not 'maintained' will collapse"_
      What is to be understood by "maintained" and "collapse"? Do you mean that all the matter present on planets should suddenly be dispersed in space or something?
      _"yet they say it's expanding"_
      That's been measured as well, thanks to studies of redshift that is not entirely explained by the doppler effect.
      _"Come on use your brain."_
      That's why I'm doing science and that's how I know that the universe is very old, about 14 billions years (approx).
      _"Then there's all those 'bodies' falling around other bodies...not possible.
      "_
      The expansion of the universe doesn't mean that gravity isn't a thing anymore.

  • @mikeolczak125
    @mikeolczak125 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +12

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

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Absolute time is defined very, very accurately: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

    • @iam7712
      @iam7712 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @robertprasad6111
      @robertprasad6111 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      GOD'S clock in Heaven.

  • @markhuebner7580
    @markhuebner7580 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    I appreciate your efforts do validate the Bible's perspective on reality. When you look at a scientific perspective and attempt to invalidate the perspective, you seem to be neglecting 'the process used' for the scientific perspective and 'the process used' for your invalidating perspective. These processes are generally considered to distinguish an emotional perspective from an analytical perspective. "God hides his truths because of his essential loftiness and not by means of ruse."

  • @cmlacosta
    @cmlacosta 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    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 วันที่ผ่านมา

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

    • @cmlacosta
      @cmlacosta 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      ​@globalcoupledances you can replace the word "god" with any fairy tales characters, and you will end up having the same claim result...

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@cmlacosta Only Spinoza did it the Euclidean way

  • @poliincredible770
    @poliincredible770 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

    The universe displays the glory of God!

    • @rexgoodheart3471
      @rexgoodheart3471 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      That might be true, but it also displays overwhelming evidence that it's billions of years old.

    • @poliincredible770
      @poliincredible770 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@rexgoodheart3471 how would we conclusively know that something is billions of years old?

    • @yourguard4
      @yourguard4 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@poliincredible770 Because, based on what we know, certain processes take a certain amount of time.

    • @poliincredible770
      @poliincredible770 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@yourguard4 please specify. Which things take billions of years? And how do we know?

    • @yourguard4
      @yourguard4 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@poliincredible770 For example continental drift. We know the process pretty well. We observe how fast they move. And according to the physics we know, it can't be significantly faster.

  • @jsphfalcon
    @jsphfalcon 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

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

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      God never said anything. He does not exist.

  • @kayakMike1000
    @kayakMike1000 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    God in his, immeasurable power an unfathomable power might just take a day that to us mere mortals seems like billions of years.

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Confirms the Big Bang

    • @SheridanFalkenberry
      @SheridanFalkenberry 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      See this article creation.com/historical-six-day-creation

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@globalcoupledances Good At Least Someone Around here believes the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old Seriously Who's Foolish Enough to Believe The Universe And Earth Are Young Anyway?

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@globalcoupledancesThis is Trying to Brainwash you all into believing the earth is Young

  • @kitemanmusic
    @kitemanmusic 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

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

    • @panoslymperidis6748
      @panoslymperidis6748 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@kitemanmusic in a vacuum but yes

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Time can't stop

    • @jacobostapowicz8188
      @jacobostapowicz8188 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      ​@@spamm0145 Yes there is such a thing as photon, no time is not without propriety and yes light travel. And no, enzymes don't execute anything at the speed of light, where did you get all this misinformation?

  • @Stigtoes
    @Stigtoes 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +9

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      @@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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

  • @robertprasad6111
    @robertprasad6111 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +8

    The problem is not the evidence but the unbeliever.

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      I'm An Atheist So I Don't Believe The Evidence About The Earth Being 60.000 Years Old

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      And I Don't Believe The Earth Is 60.000 Years Old It Has 291 Million Year old Fossils And It's The First Bird Called The Archaeopteryx Got it?

    • @vincentstouter449
      @vincentstouter449 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@alicehodges9964 Got that from the “sell by” date on the fossil, did you?

    • @julesverne2509
      @julesverne2509 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      I am a believer but there is still one problem. We know the speed of light. We know how long it takes for it to get from here to there. That being said how do we see light from other stars when that would mean that light has been traveling for a very long time. This isn't to say that this video is wrong. I'm just saying I've not heard this problem really addressed by a believer.

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@julesverne2509 I Don't Believe Anything

  • @Thomass7586
    @Thomass7586 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    Man doesn't know squat.

  • @callumclarke1733
    @callumclarke1733 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +12

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

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@callumclarke1733 I Don't

  • @acd1235
    @acd1235 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    The statement of "excluding a supernatural explaination implies there is no God" is wrong. Even a naturalistic interpretation points to God. The question is whether we assume that God was required to violate the laws of nature or not.

  • @17NateJohnson
    @17NateJohnson 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    Sun, moon and stars … created on Day 4 to mark time. First three days aren’t like any other days we’ve ever experienced. And maybe the other 3 arent either.

  • @antbrown9066
    @antbrown9066 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Physics professor interrupts a dance class. “Sit down everyone and pay attention. I have come to educate you on the laws of motion which will I believe, improve your dance manoeuvres.”
    Dance teacher interrupts a physics class. “Stand up everyone, take a partner and begin waltzing to the music. Now lets all talk about the laws of motion while we are dancing. I believe this will help you to better understand the laws of motion.”

  • @BmoreGrrrrl
    @BmoreGrrrrl 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +11

    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  3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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  3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

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

  • @juerbert1
    @juerbert1 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    Excellent comments !

  • @leongkhengneoh6581
    @leongkhengneoh6581 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

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

    • @leongkhengneoh6581
      @leongkhengneoh6581 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

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

    • @MuzaffarKrylov
      @MuzaffarKrylov 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Do you exist? If so, prove it.

    • @leongkhengneoh6581
      @leongkhengneoh6581 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@MuzaffarKrylov no I don't exist, you are interacting with a imaginary atheist. Hahaha 🤣🤣🤣

    • @MuzaffarKrylov
      @MuzaffarKrylov 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@leongkhengneoh6581 prove it

  • @letsreason9489
    @letsreason9489 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    To the owner of the channel: Can you please bring on Hugh Ross? He is a Christian who claims the universe is 14 billion years old. Im so confused with all this conflicting info. Thank you!

    • @julesverne2509
      @julesverne2509 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Then he doesn't agree with 99.9 percent of all the other Christians out there. Sounds like he's a christian who thinks evolution is true. Non living matter will never assemble itself into living matter, it doesn't care how much time you give it.

  • @boheinerz
    @boheinerz 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

    Great! Thank you

    • @boheinerz
      @boheinerz 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

  • @jdphotograph
    @jdphotograph 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

  • @johndoiron9615
    @johndoiron9615 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    Good stuff!

  • @clarkwally
    @clarkwally 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    In the beginning the Earth was void without form and when God hovered the Waters of the deep he actually set up the rotation of the earth in a 24-hour period so that means that before he separated the light from the darkness the Earth was on his 24-hour spin

    • @antbrown9066
      @antbrown9066 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Interesting theory. Speculation of course. I wonder where this pondering could lead?

    • @julesverne2509
      @julesverne2509 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@antbrown9066 @clarkwally It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, it is the glory of kings to seek out a matter.-Proverbs somewhere.

  • @therealbiblechannel
    @therealbiblechannel 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    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.

  • @andrewwhitehead2002
    @andrewwhitehead2002 วันที่ผ่านมา

    I could find a lot of scientific papers about the origin of the magnetic field of Mercury, but nothing about its relative rate of decay. Measurements are not taken frequently enough to even allow this to be calculated.

  • @leahsantos1664
    @leahsantos1664 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Brilliant!

  • @alpscraftshack599
    @alpscraftshack599 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    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.

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Not true. If there is a gap in our knowledge, a scientist will simply say "we don't know", but a religious person says "God must have done it". The religious person makes an assumption, the scientists avoids making any assumption, whenever possible.

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@henno3889 The "... religious person ..." makes a statement, not an assumption, based on his / her belief (even though it is not proven) that "... God ..." made / created / is responsible for all things.

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@alpscraftshack599 if it is not proven, it is an assumption

  • @kitemanmusic
    @kitemanmusic 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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?

  • @rubengonzalez5155
    @rubengonzalez5155 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    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.

    • @SheridanFalkenberry
      @SheridanFalkenberry 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      See this article here! creation.com/literal-days-before-the-sun
      And here creation.com/bible-written

    • @yourguard4
      @yourguard4 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@SheridanFalkenberry "In addition to being written by men, the Bible claims to be “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), and that’s why we can trust it."
      In short:
      The bible is trustworthy, because it says it is trustworthy.....
      Even just claiming, that God has to rely on such primitive "tools" , is blasphemy.
      You are implying, that God is very limited in his powers, or very unjust. ("Gods word" could never reach everyone).
      Even we today, could spread messages faster...
      The book of Mormon also says, that it is inspired by God... in conclusion, all Christians would have to be Mormons.
      You can't just accept one, but not the other, when the evidence is the same.

  • @paradigmbuster
    @paradigmbuster 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Haha!

  • @TheBiblicalRecord
    @TheBiblicalRecord 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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?

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      I'll put it on our list of ideas for future episodes. 👍
      Meanwhile, we've written plenty about dark matter at creation.com. Just use the site search bar.

  • @ThePonderingPiper
    @ThePonderingPiper 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Anyone who believes the earth is only 6K years old needs to re-evaluate reality.

  • @andrewlevick1015
    @andrewlevick1015 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +19

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

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

    • @SteveWhite-vl5jk
      @SteveWhite-vl5jk 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +7

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

    • @i7Qp4rQ
      @i7Qp4rQ 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +12

      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 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

  • @zel506
    @zel506 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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.

    • @ITPalGame
      @ITPalGame วันที่ผ่านมา

      Simple fact is do you believe what God says as a little child or do you blindly believe man who wasn't there?
      Check out the loads of videos over at NW Creation Network too.

    • @zel506
      @zel506 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @ITPalGame I belive in what god says becouse he is god, and i have plenty of evidence that he is indeed good and way smarter then you and I, why wouldnt i belive in what he says

    • @Shikuesi
      @Shikuesi วันที่ผ่านมา

      You will have noted that in each case listed, Dr Harwood explained the responses given by old-earthers and showed how they don't cut the mustard. If you're really still undecided, you could try asking what, after 60 years of space exploration, has turned up in the way of any positive evidence that anything in the solar system is actually billions of years old.

  • @larryfromchicago6526
    @larryfromchicago6526 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    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,”

  • @roblangsdorf8758
    @roblangsdorf8758 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@roblangsdorf8758 i will save you the problem of investigating as noahs flood did not happen therefore the earths magnetic field could not of caused it.

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @JohnNewby-o8d Thanks, John, for this expression of ignorance. In the United States, there is this place with thousands of feet of sediments that were laid down in a very short period of time by water. This provides an example of what is found all over the earth. This is an example of the kind of evidence of a worldwide flood.

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d 19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @roblangsdorf8758 thousand of sediment is not prove of a worldwide flood and all geologists agree that no such evidence of one exists . Secondly when the floods receded how did polar bears get to the north pole while penguins got the south pole and all the marsupials get to Australia. Thirdly did noahs family split with some going to Australia, some going to africa , some going to europe and some going to north and south america a continent(and is not mentioned in the bible) that humans did not discover until over 3000 years later. a word to the wise calling someone ignorant is not a good idea.

  • @williamrice3052
    @williamrice3052 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      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.

  • @BmoreGrrrrl
    @BmoreGrrrrl 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

    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.

    • @akmurf7429
      @akmurf7429 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      What he is saying is there is not enough heat energy in that little rock to accomplish that. Every time a volcano erupts the moon loses heat energy. I understood it. But maybe he could have expounded on that more.

    • @betaorionis2164
      @betaorionis2164 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      It’s not personal incredulity, it’s outright lying. They KNOW they are talking sh!t.

    • @yourguard4
      @yourguard4 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@akmurf7429 I wonder, if he just doesn't know about tidal forces, or if he is talking nonsense on purpose.

  • @sammcrae8892
    @sammcrae8892 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    One of the biggest problems is that without faith, or at least an open mind, you cannot understand the truth of the Bible and the Word of God. Even if you can show them the incredible integration and complete self consistency, and the embedded messages and encoded information that is in the Bible which is clearly beyond the capability of mere humans to have created without Divine intervention, they can't believe, because it is foolishness to them, being blinded (wilfully) by their own understanding and unbelief.
    When I was a young scoffer and a committed atheist, I determined to study the Bible to show others that it was false and at best a collection of myths, legendary fairytales, and that it was full of errors and contradictions. But I went about it with the determination to be intellectually honest with myself, and I even asked God (Who I definitely didn't believe in) that if He was real, He would show it to me in His Word.
    At the time I was not aware that many other people, most of whom were likely much smarter than I was, though probably with fewer library resources than were available to me had tried to do the same thing, and failed. At least I certainly did. I can tell you that it was quite a shock to me when I realized that the Bible was not only a LOT smarter than I was, but that it was clearly very true, at least if you examine it honestly and without prejudice or preconceptions. I didn't WANT it to be true! I tried to figure out a way that it was not true, but I failed in that also.
    It's not that I thought that I was particularly sinful, aside from a lot of partying, I didn't feel like I was all that bad, but eventually I realized that it was mainly a lack of opportunity to be evil that kept me from actually being more wretched than I was.
    If you are kinda in the same place, and want to find out for yourself, then I strongly recommend you start with the King James Version, the original one, not the New KJV, and study it, don't just give it a casual reading, though it is fine to do that as well so you can get more familiar with it. Also, you should get some study help to save you a lot of time, by checking out the Through The Bible series. Three really good ones are. J. Vernon McGee, Les Feldick, and Chuck Missler.🙏✝️👑✝️🙏

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@sammcrae8892 having faith in god and being open minded are two different things.

  • @Lench_o
    @Lench_o 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    Science tells storys while he gets his assumptions from a literal storybook 😂

  • @sammyd7857
    @sammyd7857 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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)

  • @neelanj6375
    @neelanj6375 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

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

    • @flyingtime5501
      @flyingtime5501 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      Than you for explaining evolutionary THEORY!

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@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.

  • @rupierichards1809
    @rupierichards1809 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    What does the Bible say about the age of the universe? The Bible is less specific. Instead, some Christians used the Scriptures to explain the age of the universe. However, their calculation is wrong.
    The Bible states that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The timeline of this period is unknown. The Bible went on to state how God began to fashion the earth, created humans, and rested. In these periods, time, as we know it, was not the same because these were the periods without sin . Also. we do not know how long Adam and Eve lived before they committed sin.
    Time as we know started in the period when Adam and Eve had sinned. From the time God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden till the present is about 6 thousand years. This period does not properly explain the age of the universe.

  • @peterruiz6117
    @peterruiz6117 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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.

  • @SuperPhester
    @SuperPhester 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    What a GREAT VIDEO of ACTUAL SCIENCE! TYVM!

  • @TechnologyHive
    @TechnologyHive 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    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?

    • @clarkwally
      @clarkwally 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      When God hovered the Waters of the deep

    • @TechnologyHive
      @TechnologyHive 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @clarkwally "...and God's spirit was moving about over the surface of the waters." Genesis 1:2

  • @refuse2bdcvd324
    @refuse2bdcvd324 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    Thanks for telling us the truth!

  • @dirkmoolman
    @dirkmoolman 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

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

    • @alpscraftshack599
      @alpscraftshack599 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

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

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Scientists love to publish the truth. Unlike YEC

    • @dirkmoolman
      @dirkmoolman 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @globalcoupledances YEC scientists post a lot of scientific truth

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @dirkmoolman - I don't believe you. YEC wants to mislead you

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@dirkmoolman I Don't Believe The Earth Is 60.000 Years Old Sorry

  • @BmoreGrrrrl
    @BmoreGrrrrl 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      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!

    • @betaorionis2164
      @betaorionis2164 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@Mario_Sky_521No one was around, but there are paleomagnetic records, aka “evidence”.
      Humans don’t need “to be around” in order to know how things happen. Chimpanzees would need it, but Humans have a feature called “ intelligence” which allows us for deductive reasoning.
      The funny thing is that you’ll probably say you “don’t come from an ape”, yet the sheer stupidity of pretending that you need to “be around” to figure out how something happened puts you closer to a monkey than to a Human.

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      There is solid evidence for magnetic pole reversal in the past. The deep time, however, is an INTERPRETATION, not a geological fact. We've written much about Earth's magnetism, magnetic reversals, etc. We believe there was a series of RAPID reversals that occurred at the geologically cataclysmic time of the global Flood. See the articles linked in the description, or search creation.com for "magnetic pole reversal" for more info.

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      @@creationministriesintl Sorry but the 4.5+ billion year age of the earth is just as much a well established scientific as the earth's spherical shape is a scientific fact. Facts don't stop being facts just because you personally don't like them.

    • @stuartwarkentin3423
      @stuartwarkentin3423 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@BmoreGrrrrl I agree that a fact is a fact. But calling an interpretation based on an assumption a 'fact' is just silly.

  • @petejung3122
    @petejung3122 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    I believe it was created last week!

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Oh for Goodness Sake 🙄 Stop it's A Lie

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@petejung3122 The Earth Is 4.543 Billion Years Old Abd the Universe Is 13.7 Billion Years Old Get it?

    • @petejung3122
      @petejung3122 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@alicehodges9964 what is a lie?

    • @rexgoodheart3471
      @rexgoodheart3471 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      If we allow for miracles then it's quite possible that it was created a minute ago, along with yourself and your fully constructed "memory" of things that didn't actually happen.

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@rexgoodheart3471 NO THANKS Not HAPPENING I'll Never Believe In The Young Universe

  • @wondery6693
    @wondery6693 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    When YHWH began His creation of this world, He made it without form at first, void of anything. There was no light till He spoke it and saw that it was good. YHWH then made the Heaven, then Earth then the Universe and all living things. Thank you YHWH

  • @seanmarshall7529
    @seanmarshall7529 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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

  • @panoslymperidis6748
    @panoslymperidis6748 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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.

  • @rogersigmon1169
    @rogersigmon1169 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    So when archeologist make claims of ancient structures aligned with the stars, could it have been ancient peoples observation of formation some of the cosmic bodies? Just copying what they observed.

  • @stevenpipes1555
    @stevenpipes1555 วันที่ผ่านมา

    I love this line of thought, and i think its right to tie it to electricity and magnetism. Have you considered that the very building blocks of everything in existence are electrical in nature? Atoms rely on electricity and every planet, moon, asteroid,rock, and grain of sand are made of them. Every animal every genus phylum and species rely completely on electricity not only for function and structure but for sustenance climate and even our very senses operate electricaly. The entire universe, i believe is electrical in nature. Galaxies are a massive scale of a phenomena called a plasmoid. Its the most efficient natural way of storing large amounts of electrical charge. The Galaxies are the storage for the electricity that is distributed down to the stars in that galaxy, and the stars in turn deliver that electricity to its satellites. All planets, in this model, would have been formed electricaly which would explain why planets moons, and even the rocks brought back from our moon, would hold a magnetic field.
    Anyone interested in this conversation needs to research electric universe theory. It will be the science of the future i believe will be the first unification of everything.

    • @BmoreGrrrrl
      @BmoreGrrrrl วันที่ผ่านมา

      Electromagnetics is one of the four known fundamental forces of the universe, along with gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why shouldn't all matter be connected in some way to electricity?

  • @gregoryvandugteren4553
    @gregoryvandugteren4553 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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?

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Regarding the origin of God:
      → Who created God? - th-cam.com/video/W314YgP9j8c/w-d-xo.html
      → Who created God? - creation.com/who-created-god
      → If God created the universe, then who created God? Answering the Critics - creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god
      Also:
      → Can science prove God exists? - th-cam.com/video/B-5AZzxwZ6I/w-d-xo.html

    • @yourguard4
      @yourguard4 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@creationministriesintl What about:
      Is God racist?
      Is God less powerful than humans?
      Is God unjust?

  • @louiefallon8633
    @louiefallon8633 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

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

    • @jotunthe11thhyman65
      @jotunthe11thhyman65 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      Diamonds can be made now in a small amount of time. And 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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

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

    • @SheridanFalkenberry
      @SheridanFalkenberry 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @jotunthe11thhyman65
      @jotunthe11thhyman65 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@seanmarshall7529 I haven't heard about it. It sounds like a good way to get rich with some super good equipment though! That said, please let me know if you meant this as a counterargument of some sort (as opposed to an interesting tidbit).

  • @Dwd-m1s
    @Dwd-m1s 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 4 วันที่ผ่านมา +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  3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

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

    • @Dwd-m1s
      @Dwd-m1s 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @ChipsAplentyBand
      @ChipsAplentyBand 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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.

  • @JosipM333
    @JosipM333 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Where in the bible does it say exactly when everything was created??
    Everything is a matter of interpretation and everything can be interpreted as it suits your agenda.

  • @andrewoliver8930
    @andrewoliver8930 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @SheridanFalkenberry
      @SheridanFalkenberry 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      The issue is not the clarity of Scripture, it is the sinfulness of man. :)

    • @JohnNewby-o8d
      @JohnNewby-o8d 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@andrewoliver8930 because if god had told the pope about the earth rotating round the sun he would not of been able to show galileo who the boss is

  • @drmachinewerke1
    @drmachinewerke1 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    I do not know how it all happened . The folks from both sides can believe what they want . And I respect you have the right to think that way .
    Some say the earth is flat . They have that right as well .

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@drmachinewerke1 The Earth Isn't Flat Abd it Never Was Ok? So Stop believing lies

  • @TheRotnflesh
    @TheRotnflesh 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    Just explain atomic decay.

  • @karolmetal4256
    @karolmetal4256 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    maybe the first measurement of the electromagnetic field of mercury was not precise?

  • @johnhuston650
    @johnhuston650 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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.

  • @KenJackson_US
    @KenJackson_US วันที่ผ่านมา

    Has anyone seen the theory that the earth's liquid core formed during the flood?

  • @Serasugee
    @Serasugee ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    I don't think naturalistic explanations are inherently atheist. God could have created it in a way that's easier for us to understand. I'm not swayed for either age though

  • @GarySaint-xm6tr
    @GarySaint-xm6tr 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Fantastic conversation. I will have to finish watching it later. The 44th arch since 1978 when Arches National Park was designated a national park, has recently fallen. At the rate of the arches falling, it is impossible for the arches to be 1.4 billion years old. Maybe a few thousand years old.
    Also, DNA mutations have been studied among known relatives, and the rate is much more rapid than the "we came from monkeys" current model. The faster rate of mutations gives us all a common ancestor 6000 years ago

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      _"At the rate of the arches falling, it is impossible for the arches to be 1.4 billion years old"_
      Correct, the arches are 286 to 320 million years old.
      _"Also, DNA mutations have been studied among known relatives, and the rate is much more rapid than the "we came from monkeys" current model. "_
      That doesn't mean anything, there has been no evidence debunking the notion that were great apes. Also, where can we read that study?

    • @GarySaint-xm6tr
      @GarySaint-xm6tr 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      The arches could not be hundreds of millions of years old either. Please stop the madness

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @GarySaint-xm6tr And why couldn't they be? The only reason you've given is your incredulity, I'm not mad for not being convinced.

  • @bevanbasson4289
    @bevanbasson4289 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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.

  • @richardlaiche8303
    @richardlaiche8303 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +7

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

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      ​@@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 (1.25x10^9 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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @roblangsdorf8758 - I guess those sampled rocks are old

    • @roblangsdorf8758
      @roblangsdorf8758 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      @@globalcoupledances Sounds like you don't have a clue about radiometric dating.

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      I guess volcanic bombs

  • @karthi7016
    @karthi7016 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    Why use science to explain... Use your data from the Bible..

    • @julesverne2509
      @julesverne2509 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      LOL, I'll bet you think that was an awesome comment huh? ROFL. I can tell you have no idea what the Bible says.

  • @jeffvanderhough2205
    @jeffvanderhough2205 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    We are told all sorts of nonsense from birth & lied to constantly by media, govt , tv & educators & science

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien วันที่ผ่านมา

      Science is not what tells you nonsense since science is based evidence. Now people that interpret and twist science (like the speaker of the video) they are the one telling feeding you BS.

  • @waynehampson9569
    @waynehampson9569 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Young Earth Creationists start with an assumption and then try to find evidence that supports that assumption. That is not how science works.

  • @TickedOffPriest
    @TickedOffPriest 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    The moon cannot be ancient.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Why?

    • @TickedOffPriest
      @TickedOffPriest 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien Because of reasons explained in the video.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @TickedOffPriest Here's the kicker, I watched the part about Mercury's magnetic field. It was absolutely terrible and unscientific so which part of the video determine that the moon can't be old? If it's bad I'll critic it, if it's good I'll say it.

    • @TickedOffPriest
      @TickedOffPriest 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien It was actually the last point.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      ​​@@TickedOffPriest I tried "winding back" the process (divided the earth-moon distance by the speed of recession) and found 10 billion years approximately. So a constant recession doesn't help the speaker's case.
      The rest is just pure denial stemming from the fact that a loss of energy affects angular momentum.
      For more info, the physicist who discovered the "problem" said it would be solved without a constant torque, which would be later demonstrated to have happened.

  • @beestoe993
    @beestoe993 วันที่ผ่านมา

    "You would have to assume that there was no water in the cup to begin with". Correct. And THAT is why basalts from Mt St Helens were dated as being as much as 2 MILLION years old!! Misguided assumptions being sold as FACT!!

  • @lylez00
    @lylez00 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @ITPalGame
      @ITPalGame วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      No one knows what the speed of light is from the source.
      It is currently impossible to know.

  • @aservant2287
    @aservant2287 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    He said 3.8 centimeters it's 3.8 inches a year them moon is traveling away from the earth

    • @MakeEnglandGreatAgain
      @MakeEnglandGreatAgain 42 นาทีที่ผ่านมา

      Nope it’s not I just checked it is indeed 3.8 cm per year 👍🏻

    • @aservant2287
      @aservant2287 32 นาทีที่ผ่านมา

      I guess you're right, about an 1.5" a year not 3". I heard 3" from Kent Hovind a creation scientist

    • @MakeEnglandGreatAgain
      @MakeEnglandGreatAgain 11 นาทีที่ผ่านมา

      @@aservant2287 I mean no it moves 3.8 cm per year according to the national radio astronomy observatory, so not 1.5.

    • @aservant2287
      @aservant2287 นาทีที่ผ่านมา

      My friend, 3.8 centimeters is 1.5 inches

  • @johncollins8304
    @johncollins8304 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Presuppositions , that's the crux of it.

  • @QXr30
    @QXr30 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

    Next video - 3 signs that prove the sun revolves around the earth.

    • @globalcoupledances
      @globalcoupledances 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      My primary school was named after Saint Bellarminus, the head of the Inquisition of the Galileo affair

    • @paulhadlington8179
      @paulhadlington8179 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      😁😁😁

    • @markoconnell804
      @markoconnell804 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      But there will not be that video as that is wrong.

    • @QXr30
      @QXr30 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @ creationism, young earth, dragons are dinosaurs, are all wrong, all devoid of objective evidence, but there’s plenty of videos for you to say “hey, I believe that, so it must be true”!

    • @markoconnell804
      @markoconnell804 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @ are your claims first hand accounts?

  • @DzemalD
    @DzemalD 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    I just love how unscripted and original this interview is!

  • @DanielJames-h9h
    @DanielJames-h9h 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

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

    • @andrewoliver8930
      @andrewoliver8930 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      PROOF!!!
      😂

    • @Sean_6008
      @Sean_6008 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Was this supposed to be funny lol 😂?

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@Sean_6008No Religious People Believe Silly Things Like The Earth Being 60.000 Years Old I on the Other Hand Believe In Senseble Things

    • @alicehodges9964
      @alicehodges9964 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@DanielJames-h9h And Obviously The Universe Is 13.7 Billion Years Old Do Your Reaserch

  • @christopherskipp1525
    @christopherskipp1525 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    The universe isn't 6k old.

  • @jimmiewomble416
    @jimmiewomble416 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Conclusive evidence > religious belief .

    • @mikeolczak125
      @mikeolczak125 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@jimmiewomble416 ok.show me evidence.

    • @mikeolczak125
      @mikeolczak125 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

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

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      ​@@mikeolczak125 Evolution has been observed, such examples are LTEE or any applications of selective breeding.
      The age of the universe can be obtained by study of the expansion rate of the universe.

  • @rubengonzalez5155
    @rubengonzalez5155 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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.

    • @yourguard4
      @yourguard4 22 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@Mario_Sky_521 So you believe, God was racist, as he prefers some people over others?
      Jesus resurrection is a contradiction. He was ment to give is life. When you are still alive, you didn't give your life.
      So the phrase "he died for our sins", would be false.
      If that was God's way, God is stupid. Imagine, he would have just talked to the whole world with his "powers". That would be a prove, and it would also avoid the need of "spreading the message".
      Kim Jong-Il also perfomed miracles. He never had to urinate in his life. And he achieved eleven "hole in ones" in golf.... all at once with just one hit.
      By your standard of evidence, you also have to accept his divinity.

  • @sammyd7857
    @sammyd7857 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    The real meaning of the bible is not being taught.

  • @larky368
    @larky368 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

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

    • @creationministriesintl
      @creationministriesintl  3 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      You never said what about this video was "faulty science".
      Our belief in God is not shaky at all. 🙂 But it is for plenty of people out there, who have been taught-quite wrongly-that "science" explains everything without any reference to God. There is a GOOD DEAL of "faulty science" involved in that. Some, we highlight in this video (e.g. the idea of billions of years of solar system history is contradicted by the scientific evidence covered in the video). But much more "faulty science" is documented on creation.com and on other videos on this channel.

    • @Conan-Le-Cimmerien
      @Conan-Le-Cimmerien 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      ​​@@creationministriesintlWell if you want some example of faulty science in your video we can look for example at your speech about magnetic fields, especially mercury's.
      First of all, evolution doesn't say a thing about magnetic fields. Unless you can prove that magnetic fields are living things and reproduce.
      Then the problems with Humphreys' model:
      -It's unfalsifiable as you can't test if a god really did that
      -Transmutation isn't based on any real science
      -Jupiter doesn't respect the model at all

    • @larky368
      @larky368 2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@creationministriesintl I don't have to hear your "evidence" You are no different than Flat Earthers or Moon Landing Hoaxers. You misinterpret scientific theories in order to disprove them. You accuse believers of science of trying to shake people's faith in God.
      There is science and there is also God. You can't use science to prove God exists and you can't use God to prove scientific theories. Now go ahead and misinterpret the facts that I just stated.

    • @Matthew-cp2eg
      @Matthew-cp2eg 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@creationministriesintl I understand your use of water dripping to be used to refute radio active decay... meaning just because something can be measured, one still lacks a starting point to know what actually happened in the past. Unfortunately near the end you then went into using plate tectonics to explain how continents disrupted a fast globe ocean spin.
      Well this now demands your clock to be brought into clarify all the assumptions you are now silently making:
      1 the layout of the land mass on earth was formed in a similar fashion as we see today to get around continental drift.
      a. we see in HI the rate at which the islands have formed over time, the speed at which the move northernly from that magma zone, so we have a built in clock on earth to see the speed and rate of this. that island chain rate is greater than 6,000 years
      2 the heavy elements scattered around the earth (eg gold) was placed at the same time of creation vs the formation of heavier particles in the various Suns reactions.

  • @sscalercourtney5486
    @sscalercourtney5486 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +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 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      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.

  • @avafury4584
    @avafury4584 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Thank you CMI. Blessings in Christ
    ♥️✝️ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

  • @pearladams4900
    @pearladams4900 3 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

  • @rexgoodheart3471
    @rexgoodheart3471 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    "Doctor" Mark Howard. LOL. There are no "creationist scientists".