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.
“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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
@@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?
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
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
When we think deeper we see how great God is.
Totally opposite
@@leongkhengneoh6581you are really everywhere today, Beelzebub
@@leongkhengneoh6581 jy is dom.
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.
Great video and insights. Thank you!!🙏🏼
“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.
@@antbrown9066 Absolutely.
My favourite doctor Mr Harwood thank you from Spain.
Man doesn't know squat.
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...
Time is relative. The age of the universe is based on what clock, in what location?
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.
Great! Thank you
i have a question can i share the link in bluesky? and do you think that you go to bluesky too
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.
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
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.
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).
@ChipsAplentyBand No it wasn't, just speculations. Just so stories.
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.
I can not view the stream. It keeps on saying it has expired every time you make it free.
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.
What does evolution have to do with the subject matter?
@@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.
Where is this region? I would love to go there ^^
@@panoslymperidis6748Yes, the theory of evolution is a religion. It requires much more faith to believe in evolution than in Jesus.
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.
Good stuff!
Great video insight. I only see a young solar system and a young Earth'.✝️
Brilliant!
Photons travel at the speed of light. At that speed time stands still.
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?
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.
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
@@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?
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.
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.
@@creationministriesintl So no actual scientific references, just the usual creationist "science". So be it.
So many haters in the comments. It makes me sad.
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?
How do you explain diamonds 💎 and dinosaur bones and petrol ⛽️ that all take millions of years to produce.
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).
@@jotunthe11thhyman65have you read about the hypothesized size of the diamonds in the mantle? Huge! And plentiful
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?
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.
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.
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.
Haha!
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.
@@leongkhengneoh6581 and yet alternatives are what? Infinite multiverse, simulation, whatever grasping for anything other than a creator god.
@@tyemaddog Maybe IDK is the most honest answer when we are really having no answer rather than making up some imaginary being
Everyone can claim something without needing proof. This is just another example of that.
Than you for explaining evolutionary THEORY!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
It's not you they rejected but me said God.
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.
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.
@@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.
By your and Harwood's definition then, Newton was not a scientist. Sorry, but all the world recognizes Newton as a scientist.
Obviously, an older Universe would have had sufficient time to grow a long white beard, yet it clearly does not. Case closed.
Got a real question please. Verses and chapter is the earth round or flat. Not your opinion what does the Bible say
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.
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.)
@@Dwd-m1s the earth does not move
The four corners of the earth
The firmament
@ thank you for the in-depth reply verse and scripture referenced are outstanding
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.
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.
👍
Conclusive evidence > religious belief .
Show me CONCLUSIVE evidence of evolution, or the age of the universe 😊
"...man must be guided by reason "
-Ayn Rand-
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.
So, are you claiming to know science better than him?
@@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.
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.
@@truecatholic1 you need to provide evidence
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.
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.
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.
Just follow the genealogies and that will give you your age
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.
"...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.
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
Research FLAT EARTH