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.
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
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
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."
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!
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
@@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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
@@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?
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.
@@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?
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.
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'.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@IronMatt Deep time is a conclusion drawn from the observable physical evidence of geology, paleontology, radiometric dating, astronomy, etc. It was not invented.
@@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
@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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
Very unscientific video . The Holy Scriptures do NOT deny a very very ancient world and universe. So called " literal extremists" do not understand Genesis due to shallow reading. The heavens and nature declare the glory of the Lord. Why are some Christians trying to limit God ? Billions of years are easily within His powers and processes. Yes His "book of works " - the comos clearly proves this. PTL. Christ is Saviour and King.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
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!
@ 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”!
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
@@nigeltremain1900 Science was new in the 1600s. Newton was a theologian, an alchemist, and many other things. TODAY, we have a well-developed scientific methods. Harwood is a theologian trying to make reality fit his religion. He's a hero to his flock, I'm sure.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
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,”
Mercury. Is a lot smaller than earth . Earth went through a lot of of collisions., with other planets . Which would make a robust magnetic field . Billions of years ago . Not 6000 years .
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 .
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 ?
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!
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.
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
@@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.
@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 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.
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.
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.
@@nextworld9176 It sounds like you are saying you are simply a student, whereas he has a ton of experience and knowledge. Ideas being old (e.g. Bronze Age) doesn't equate to them being wrong. It is a fallacy to assume that. Also, basically telling a Christian that believing in the divinity of Jesus is as silly as believing in the Bible is not a convincing argument, since Christians believe in both.
@@jotunthe11thhyman65 Good points. I should be more specific. I am a 68-yro retired military officer with several degrees. I've lived in many countries and explored cultures from China and Korea to Egypt and Germany. I've visited ancient digs and toured prehistoric sites and spoken with priests and pastors of several religions. You're right to say the old aged ideas are not necessarily wrong. But if you use the Bible for factual knowledge, you find God thinks the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference (pi) is equal to three, not 3.14..... God doesn't know the bright dots in the sky are stars. God thinks there is a solid "firm" structure above us, between the first and second of the three heavens. If we are to believe Noah's flood covered the tallest mountain, well, run a spreadsheet. What would it take to move water that is five miles deep? Moses and the Exodus: Remember God visited 10 "plagues" on Egypt, which poisoned the wells, killed the crops and livestock, and killed a generation of men. Then Pharoah releases 3 million Jews, partly depopulating his kingdom and tanking the economy. Yet Egyptian history never mentions it. Then the Israelites walked along the bottom of the Red Sea while Moses held back walls of water between 100 and 1500 feet tall. There are plenty of religions and thousands of gods in mankind's culture. Once you understand the decisions of Emperor Constantine, you begin to understand why the Roman's chose to support Yahweh and Jesus as a state-sponsored religion. I suggest reading about the most recent archaeological finds in the Levant to understand how the minor storm god, Yahweh, was eventually elevated to his current position, rising above Baal, Asharaf, and the other gods of the Jews.
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.
@@alpscraftshack599 Humans must rely on others to an extent. Do you personally verify every statement that is presented to you as true? Generally, it is rational to rely on an intelligent and honest person.
@@truecatholic1 LOL - How do you know if one is "... an intelligent and honest person.?" I consider myself an intelligent & honest person. If I say that the god 'Apollo' is the one true god, are you going to accept / believe that? In answer to your question, I am like the Bereans. I attempt to review evidence, before I accept / believe important statements that may / will affect my life.
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
I will preface this as I always do. You don't need the crud in this video to believe in your philosophical conclusions about how to live your life. _You_don't_need_this_. Be moral as you wish to be: none of that morality has to end if the first chapter in your book is wrong about how the intelligent designer created your world. Good philosophy is still good philosophy. There is an overarching false conclusion in this speaker's narrative. If I can find a single flaw in science, then all of science is a lie and my beliefs must be true. Even if you could prove science wrong about one thing, that in no way proves any opponent's views as true. The earth must be young because I found a single inconsistent detail wihjt the old world belief? No, that is completely false logic. All of the other facts demonstrate an old earth, so if we take that same philosophy, we have disproven the young earth and old earth must be true. Power you take for yourself you also give to others, and the young earth hypothesis cannot handle, say, tree ring data that demonstrates a minimum age of 18,000 years. See, the 6,500 year calculation has a detail that doesn't fit, so the Big Bang must have happened! No, that's just as false a conclusion. On to his false witnessing... "We infer based on what we already believe about the history of what we're observing." Oh, that is wonderfully rich confession hrough projection. You believe because of a book written largely more than 1900 years ago that the Earth is of an age around 6,500 years ago (and largely unaaware that it was Sir Isaac Newton that determined that, the father of modern science, who wrote more about Christianity than science). You "beleive about the history" that it is 6,500 years. So you infer that everything must align with that belief. You approach everything from that singular lens and pervert all findings into that belief. This is exactly what he is accusing scientists of. But here's the problem: Science doesn't need a 14 billion year old universe. Science already dealt with massive changes in understanding and changed its position, which can be seen in the controversy around Einstein and Relativity. Yes, there was resistance, but science changed its view. The narrative that science starts with a premise and adapts all things to that premise is flat out demonstrably untrue. But it is true of those that believe the 6,500 year age: those individuals are deeply invested in that date. Scientists are not invested in a date, but anti-scientists are. Project on to your enemy what you yourself are doing. I think most of the readers know that concept... and now you're just as guilty. Mercury's Magnetic Field No, we don't know if it has changed at all. While the speaker presents this as absolute fact, casual research reveals that it is not treated as so by the scientific community. In fact, we have two readings from 1977 and 1979 that show it doubled in strength, the opposite of decay as this speaker suggests. Further, our own North Pole is moving now and we know it reverses. We have simulated this effect using a molten sulfur sphere. The Earth's magnetic field is not a constant, so how can you say Mercury's has decayed or just shifted? You can't measure an entire planetary field: you can only measure the magnetic field where you are and extend that to the entire system. We also have the Atlantic Dead Zone. There's a region of the Atlantic with no magnetic field at all. How do you know you didn't hit a dead spot? Measuring a planetary magnetic field with two devices on two dates does not indicate field decay, especially when we know definitively that planetary magnetic fields are not static in the first place. But that's what happens when you have a goal -- proving it's 6,500 -- instead of approaching with an open mind. A difference in a reading that supports your world view must mean your world view is correct, when there are many potential explanations that have not been disproven. What else explains different readings? Damage to the sensor. Different solar wind activity. Moon's Magnetic Field The speaker is making two false assumptions: that all rock was melted when it collapsed into Luna, and that Luna could not have a magnetic field at time when formed. Both are false. We have simulated the Earth's magnetic field using sulfur -- a non-magnetic substance. Non-magnetic substances when heated and rotated can form magnetic fields. When the moon's surface rock cooled, the inner was molten and rotating, creating a magnetic field that would align the surface rock. This is not a "dilemma for a long age view". the current estimate is trhat it took 2 billion years for Luna to lose its magnetic field as the core cooled to a solid. He is bearing false witness about the state of the current science when he says there is no model in science for this: we literally rotated sulfur to prove magnetic fields from hot molten normally non-magnetic substances. Second, cold rocks ejected from the collision would have had a field from the Earth's magnetic field. He hasn't recognized that possibility. Ganymede's Magnetic Field Where in your book does it demand that planets were created hot? This is not evidence of a "young earth" at all: this is a presumption that anything that does not align with the current scientific model can only mean that book must be true, and that is clearly false logic. There are other creation stories that compete that are also not proven in the same way. The only argument I see here is "an intelligent designer made it hot and kept it hot through will". He has no explanation for why the moon cooled fast and Ganymede didn't, so he has no model here to explain hsi conclusion at all. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to actually do your own research and look into what actual scientists propose. "We've touched on magnetic fields" No, "we" haven't. Well, I have. You've picked random data, bore false witness, and not explained anything at all about the actual observations aligning with a consistent theory. I have a theory: Wizards did it! There, we have a working model that now aligns all facts better than yours and we should all convert to that belief system. It's perfect and elegant! Io and Vulcanism Wait a sec. Io AND Ganymede are hot? Both orbit Jupiter? It's almost as if they both might be hot for the same reason? We mention Tidal Heating here, but not for Ganymede? Why did we skip over that? More false witness. In his opinion, there isn't enough energy to heat Io and Ganymede. Actual scientists say there is, so he is again falsely bearing witness about his opponents. Where are the numbers in his claim? How much energy does it take to keep it hot? How much could come from tidal heating? There are no numbers because he is making a specious claim and assuming you won't check him because you agree with him, because he has none: this is pure invention on his part. And again, Io cooling slower than Luna does not align with his young earth hypothesis. He has proven nothing here, just cited a fact and claimed that it must demonstrate a young universe. "Changing the glasses" You are wearing only one set, sir. Everything is being forced to conform to your world view. Ceres Did you know Ceres is large enough to have formed a sphere? He calls it an asteroid, but it now has the designation "dwarf planet" so he again is bearing false witness. If we replaced every time he says asteroid with dwarf planet, would his argument sound as reasonable? that answer should be, "No," because he is colouring your view with semantic presumptions of smallness. You wouldn't be stunned by Pluto having vulcanism: Pluto is also a dwarf planet. By incorrectly labelling it an asteroid, you think it's just a rock a few hundred feet wide. But if we swapped Luna with Ceres, you would see Ceres in the night sky. It's 1/4 the size of Luna. Ceres would be the 17th largest moon, if it orbited a planet instead of Sol. That's big. Apollo 15 He doesn't deny we landed on Luna! Awesome! Credit given. Moon Receding Hold it. Where in your book does it say that it was created to recede? Wouldn't it be created in a perfect unchanging orbit? The foundation of this proposal is a flaw that denies perfect intelligent design. Moon's Receding Orbit Current orbit = 362,800 km = 382,800,800 m at closest point. Rate of change = 0.0378 m per year Rate of change 1 Billion years = 37,800 m Age of Earth = 4.54 billion years Closest point 4.54 bbillion years ago = 191,188,000 m Claim that the moon couldn't exist at earth's start? Totally fabricated. Here are the numbers. Where are his? "They" Who are they? We don't need to explain anything when you bear false witness. There is no "they". That is conspiratorial nonsense.
@@alicehodges9964 BTW, you have a numerical mistake in both figures: the Earth is 4500 MILLION (not billion) year old and YEC claim the Earth is 6,000 (not 60,000) year old.
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.
If God is The Big Bang
Man doesn't know squat.
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
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
@@antbrown9066I agree. The question of how long is no where near as important as the question of WHO created the heavens and earth?
When did 24 hour day start, after earth started rotating, if it ever started
@@anttisalminen1110 good question. Inference from what is known. No way to measure. Not mentioned
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."
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!
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@BmoreGrrrrl I agree that a fact is a fact. But calling an interpretation based on an assumption a 'fact' is just silly.
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.
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.
It’s not personal incredulity, it’s outright lying. They KNOW they are talking sh!t.
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.
Great video and insights. Thank you!!🙏🏼
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."
All this chowder head needs to do is demonstrate that radioactive elements don't decay at specific rates.
His Nobel Prize awaits...
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.
@@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.
@roblangsdorf8758 - I guess those sampled rocks are old
@@globalcoupledances Sounds like you don't have a clue about radiometric dating.
I guess volcanic bombs
My favourite doctor Mr Harwood thank you from Spain.
Excellent comments !
“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.
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth." Exodus 20:11.
@@antbrown9066 Absolutely.
The bible does not claim that god created the universe , earth and all we see on it. Has it been edited then.
@@JohnNewby-o8dits a book written by men to control other men.
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.
It's not you they rejected but me said God.
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.
Time is relative. The age of the universe is based on what clock, in what location?
Absolute time is defined very, very accurately: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time
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.
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.
@@spamm0145Prove Einstein wrong; it should be easy since you have the perfect grasp of scientific principles.
GOD'S clock in Heaven.
Great video insight. I only see a young solar system and a young Earth'.✝️
@@callumclarke1733 I Don't
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.
Photons travel at the speed of light. At that speed time stands still.
@@kitemanmusic in a vacuum but yes
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.
Time can't stop
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
@@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?
The problem is not the evidence but the unbeliever.
I'm An Atheist So I Don't Believe The Evidence About The Earth Being 60.000 Years Old
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?
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.
God in his, immeasurable power an unfathomable power might just take a day that to us mere mortals seems like billions of years.
Confirms the Big Bang
See this article creation.com/historical-six-day-creation
@@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?
@@globalcoupledancesThis is Trying to Brainwash you all into believing the earth is Young
I woould like to see Dr Harwood on the Joe Rogan show!
Good stuff!
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.
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'.
@@spamm0145 What physical evidence shows the true age of the earth is 6000 years then?
“The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” prov 18-17
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
So are you saying it is not 13 billion years old?
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.
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?
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.
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.
See this article here: creation.com/distant-starlight-and-the-biblical-timeframe
Thanks for telling us the truth!
Great! Thank you
i have a question can i share the link in bluesky? and do you think that you go to bluesky too
I can not view the stream. It keeps on saying it has expired every time you make it free.
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.
Brilliant!
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.
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.
@@IronMatt Deep time is a conclusion drawn from the observable physical evidence of geology, paleontology, radiometric dating, astronomy, etc. It was not invented.
@@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
@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.
@@i7Qp4rQ "God did it " has never been a rationnal explanation of anything.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
Just explain atomic decay.
creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works
I believe it was created last week!
Oh for Goodness Sake 🙄 Stop it's A Lie
@@petejung3122 The Earth Is 4.543 Billion Years Old Abd the Universe Is 13.7 Billion Years Old Get it?
@@alicehodges9964 what is a lie?
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.
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?
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...
Spinoza did it by first defining God as infinite. Then he proved that nature is God
@globalcoupledances you can replace the word "god" with any fairy tales characters, and you will end up having the same claim result...
@@cmlacosta Only Spinoza did it the Euclidean way
It would be interesting to investigate whether the earth's magnetic field decay may have triggered Noah's Flood.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@alpscraftshack599 if it is not proven, it is an assumption
The universe displays the glory of God!
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
Do you exist? If so, prove it.
@@MuzaffarKrylov no I don't exist, you are interacting with a imaginary atheist. Hahaha 🤣🤣🤣
@@leongkhengneoh6581 prove it
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.
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.
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.
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. 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).
@@jotunthe11thhyman65have you read about the hypothesized size of the diamonds in the mantle? Huge! And plentiful
See this article for oil! creation.com/algae-to-oil
And these articles for dinosaurs: creation.com/en-us/topics/dinosaurs
@@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).
Very unscientific video . The Holy Scriptures do NOT deny a very very ancient world and universe. So called " literal extremists" do not understand Genesis due to shallow reading. The heavens and nature declare the glory of the Lord. Why are some Christians trying to limit God ? Billions of years are easily within His powers and processes. Yes His "book of works " - the comos clearly proves this. PTL. Christ is Saviour and King.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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
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.🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
@@sammcrae8892 having faith in god and being open minded are two different things.
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!
Next video - 3 signs that prove the sun revolves around the earth.
My primary school was named after Saint Bellarminus, the head of the Inquisition of the Galileo affair
😁😁😁
But there will not be that video as that is wrong.
@ 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”!
@ are your claims first hand accounts?
Lawdy...to think ppl believe this nonsense in the 21st century.
God could clarify it to someone like he allegedly did to Moses.
Anytime he likes.
Why does he not?
The issue is not the clarity of Scripture, it is the sinfulness of man. :)
@@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
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?
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
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?
When God hovered the Waters of the deep
@clarkwally "...and God's spirit was moving about over the surface of the waters." Genesis 1:2
Don’t forget the Bible was written by humans not GOD. And humans are not to be trusted too much.
How do you measure a solar day when the sun was made yet?
Serious question, no hate required please.
See this article here! creation.com/literal-days-before-the-sun
And here creation.com/bible-written
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.
@@nigeltremain1900 Science was new in the 1600s. Newton was a theologian, an alchemist, and many other things. TODAY, we have a well-developed scientific methods. Harwood is a theologian trying to make reality fit his religion. He's a hero to his flock, I'm sure.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Everyone can claim something without needing proof. This is just another example of that.
Than you for explaining evolutionary THEORY!
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
So many haters in the comments. It makes me sad.
LOL - Just because people doubt / question your beliefs / views does not make them "... haters..."
Scientists love to publish the truth. Unlike YEC
@globalcoupledances YEC scientists post a lot of scientific truth
@dirkmoolman - I don't believe you. YEC wants to mislead you
@@dirkmoolman I Don't Believe The Earth Is 60.000 Years Old Sorry
Is your belief in God so shaky that you feel the need to prove he exists with faulty science?
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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
The Great Pyramid: our world is 12 024 years old.
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,”
Obviously, an older Universe would have had sufficient time to grow a long white beard, yet it clearly does not. Case closed.
PROOF!!!
😂
Was this supposed to be funny lol 😂?
@@Sean_6008No Religious People Believe Silly Things Like The Earth Being 60.000 Years Old I on the Other Hand Believe In Senseble Things
@@DanielJames-h9h And Obviously The Universe Is 13.7 Billion Years Old Do Your Reaserch
Mercury. Is a lot smaller than earth . Earth went through a lot of of collisions., with other planets . Which would make a robust magnetic field .
Billions of years ago . Not 6000 years .
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 .
@@drmachinewerke1 The Earth Isn't Flat Abd it Never Was Ok? So Stop believing lies
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 ?
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!
@ the jews were chosen ones to spread the gospel ? ( Christianity)?
Aren’t they the ones that killed ( crucified) Jesus?
Thank you for your answer.
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.
We are told all sorts of nonsense from birth & lied to constantly by media, govt , tv & educators & science
"...man must be guided by reason "
-Ayn Rand-
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
Are you joking?
It's not True The 60.000 Years Old Thing is A Lie
Presuppositions , that's the crux of it.
Conclusive evidence > religious belief .
@@jimmiewomble416 ok.show me evidence.
Show me CONCLUSIVE evidence of evolution, or the age of the universe 😊
@@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.
scripted questions scripted answers
The real meaning of the bible is not being taught.
The moon cannot be ancient.
Why?
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Because of reasons explained in the video.
@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.
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien It was actually the last point.
@@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.
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.
🍿📚🤔🧠🔬🧬👍✝️🙏
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.
@@nextworld9176 It sounds like you are saying you are simply a student, whereas he has a ton of experience and knowledge.
Ideas being old (e.g. Bronze Age) doesn't equate to them being wrong. It is a fallacy to assume that.
Also, basically telling a Christian that believing in the divinity of Jesus is as silly as believing in the Bible is not a convincing argument, since Christians believe in both.
@@jotunthe11thhyman65 Good points. I should be more specific. I am a 68-yro retired military officer with several degrees. I've lived in many countries and explored cultures from China and Korea to Egypt and Germany. I've visited ancient digs and toured prehistoric sites and spoken with priests and pastors of several religions. You're right to say the old aged ideas are not necessarily wrong. But if you use the Bible for factual knowledge, you find God thinks the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference (pi) is equal to three, not 3.14..... God doesn't know the bright dots in the sky are stars. God thinks there is a solid "firm" structure above us, between the first and second of the three heavens. If we are to believe Noah's flood covered the tallest mountain, well, run a spreadsheet. What would it take to move water that is five miles deep? Moses and the Exodus: Remember God visited 10 "plagues" on Egypt, which poisoned the wells, killed the crops and livestock, and killed a generation of men. Then Pharoah releases 3 million Jews, partly depopulating his kingdom and tanking the economy. Yet Egyptian history never mentions it. Then the Israelites walked along the bottom of the Red Sea while Moses held back walls of water between 100 and 1500 feet tall.
There are plenty of religions and thousands of gods in mankind's culture. Once you understand the decisions of Emperor Constantine, you begin to understand why the Roman's chose to support Yahweh and Jesus as a state-sponsored religion. I suggest reading about the most recent archaeological finds in the Levant to understand how the minor storm god, Yahweh, was eventually elevated to his current position, rising above Baal, Asharaf, and the other gods of the Jews.
Oh how funny when bible thumpers try an err at science!
👍
Why use science to explain... Use your data from the Bible..
Science tells storys while he gets his assumptions from a literal storybook 😂
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
@andrewrowney7601 I am repeating what others have found. I do not know exactly their own evidence.
@@truecatholic1 Then how can you claim it to be true, if you have not read / seen the evidence to back it up / prove it?
@@alpscraftshack599 Humans must rely on others to an extent. Do you personally verify every statement that is presented to you as true? Generally, it is rational to rely on an intelligent and honest person.
@@truecatholic1 LOL - How do you know if one is "... an intelligent and honest person.?" I consider myself an intelligent & honest person. If I say that the god 'Apollo' is the one true god, are you going to accept / believe that? In answer to your question, I am like the Bereans. I attempt to review evidence, before I accept / believe important statements that may / will affect my life.
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
I will preface this as I always do. You don't need the crud in this video to believe in your philosophical conclusions about how to live your life. _You_don't_need_this_. Be moral as you wish to be: none of that morality has to end if the first chapter in your book is wrong about how the intelligent designer created your world. Good philosophy is still good philosophy.
There is an overarching false conclusion in this speaker's narrative. If I can find a single flaw in science, then all of science is a lie and my beliefs must be true. Even if you could prove science wrong about one thing, that in no way proves any opponent's views as true. The earth must be young because I found a single inconsistent detail wihjt the old world belief? No, that is completely false logic. All of the other facts demonstrate an old earth, so if we take that same philosophy, we have disproven the young earth and old earth must be true. Power you take for yourself you also give to others, and the young earth hypothesis cannot handle, say, tree ring data that demonstrates a minimum age of 18,000 years. See, the 6,500 year calculation has a detail that doesn't fit, so the Big Bang must have happened! No, that's just as false a conclusion. On to his false witnessing...
"We infer based on what we already believe about the history of what we're observing."
Oh, that is wonderfully rich confession hrough projection. You believe because of a book written largely more than 1900 years ago that the Earth is of an age around 6,500 years ago (and largely unaaware that it was Sir Isaac Newton that determined that, the father of modern science, who wrote more about Christianity than science).
You "beleive about the history" that it is 6,500 years. So you infer that everything must align with that belief. You approach everything from that singular lens and pervert all findings into that belief. This is exactly what he is accusing scientists of. But here's the problem:
Science doesn't need a 14 billion year old universe. Science already dealt with massive changes in understanding and changed its position, which can be seen in the controversy around Einstein and Relativity. Yes, there was resistance, but science changed its view. The narrative that science starts with a premise and adapts all things to that premise is flat out demonstrably untrue.
But it is true of those that believe the 6,500 year age: those individuals are deeply invested in that date. Scientists are not invested in a date, but anti-scientists are.
Project on to your enemy what you yourself are doing. I think most of the readers know that concept... and now you're just as guilty.
Mercury's Magnetic Field
No, we don't know if it has changed at all. While the speaker presents this as absolute fact, casual research reveals that it is not treated as so by the scientific community. In fact, we have two readings from 1977 and 1979 that show it doubled in strength, the opposite of decay as this speaker suggests. Further, our own North Pole is moving now and we know it reverses. We have simulated this effect using a molten sulfur sphere. The Earth's magnetic field is not a constant, so how can you say Mercury's has decayed or just shifted? You can't measure an entire planetary field: you can only measure the magnetic field where you are and extend that to the entire system.
We also have the Atlantic Dead Zone. There's a region of the Atlantic with no magnetic field at all. How do you know you didn't hit a dead spot? Measuring a planetary magnetic field with two devices on two dates does not indicate field decay, especially when we know definitively that planetary magnetic fields are not static in the first place.
But that's what happens when you have a goal -- proving it's 6,500 -- instead of approaching with an open mind. A difference in a reading that supports your world view must mean your world view is correct, when there are many potential explanations that have not been disproven.
What else explains different readings? Damage to the sensor. Different solar wind activity.
Moon's Magnetic Field
The speaker is making two false assumptions: that all rock was melted when it collapsed into Luna, and that Luna could not have a magnetic field at time when formed. Both are false.
We have simulated the Earth's magnetic field using sulfur -- a non-magnetic substance. Non-magnetic substances when heated and rotated can form magnetic fields. When the moon's surface rock cooled, the inner was molten and rotating, creating a magnetic field that would align the surface rock. This is not a "dilemma for a long age view". the current estimate is trhat it took 2 billion years for Luna to lose its magnetic field as the core cooled to a solid. He is bearing false witness about the state of the current science when he says there is no model in science for this: we literally rotated sulfur to prove magnetic fields from hot molten normally non-magnetic substances.
Second, cold rocks ejected from the collision would have had a field from the Earth's magnetic field. He hasn't recognized that possibility.
Ganymede's Magnetic Field
Where in your book does it demand that planets were created hot? This is not evidence of a "young earth" at all: this is a presumption that anything that does not align with the current scientific model can only mean that book must be true, and that is clearly false logic. There are other creation stories that compete that are also not proven in the same way. The only argument I see here is "an intelligent designer made it hot and kept it hot through will". He has no explanation for why the moon cooled fast and Ganymede didn't, so he has no model here to explain hsi conclusion at all. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to actually do your own research and look into what actual scientists propose.
"We've touched on magnetic fields"
No, "we" haven't. Well, I have. You've picked random data, bore false witness, and not explained anything at all about the actual observations aligning with a consistent theory. I have a theory: Wizards did it! There, we have a working model that now aligns all facts better than yours and we should all convert to that belief system. It's perfect and elegant!
Io and Vulcanism
Wait a sec. Io AND Ganymede are hot? Both orbit Jupiter? It's almost as if they both might be hot for the same reason? We mention Tidal Heating here, but not for Ganymede? Why did we skip over that?
More false witness. In his opinion, there isn't enough energy to heat Io and Ganymede. Actual scientists say there is, so he is again falsely bearing witness about his opponents. Where are the numbers in his claim? How much energy does it take to keep it hot? How much could come from tidal heating? There are no numbers because he is making a specious claim and assuming you won't check him because you agree with him, because he has none: this is pure invention on his part.
And again, Io cooling slower than Luna does not align with his young earth hypothesis. He has proven nothing here, just cited a fact and claimed that it must demonstrate a young universe.
"Changing the glasses"
You are wearing only one set, sir. Everything is being forced to conform to your world view.
Ceres
Did you know Ceres is large enough to have formed a sphere? He calls it an asteroid, but it now has the designation "dwarf planet" so he again is bearing false witness. If we replaced every time he says asteroid with dwarf planet, would his argument sound as reasonable? that answer should be, "No," because he is colouring your view with semantic presumptions of smallness. You wouldn't be stunned by Pluto having vulcanism: Pluto is also a dwarf planet. By incorrectly labelling it an asteroid, you think it's just a rock a few hundred feet wide. But if we swapped Luna with Ceres, you would see Ceres in the night sky. It's 1/4 the size of Luna. Ceres would be the 17th largest moon, if it orbited a planet instead of Sol. That's big.
Apollo 15
He doesn't deny we landed on Luna! Awesome! Credit given.
Moon Receding
Hold it. Where in your book does it say that it was created to recede? Wouldn't it be created in a perfect unchanging orbit? The foundation of this proposal is a flaw that denies perfect intelligent design.
Moon's Receding Orbit
Current orbit = 362,800 km = 382,800,800 m at closest point.
Rate of change = 0.0378 m per year
Rate of change 1 Billion years = 37,800 m
Age of Earth = 4.54 billion years
Closest point 4.54 bbillion years ago = 191,188,000 m
Claim that the moon couldn't exist at earth's start? Totally fabricated. Here are the numbers. Where are his?
"They"
Who are they? We don't need to explain anything when you bear false witness. There is no "they". That is conspiratorial nonsense.
Research FLAT EARTH
the Bible is true. don't believe the demons who hate God/Jesus and don't want to be judged for their sinful life.
The Bible is A Lie
How is that related in any way, shape or form to the age of the Earth?
@@betaorionis2164 The Earth Is 4.543 Billion Years Old Not 60.000 Years Old
@@alicehodges9964 Yeah, agreed. What makes you think I’m a YEC?
@@alicehodges9964 BTW, you have a numerical mistake in both figures: the Earth is 4500 MILLION (not billion) year old and YEC claim the Earth is 6,000 (not 60,000) year old.
I just love how unscripted and original this interview is!