“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV) “And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version) “O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV) God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
@@PetraKann What is worse, a narcissistic genocidal psychopath or somebody that is justifing their actions? because it sounds like that is exactly what you are doing.
What an awesome very educational video. I have always believed in the young earth Christian view. But must admit it would confuse me at times . I would just go on the Word of God and have faith that one day I will understand all this. This video has helped me greatly to now speak boldly on this matter. Thank you!♥️🙏😊
Have all the faith you want. Everything Calvin says is a lie. Notice all the supporting evidence he provides. Oh, wait, he has none... that should be your first clue. ALL the evidence we have says the flood didn't happen, and couldn't happen.
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy let him be holy still." - Revelation 22:11 In other words, feel free to remain the way you are until Jesus Christ/Yeshua Ha'Mashiach returns as the Goel: the Kinsman Redeemer and Avenger of Blood. Feel free to remain either a believer or an unbeliever, until that Day. Just remember that free will has consequences.
“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV) “And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version) “O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV) God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
I have always believed scripture. Evolution was beginning to be taught to me in 1960. I rejected it then & reject it now. I am very familiar with several Theologians you mentioned that believe in an old earth. I disagree with them about an old earth but also thank God for their belief in Christ.
What was the basis of your outright rejection of the Evolutionary process? Do you believe in these bits of your Old Testament Scripture? “See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV) “And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version) “O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV) God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
@ indeed my friend. I was raised as a Christian and still remain a Christian. I distinguish many things found in the Old Testament and the New Testament (Gospels). In fact I have a copy of the Gospels in original Greek with the English translation on the opposite page. I can read and understand both languages so this copy of the Gospels is a valuable spiritual resource. You would have noticed the quotes I cited were from the old testament. I dont have a personal conflict between what’s written in the New Testament and Biological Evolution or with Science in general. You dont have reject one in order to accept the other. What matters is what you believe us true not dogma and superstition. It’s unlikely that you will understand what I am saying to you because it appears that you made up your mind many decades ago…..but you never know what can happen in God’s universe
Which part of this video do biologists/geneticists (or as you prefer to call them, 'evolutionists') not want to see or are afraid to see? Timestamp? Edit.. I guess I messed up.. my question should be, what part of the video do 'evolutionists' not want *you* to see?
@@joefriday2275 I just reread your comment and realized you didn't even answer my question. Which part of this video do biologists / geneticists and people who understand biological evolution, not want you to see? That was the question (paraphrased, but I think you understand what I'm asking)
@@earthisasphere Yes. According to a 2019 Pew poll of science professionals 98% of scientists in all fields and 99.9% of scientists in the life sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) accept evolutionary theory as the correct explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. I notice Joefriday always resorts to lying when someone corrects him on his blunders.
@@joefriday2275 hey man, if you want to use that word, go right ahead. How many more times do I have to respond to you until you answer my initial question?
@@joefriday2275 *which part of the video do 'evolutionists' not want you to see?* The organization that uploaded this video is telling us there is something certain people don't want to see.. what are they talking about? Do you know? Because I sure don't.
I really dislike these clickbait titles AiG always makes but thankfully the content is good ! I really appreciate Dr. Mortenson. Thank you for your work.
Here's something for the Bible literalists: Luke 14:26 - “If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV) “And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version) “O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV) God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
From Genesis to Revelation the complete historical fact of Eternity past, Creation, the fall of man, Noah's Flood, the redemption of man thru CHRIST, beginning of the Church, Eternity present, end of the Church Age, the millennial reign of CHRIST, Eternity future. Praise JESUS!!! There are no Gaps or In Betweens...😊
The Bible gets a few names and locations correct, that is about it. Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy Egypt so thoroughly that no one would ever set foot in Egypt ever again. Oops, there goes your factually correct part, and your infallibility claim...
@@earthisasphere Where in the Bible did you read that "Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy Egypt so thoroughly that no one would ever set foot in Egypt ever again"? You may have been misinformed by another lying atheist. That statement cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. I don't really expect honest statements from any atheist but outright lies that can easily be fact checked should be questioned. Infallibility restored!
@@melvinnoble8043 I don't expect honest statements from YEC's, and I was raised as one for the first 25 years of my life. I did misremember. No one was to set foot there for 40 years. Not only was that not the case, Egypt was never destroyed or laid waste to. In fact, there are at least 5 prophecies from Ezekiel , Isaiah, and Joshua alone that are blatantly unfulfilled. 1) Already mentioned - Egypt has never been destroyed or gone 40 years uninhabited. 2) The Nile would dry up during "Pagan Egypt" - that ended in the 4th century, and he Nile never dried up. 3) In Isaiah 7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies. 2 Chronicles 28:1-8 shows that false. 4) Isaiah 19:18 says Egyptians will learn the tongue of Canaanites. Not only has the Canaanite language never been spoken by Egyptians, but it is now an extinct language. Egyptians also never spoke Hebrew. 5) Joshua 3:10 Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites. And yet, the Jebusites still live in Jerusalem to this day, and there is no mention or evidence that they were ever drvien out of Jeruselum. 6) BONUS! Ezekiel 28:24-26 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors. - Israel is never at peace. Infallibility was never there to begin with...
To me the only gaps are the years and months of the ages recorded of people that are given in the Bible. I don't need to know the exact few months over 6000 years over how old the Earth to except the accuracy of the Bible.
Um, no. Floods sort rock layers by density. The grand canyon layers are not sorted by density. Also, you have alternating layers of sandstone and limestone. That would not happen during a flood. Limestone forms in calm, shallow water with lots of calcium carbonate, which the flood could not provide. We know rocks can bend under heat and pressure over long periods of time. Its like bending clay, take your time, and you can bend it, mold it. Do it quickly and it snaps in half. Also, a flood would have created a giant washout with no switchbacks. The grand canyon has over 100 switchbacks in it, floods don't cause those.
@@joefriday2275Saying "somewhere" and not "from the shells of billions of dead sea life" to hide the actual logic behind it is intentionally intellectually dishonest. Bearing false witness is a sin
@@earthisasphere yes it would happen during a flood. Noah's flood has water coming from underneath the Earth as well as rain. Some people have speculated that an asteroid hit the land, causing a rupturing of the land and allowing the water to shoot up. Genesis states that God gathered the land in one place and the water in another. All that landmass on top of the water would cause a great deal of pressure that, when released, would cause the water to shoot out at tremendous pressure. Noah's flood was a massive event.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu most if not all rock starts off from a soft state. The layers bent into their current shape and was left to dry. This is why you see the different shapes and patterns.
There is a reason that Jesus Christ is called the Word. To deny the Word of God which he testifies to and witnesses of, is to deny Christ, as he is The Word.
@@Mario_Sky_521 You are confusing Evolution with the science of how life started. These are seperate. Evolution is the natural mechanism through which speciation came about and about which there is no doubt. The age of the earth and the universe, while not exact, is also not speculation.
@@Mario_Sky_521 _One that has a limb or organ not quite evolved yet, but getting there!_ Here are two from the fossil record. _Onychonycteris finneyi_ is a transitional fossil bat dating to approx. 52 MYA. It has wings about half the size of those on extant bats and still has claws on its fingers. Analysis shows it could fly but not very well, more of a fluttering glide that controlled flight. It's a textbook definition of a transitional fossil. _Odontochelys semitestacea_ is a transitional fossil turtle which liver 220 MYA. It has only half a carapace and is a perfect transitional between shell-less lizard ancestors and extant turtles. That's two species with "half-baked by evolution but getting there" transitional features.
38:15 or sth ... by about 1850, the majority of Roman Catholic theologians were still strictly Biblical Creationists. You had Gap Theorists and Day Age theorists gaining ground towards 1880 or sth, but every Catholic Theologian in good standing was either assuming, or repenting of at some time not having assumed that Genesis 1 was history. An example of the latter was a priest who withdrew his book because he understood that if he didn't, it could be put on the index, he was allowed to quietly withdraw it instead and so be spared that disgrace.
I enjoyed Dr. Mortenson's lecture very much and agree with nearly every aspect of the presentation with the exceptions of some of the elements of a little cartoon drawing @ 52:39. 1st the concept of Christmas which has no relationship to Christ and solely based on paganism from the date to the imagery associated with it and the issue of separation of church and state as pertains to the teaching of religion in public schools which like all other subjects is certain to fall under the guidance of the Jesuits and the 10 commandments as corrupted by the Papacy to negate the prohibition of idolatry and change the law of the sabbath substituting the the first day of the week for the seventh day sabbath as sanctified and made holy by God to be kept in remembrance of his creation by His people Israel as a perpetual covenant.
Creationist: "There is no such thing as evolution!" Creationist: "the 1400+ known species of bats all HYPER-EVOLVED from the single pair on the Ark in only 4500 years!" 😄😄😄
As opposed to something appeared from nothing then went kablooie 14 Billion years ago despite the fact that they have no observable evidence of it happening? Or maybe you are thinking that life suddenly sprung up from non life 3.8 billion years ago. Which once again has not been observed or repeated. Your religion requires quite a bit of faith to believe.
@@harpintn *has not been observed or repeated.* Being observed or repeated are not requirements for an event to studied scientifically. Only tests on the evidence from the event need to be observable and repeatable. Do you enjoy being this science illiterate?
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are biologists, paeleontologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, and a number of others. Each one has a field of study that they concentrate on. All scientific fields are subject to further knowledge. That is what separates them from religion. As far as the consequences of that scientific knowledge, that is up to us to deal with it. Science merely tries to explain reality as best it can. How we deal with reality is up to us.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Science does not and cannot include the supernatural. It can't because supernatural causes are unpredictable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable. _Christianity doesn't have that problem_ You mean Christianity is too arrogant to know and accept it may be wrong too. Science doesn't have that ego problem.
@@Mario_Sky_521 _The fields of study you mention rely on evolution as a starting point_ No they don't. Evolution was a *conclusion* drawn from the consilient evidence provided by those fields. It wasn't the starting point. You have the science exactly backwards.
@@Mario_Sky_521"Evolution as a starting point". Well said. Evolutionists put on their evolution glasses and search for validation of a theory they really want to be valid. It absolutely doesn't work in reverse, where scientists are open minded and are accidentally stumbling upon evidence for evolution.
@@LarsLarson-u1x cry about it. name calling isn’t going to do anything but show people that its the atheists that are more toxic here. If you want someone to believe your beliefs, don’t name call them.
I am a Christian. This speaker emphasized in the first five minutes that "Anyone can be deceived." I agree, and on that exhortation I would like to show that the speaker himself is in fact deceived and is deceiving his audience. Here is a list of lies said in this video: - "There are two definitions of science ... operation science and origin science." This is a lie. There is no distinction between these two invented categories in science. Scientists refer to the same methods and the same body of research whether they are doing physics or astrophysics, minerology or geology, genetics or evolutionary biology. They are overlapping, interlocking fields that mutually reference and confirm one another, and the supposed criterion that "operation science" refers to the "present" physical universe is a blatant red herring that ignores how science actually functions. - "Operation science [is] the use of ... experiments in a controlled environment, usually a laboratory." Very little science is actually done in a laboratory. A lot of science is done in the field. A lot more science is done in scholarship-speculation, hypothesis, analysis, meta-analysis, discussion, theory comparison, review, etc. - "Science is for ... to improve our lives [in the present]." This is a modernist fallacy that flows out of the Enlightenment, which viewed science as a means of controlling nature rather than understanding the higher principles of the universe God made. In reality, science is a very broad discipline that encompasses the entire body of literature produced by the scientific community past and present. - "Science doesn't answer... what happened in the unknowable, unrepeatable past." This is a fallacy because it assumes the past is unknowable and unrepeatable. Actually, the same processes that, for example, formed the Grand Canyon are in operation today, we can actively observe them, we can see the effects they produce, and we can see those same effects in, for example, the rock layers of the Grand Canyon. The distant past is neither unknowable nor unrepeatable; it is ever, imminently present with us today. - "How did the first dog come into existence? ... That's in the unobservable, unrepeatable past." Actually, we can observe new species coming into existence. We can see the entire spectrum of populations separated by geography and the transition from populations that are fully able to reproduce, to populations that reproduce sterile offspring, to populations too distantly related to reproduce which grow observably more distant genetically over time. That is speciation, and it is still happening-even with canine species! Anyway, the whole video is full of fallacies like this. Be cautious.
@@Mere-Theism Don't bother with Joe. Both supporters and critics of this channel alike know he is nothing but a liar. While I don't share you view on religion, I respect a religious individual being willing to call out AIG's lies.
@@earthisasphere Thank you for the warning, duly noted. When we are so disposed, the one with whom we agree and the one with whom we disagree both aid us in the pursuit of truth, and so I gladly reciporocate your respect. The same cannot be said for those who refuse to listen and see.
@@earthisasphere I corrected Joe yesterday on one of his really lame claims ("birds existed before dinosaurs"). He called me a sc*m bag atheist and said he would mute me. 😄
@donteatthecats0001 I think there are small children out there that could correct Joe on anything he sputters on about. They're generally at the same cognitive level. JoeFriday continuing to lower the bar for YEC everywhere one day at a time....
Could it possibly be yet another weird video title from Answers in Genesis? Yes! ''Evolutionists' do not want you to see this' Huh? There is absolutely *nothing* an apologetics organization could say or do that would 'frighten' scientists.. ya wackos😊
No we really don't want people to watch this. There's so much bull in it it's a waste of anybody's time to watch this, and I don't want people to waste their time
As a Christian, I'd like to point out some more things about this video that are dishonest. Here is a list of lies: - "Ernst Mayr said 'Evolution is a historical process,' so we're dealing with a question of ... the unobservable, unrepeatable past." This is a lie and a misrepresentation of Mayr. Mayr advocated for reconstructing historical events because the *processes* that cause these events actually can be observed, repeated, modeled, and compared as theoretical frameworks on a larger scale. If you reject evolution because it deals with "history", then you must also reject the fields of history and biblical scholarship, which is what we use to show the reliability of the gospels. You also have to reject medical science because these kinds of reconstructions and projections are absolutely indispensable to medicine. It is just a very dishonest and misleading use of Mayr's quote. - "The only difference between evolutionists and creationists is that creationists believe God's eyewitness testimony." No, creationists-at least, the most well-funded and influential creationist organizations-almost deliberately misrepresent evolutionary theory, whereas evolutionary biologists have always directly and unashamedly addressed creationist arguments at their core. There is an asymmetry in academic integrity between the communities that is demonstrable. Also, to call the bible "God's eyewitness testimony" of events in natural history is a huge modernist assumption about what biblical literature even is. The bible is *not* a science textbook. - "The only difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists deny that testimony." No, this is also a lie. Many evolutionists are Christians. Many Christians working in astrophysics, geology, biology, and any number of related fields maintain earnest neutrality on the interpretation of Genesis and simply follow the scientific evidence where it leads-which is overwhelmingly against a young earth creationist view. Other Christians vehemently hold to a woodenly literal view of Genesis, but then when they see how overwhelming the evidence in the natural world is against it they just stop being Christians because they have been forced by their church communities to think that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution. Creationism is a modern, Western misreading of scripture that causes intellectual and spiritual damage. - "For the first 1800 years, the almost universal belief in the church was that God created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago." This is absolutely false. Many, many formative Christian theologians and thinkers either outright denied this or maintained explicit openness to denying this throughout history. Augustine explicitly believed that the earth was much older than 6,000 years and that aspects of Genesis are metaphorical because, in his view, *Genesis itself obviously presents as metaphorical* given that it orders the creation of light and plants before the creation of the sun (and you have to take a *less* literal interpretation of Genesis to interpret it literally, ironically). Thomas Aquinas believed it was totally plausible that the universe is eternally created by God. Among many others. - "[James Hutton] didn't observe any continents going into the ocean." Maybe Hutton didn't, but this is dishonest because today we actually can and do observe this sort of thing happening! It's called subduction zones, and we observe continents subducting underneath other continents in real time during subduction zone earthquakes. Also, Hutton was a strong Christian, contradicting the presenter's earlier claims about evolutionists rejecting the bible. - Georges Cutier was also a strong Christian who believed in the biblical flood, also contradicting the presenter's earlier claims about evolutionists rejecting the bible. - Charles Lyell was ALSO a strong Christian. Seems like almost everyone who discovered the evidence for biological evolution and a long geological timeline were faithful Christians, NOT God-hating atheists with an agenda.
@donteatthecats0001 sounds like someone who believes egotistical liberal 'Intellectuals' over the bible and common sense. probably one of those 'christians' who support trans and gay too.
Here's the thing about a World-Wide flood taken place in Noah's era ... what would have been considered "World-Wide" is what most of us have been taught about in elementary school; one large continent, we called "Pangaea". The rest of the World outside of that continent would have been exactly as we see today, just Ocean. So a World-Wide flood would have only been covering one (relatively) small portion of the Earth with water (just like the rest of the Earth). The Bible also says that the fountains of the great deep broke open at that time (Gen 7:11) which can easily speak to why "Pangaea" begin to split and drift apart, giving us different continents. Which, by the way, share fossil records across continents...
There is still the heat problem that would make earth explode if you magically press 4.5 billion years into magically 6000 years because of a bronze age fantasy book.
@@joefriday2275 Because ceationists dishonestly used a dating method that the company doing them explicitly says should not be used for such samples, because the margin of error can be + or - several million years, which does not matter if samples are a billion years old but does if they are recent. Many tests have margins of error of a couple percent they are nonethless valid methods. Funny how your lot are happy to hashtag-lying-for-jebus. But then, creationism must include dishonestly, else it would needs admit it is nonsense,
@@joefriday2275 Why don't you accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old? Is your god a liar? Or are you just silly?
@@klouis1886 there are some things that can be explained naturally and other things that can be explained supernaturally. The natural explanations are called science. Funny how they both correlate together so well.
My son came home from college and after speaking with him, he said he believes in evolution. He said the Bible is true or a verse in the Bible said it’s true. So if one thing is wrong that is a lie. I didn’t have an answer. Any help?
''Evolutionists Do NOT Want You to See This'' Who does titles like this actually work on? Whenever I see the titles of these propaganda videos I roll my eyes.
@@sandman9390 AIG denies evolution, as do the vast majority of their followers. Evolution is supported by more evidence than any other scientific idea there is, and is the most heavily studied and scrutinized scientific idea there is. 98% of all scientists support evolution. 51% of all scientists believe in a god. That means that for every 51 god believing scientists, 49 of them believe evolution. There is zero evidence to falsify evolution except for religious claims that cannot be verified. If you don't believe in evolution you are denying actual science. Stop lying, and stop the science denial.
Well put. Love all the legitimate modern discoveries that have naturalist secular evolutionists scrambling in a way that makes their delusions obvious.
That is, of course, true because, unlike science, religious beliefs cannot be disproven. As soon as someone says a religious book is the basis of their proof they have lost me. After all repeatability, and open mindedness are the basis of science. Science cannot be proven while religious beliefs cannot be disproven. Who created the universe is a religious question; how it was created is a science question. Scientists can believe in God while atheism is not a requirement for science.
1.Religion is just any system of belief that defines the philosophy and morality of its believers. Atheism is just as much as a religion as Christianity. The myth is just that religion involves belief in deity; the fact is that it can, but not exclusive. Confucianism is considered a religion without a deity of any sort. 2. Material science is all about falsifiability. You do not prove things; you disprove things. 3. Claiming atheism as neutral on claims of origin is absurd.
There's more proof for the bible than evolution. There's not one proof. When you look at the evidence which is the same for Christians and evolutionists common sense comes down on the side of Christianity
Then why don’t you believe the repeated experiments? Fruit flies mutated more than any creature on earth ever was or could be always remain fruit flies. E. coli across tens of thousands of generations always produce E. coli. Peas, you guessed it, produce peas. Staphylococcus bacteria despite gaining resistance remain staphylococcus bacteria. Influenza viruses always remain influenza viruses…. But you reject all the repeatable experiments and instead fall into your imagination ….
@@markgilrosales6366 Christianity should be a moral way of life. Found in no other religion. Many sciences edify the bible such as archaeology, astrology, and paleontology to name a few. And the bible is the only him with fulfilled prophecy 100%
If one could take a Materialist Geologist / Scientist and a Young Earth Creationist Geologist / Scientist to the site of the Mt St Helen's eruption (in Washington State, USA) and asked them ''Explain what you see around you'', both would be able to deduce quite quickly that there had been an explosion of devasting proportions over the terrain. But... if you then asked ''How long ago did this happen?'' there might be call for a different approach. Both might defer to the age of the trees in the regrowth forest, and call for a dendrochronologist. This might lead to a clear age estimate of around 40 to 50 years. But trees die in time, most not lasting for more than a few centuries. What if one were to take another pair; a Materialist Geologist / Scientist and a Young Earth Creationist Geologist / Scientist - in one thousand years' time and ask 'When did this terrain get formed''. THAT's where each would revert to their set of premises about the formation of rocks and life on Earth.
Think about it, Gods time is not like ours, he can start the world from any point in "time" he wishes and progress it rapidly or slowly etc, everything science says cannot disprove the bible only frustrate and confuse people from the truth.
Where do you get the 6k age of earth?? I’ve never read that in the Bible. Genesis certainly does not say that. It says the earth was created before man was created. It doesn’t say anything about a number of years.
Oh good grief, you must've seen what these lunatics propose? They add up the ages of the people listed in the Bible and come to an age of around 6000 years! Then they just ignore all the scientific evidence for the fact that the earth is billions of years old, and still follow that old book of Fables and nonsense!
Genesis tells you how old people lived and how old people were when they had children. It's 5th grade math to figure out the world is about 6 thousand years. From Adam to the flood is about 1500 years. And the flood was about 4500 years ago.
9 Q. What is the work of creation? A. The work of creation is God's making all things (Gen. 1:1) of nothing, by the Word of his power (Heb. 11:3), in six normal consecutive days (Exod. 20:11), and all very good (Gen. 1:31). Spurgeon’s Catechism.
The irony of this coming from a creationist. A book of fairy tale assumptions and impossibilities, all good. Empirical science based on as few assumptions as possible ''ALL ASSUMPTIONS!''
@@LarsLarson-u1x right because there are no assumptions at all in your theory, right? Lol Both sides have assumptions but ours are superior in every way. Why? Because we assume that God played a part in it and God is greater than you are.
@@zerosteel0123 "Both sides have assumptions but ours are superior in every way. Why? Because we assume that God played a part in it and God is greater than you are." Science relies on evidence, and you have none.
Atheist scientists had originally said that humans broke off from ape-like creatures 2.5 million years ago. And that modern man evolved from that humanoid about 250,000 years ago. Well, even if we assume that humans have ony been on the planet for 10,000 years, when the alleged agricultural revolution started and being extremely conversative. Only doubling the world's population every 150 years (currently the population doubles about 40 years), *after 150 years there will be 4 people, after another 150 years there will be 8 people, after another 150 years there will be 16 people, and so on* This rate is actually very conservative. (we have records of a Russian woman in the 1700's who gave birth to over 60 children). I am taking into account *disease, plagues, famines, natural disasters, wars, and reverse birth to death ratio at various intervals.* Way before the discovery of penicillin in 1928. We have records of women from the 1400's giving birth to 10 children on average, let's say only 5 would make it to old age for the factors mentioned above, so 2 children per couple every 150 years for 10,000 years it is extremely generous. Calculating these numbers, there would have been averaging close to 100 doublings in 150 years. The world’s population would be whopping figure of the # 1 followed by 30 zeros. Check it out: 1,000000000000000000000000000000. You can still wipe out humanity a couple of times more and the numbers still don't add up. *Think about this in 1912 when the Titanic sank. The world's population was only a little over 1 billion people. Fast-forward 100 years and we are 8 billion. And we have had world war I and world War II in between (70 million people died). In 1945-46 around 140,000 people died as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima, Plus the worst influenza plague the world has ever seen, which happened 1918 (50 million people die)* Still In the last 100 years alone we can see a population growth of 8 times its numbers. *Now, let's look at this other math:* If we start about 4,500 years ago (time of Noah's flood). After about 30 doublings, which is about 4,500 years, the world's population would have reached about 8 billion people. Just more or less what we have today. Yes, some Christians and many other religions believe in some sort of evolution. But this is only because they have been influenced by this indoctrination since they were children. *Math doesn't lie. We can see how man invented the a theory of his origin to try to do away with God’s moral laws. We have lied about our origin, our history. And the studies of archeology, biology, anthropology, and so on. We even rather believe in panspermia (aliens from other galaxies). We are very ready to accept anything but God. BTW, religion is also man's made. For God there's only two religions *good and evil* There's gonna be people regardless of their educational level that because of their cognitive biases can look at this facts and will still want to continue their merry-way without having any accountability for their actions. Today's world population is over 8 billion in about 25 years we will be over 20 billion. The world's economy will collapse.
_I am taking into account disease, plagues, famines, natural disasters, wars, and reverse birth to death ratio at various intervals_ No, you're not. There have been periods when human population has actually declined. Exponetial population growth is only possible with industrialisation and mechanised agriculture. For most of our species history, we were naked apes on the plains of Africa - low population levels (indeed, several times, we got very close to extinction). Population growth wasn;t anywhere near that fast for most of our history.
@@wingednut2283 No I did not! The restart of the population was after the flood when probably over millions people perished. The population restarted with Noah and his family a total of 8 people (8 exponentially doubled 30 times is 8,589,934,592) that accounts for the 8 billion on the planet today. Give or take a few million due all the adversities mentioned above. Inbreeding is not a genetic problem with a big gene pool. Noah and his family still had a big gene pool. Each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with its tremendous ecological and geographic varieties and diversities. Also big gene pool allows inbreeding without much genetic degradations, but as species grows in numbers the gene pool gets smaller affecting inbreeding to the point of producing offsprings with genetic defects. A large gene pool has also more genomic diversity and can not only allow inbreeding, but it can withstand an adverse and hostile diversity in environmental challenges. Neanderthal (descendants from Noah's family) were just as human as we are, but with stronger and more robust DNA. We are not evolving, but rather devoluting. We are not better than our ancestors, because we are a copy, of a copy, of copy, of copy....with accumulated gene defects.
@@richardgregory3684 You have no idea what you are saying. You even didn't take the time to investigate my comment. Take it to a science accadiamia first to see who dares to debunk it logically.
The visible return of Jesus Christ is near (after WW3 or the land invasion of Israel) to save Israel & to set up a new Age on earth or, a Kingdom (7th Millennium), otherwise mankind would extinguish himself.
Well, I have been asking, but so far no one has responded. What is it about this video that certain people don't want other people to see? The title is telling us that certain people do not want certain other people to see this video. Anybody know what they're talking about?
@@joefriday2275 Why do you run away every time I try to engage you is a science discussion? You post the silliest creationist dreck then when called to defend it you run away so fast you leave skid marks.
@@mostlyharmless0642 that's true, and at this point, I wonder if they even realize they are supposed to be talking Bible stuff, not science stuff.. They're so wrapped up in misrepresenting evolution, the Big Bang model, age of the earth, and all that crap, they seem to have forgotten their true mission. They are so, so afraid of science, really. Got to keep fighting their imaginary war. Hasn't gotten them anywhere after all these years, but they keep chugging along. God love 'em, the poor delusional goofballs.
There are no such things as "operational science" and "historical science". There is only *science* , period. The exact same methodology is used to study an event 1msec ago or 1 million years ago. Creationists invented these two different "sciences" solely as an excuse to reject scientific findings they don't like.
That’s not true…. You can study a star, but you can’t study its formation in the past. And even those they claim are star forming regions already have stars or they have none at all. You can’t actually watch a star forming.
@@stevenwhite8937 You can see a star in the process of forming. But fortunately evolution is much easier because we have enough evidence to make it obvious. Yes, we can learn about what happened in the past through EVIDENCE, just the way intelligent people have always done.
@@jockyoung4491 No one has ever seen a star forming. There are either already formed stars or none…. You’ve got no evidence for common descent evolution except what exists in your mind….
I’m a Christian who has loved Paleontology as a child and everything that I learned about. Being converted as an adult, I know without a shadow of a doubt God is real and that he has sovereignly chosen to give me faith and save me. I am looking at both sides to try to figure out what is true, since I am thinking about going to school for paleontology (I think Christians need to be in all fields of science, but I’m worried about everything I’ve known about ancient biological science being untrue). As I’m watching videos from AiG, I’m noticing a lot of fear being produced at old earth theology. At 43:57 it seems like he is saying this kind of thinking leads people to apostate (keep in mind that the Lord is sovereign on who perseveres to the end, he became an apostate because he believed human views of there being no God. Not because of this kind of thinking.) There are many faithful believers who believe in old earth who are not going to apostate or cause others to apostate. This is making Christian’s with not as much knowledge about the field be afraid or even hate those who believe in old earth/theological evolution. I’m open to being convinced of YEC if it is true, and trusting the Lord to guide me in what’s true if it’s His will. But also, pinning Christian’s against each other by saying their views lead to people apostatizing is wrong and divisive on a 3rd-4th tier issue. If someone leaves the faith because they do not see the evidence for God in creation, that is them trading the truth for a lie as it says in Romans 1. But even if evolution is true, it is so crazy that God’s hand has to be all over it. Being convinced of evolution does not take away God. Let’s not make people scared that believing in something that many faithful Christians have believed before us. This fear mongering makes it hard for me to listen to the actual scientific evidence of your position, so that I can see if young earth is actually a viable thing to believe as a future paleontologist. But maybe I should just stick to evolutionary theology because it feels manipulative to make fear of causing others to leave the faith a reason not to believe something. We are Christians. We care about objective truth because we know the author of objective truth. Let’s search for that truth without manipulating people by fear.
@alicat2083 you should go and look up @DrJoelDuff. He is exactly what you need. He is a Christian but also a paleontologist. Even though him and I disagree on the beginning. His knowledge is fantastic as is his approach. He's also very active in his comment section. I've been part of a couple good conversations he's had with some YEC Through the chat. Same with Clint's Reptiles.
He is illustrating what can happen if we destroy the foundation of scripture. It is dangerous to say i dont believe in a young earth because of what i see with my eyes. if you dont believe in that part of the Word, how can you say what parts are wrong and which you will believe. This is where faith comes in, trust in the Living God. i hear conviction in your comments. it is a lot to wrap a mind around after being in man's world view since a kid. That was me and now i accept young earth because i am not in a podition to say this part is truth and this part is not of the Word. These professors of hight esteem were taken in to it. God created Adam and Eve as adults not babies. So therefore He is able to create the perfectly aged Earth and universe to support His creation. Dont limit your faith in Him. Even those who saw the Red sea parted still questioned what God can do to save them. Let's not follow that example. Pray for understanding.
@@chrism7526 The young earth is disproven by all of science. If you try to squeeze in 4.5 billion years worth of geological activities the earth would explode. it would be equal to 10,000 hydrogen bombs per cubic meter of the earth, and is much more energy density than anything science know off. It is based on literal interpretation of bronze age myths.
@@Mario_Sky_521 If Mortenson is so bright why doesn't he write up his evidence for creation and have it published in a mainstream science journal? It's because he knows his claims are scientifically worthless and only good for gulling his ignorant followers like you.
@earthisasphere...no doubt this is why it was so easy to deceive and indoctrinate most people. If even half of those people applied how science was done before 1970 evolution would never have the stronghold it does in govt run schools and the media.
3:10 He says if you're only exposed to 1 worldview or perspective then you can be easily deceived. Kinda the whole foundation of Marxism, totalitarianism, communism, the Biden/Kamala Democratic party, and Atheism. Similar, but I think he's talking about more than just the modern scientific religion.
Wikipedia "List of Christian denominations" That is proof that even Christianity (and their ancestors Judaism and Ancient Egyptian Mythology) follows evolutionary path.
@@TickedOffPriest Tests on evolutionary evidence are observable, testable, empirical, and repeatable. It's amazing anyone can be so ill-informed they think actual historical *events* have to be observed and repeated. 😄
@@TickedOffPriest We have 4+ billion years and a whole planet's worth of physical evidence for evolution. It's beyond foolish to deny reality because the implications frighten you.
Who is living in the bubble? What percentage of people actually study and understand science? Or do they get their info from the news? Hear “Science says” and take it as the gospel?
@@laker_c assuming you come from a place that makes sure kids have an education the majority of the world actually study science from every corner of the globe. Do you hop in your car and assume it will turn on and transport you safely to your destination? If so i assure you it isnt faith that caused that. Science does not claim to have all the truths that is the difference between religion and science. One works towards understanding the other claims they found it from the ancient david blaine.
You see, the apostle, in his day, had to contend against those who ran away from the simplicity of the gospel into all manner of fables and inventions. Such, in our day, are the doctrine of evolution, the doctrine of the universal fatherhood of God, the doctrine of post-mortem salvation, the doctrine of the final restitution of all men, and all sorts of fables and falsehoods which men have invented. Spurgeon, C. H. (1893). The Whole Gospel in a Single Verse. In The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons (Vol. 39, p. 143).
_the doctrine of evolution_ Evolution isn't a doctrine. It's an empirically observed naturally occurring phenomenon with an accompanying scientific theory to explain the mechanisms which produced the phenomenon. It's no more a doctrine than gravity or erosion are doctrines.
Evolution isn't a doctrine. It is a fact, and a scientific theory. Sad that you have to reject science for your unfounded god belief. But rest assured, that makes your unfounded god belief false.
Man...I cannot imagine having such a terrible world view that there has to be thousands of books, millions of hours of TH-cam videos, etc. just to try to prove or disprove one part of it. Christianity seems like it isn't true if you can't actually prove literally any aspect of creation plainly. Just seems nuts.
".I cannot imagine having such a terrible world view that there has to be thousands of books, millions of hours of TH-cam videos, etc. just to try to prove or disprove one part of it." You are talking about evolution, right???
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and ignorance of evidence does not negate the existance of said evidence... this is the EXACT same problem that evolutionists AND astronomers share with Christians, none of us have "proof"... both sides have a certian amount of evidence, and the rest is based on faith, be it faith in Christ, or faith in "science", "technology", or "experts"... both have "evidence" refuting claims made by the other, both have historical findings supporting certian claims, both admit that we do not know the entire story, and both admit that we dont actually have "proof"... the people that will not admit those things, are lying to you, regardless of what side they are comming from... with that being said, i will put my faiyh in Christ before i put my faith in the words of these men that i can see on a day to day basis, telling people they need to use less fossil fuels to save the environment, while they fly around on jets everywhere they go, and have full on motor-cades, or even that rediculous "fact" evolution is actually real, but "people are all the same"... wait, you juuuust said "evolution is real", so shouldnt humans be seeing MORE diversity in its changes? but when i was young they were saying things like "we are all going to end up being one big race", that is the EXACT opposite of evolution... so did all the diversity we see all come from the same "primordial ooze", influenced by evolution? if so it seems like we should be celebrating our differences, but we say all people are the same, and there are no differences... or were we actually diverse to begin with, and over time we are actually LOSING that diversity? because that is what we actually SEE... evolution is all a scam, with cherry-picked "evidence" to fit the narrative
Actually, for those willing to examine the scientific evidence, there is much of it out there that supports creation and disproves evolution. But you have to be willing to both look and have an open mind to be able to see it. I don't mean a mind that is already looking to be convinced, but just a true skeptic seeking the actual truth and willing to entertain the idea they might not know it yet.
Even scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. Where did that beginning come from? It came from the one that spoke into existence. The sun, moon and stars were made for signs and seasons. So where did time come from, if not from the one that created it? God is timeless so it makes sense that He created it for us. Have you ever read and studied the Holy Bible to base your opinions on these matters? Or do you go by what you hear about it?
Then we would have records of people living along with dinosaurs wouldn't we I'm a Christian, but this is silly No one talked about dinosaurs because they didn't know about them
@@joefriday2275 And evolution has nothing to do with science Which field of science?? there are many different sciences included in the field of evolutionary science.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Science has been testing and rejecting Mortenson's creationist claims for over 150 years. Mortenson just isn't honest enough to acknowledge his nonsense has already been thoroughly refuted decades ago.
@@Mario_Sky_521 You've been given several examples like Mortenson's false claim there are two different "sciences". Like all creationists you just aren't honest enough to admit it.
@@Mario_Sky_521 *Give Mortenson's view explained* Mortenson's view is given in AIG's Statement Of Faith. Any science which disagrees with AIG's literal interpretation of the Bible must be wrong. They can never show *why* all such science is wrong, only declare it to be wrong by fiat. Does that sound intellectually honest to you?
Most if not all the preachers you sighted (photos) preach "works salvation". Goes to show you another error they have. You may believe in a young earth as I do and hope you also believe that salvation cannot be earned nor lost once gained when you put your faith in Christ. Faith alone.
I'm looking to share this channel with someone I know who is struggling to make science and the Bible make sense together. What would be a good video to start them on their journey?
@@joefriday2275 And yet you blindly go along with, that an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence only 6000 years ago and without a shred of evidence to prove that it ever happened LOL.
@@joefriday2275 You've posted this same idiocy already. You claimed there are no beneficial mutations yet when I showed you one you ran like a scared bunny. 🐰
@@joefriday2275 _Evolution isn't science. If there was a single, tiny bit of indisputable evidence for evolution, we would all believe in it_ There is indisputable efivence that earth is a globe and orbits the sun. There are cranks who refuse to believe this is so. You could take one of them up in a high altitude jet and shopw them, and they'd insist that they were being drugged by the CIA on behalf of NASA satanists.
One minute in: “A geology textbook by evolutionists.” If you want to be taken seriously, you have to understand the most basic facts of science. Hint: Geologists write geology textbooks. There are YEC who do understand basic science. Use them instead of people like this please.
Give it time. I've watched and listened to Dr. Terry Mortison fir some years now, and to my recollection, I've never heard anything I disagree with from him. I've learned that when you hear something at the beginning you find off for some reason, give it time, they will usually go into it and explain. I realize you don't know me from Adam and what I believe, just give him some time.
As our DNA degrades, more mistakes are added creating more diseases so that is where it comes from. God did not mean for us to live long on this planet.
No, knowledge cannot be found in the bible. The god of the bible is not interested in you having knowledge. Remember, when Adam ate from the Tree of the Knowledge, he was punished and thrown out of paradise.
@@jameswood231 "Knowledge is in the Bible. All Wisdom & Knowledge is given by GOD." So you claim, and yet AIG and all their followers are science deniers.
@@earthisasphere Or fascists. Because remember: "science denier" has become a meaningless label you attach to people whose ideas you don't like. What's next - are you going to call us Flat-Earthers, as well, regardless of what we actually think on the matter? Because once again: there is nothing scientific about such rants - it's all social performance.
@@thstroyur No, science denier means one that denies well tested, scrutinized, established science. Evolution is the most high scrutinized scientific idea ever, and is supported by more evidence than any other scientific idea ever. And AIG denies it without a shred of evidence to back their claims. That is science denial. As for Flat Earthers, the vast, vast majority, if not all of them, believe in a Young Earth. There is a connection amongst you there, but I can see why you would want to try to remove Flat Earthers from your ranks.
I think this is all much simpler - God created a world for us to discover, and gave us the ability to do just that. Plasma cosmology does a lot to answer many of those "sudden" events. We just need to do more work and be more honest in our science. Whether or not parts of the Bible are literal or metaphorical is completely irrelevant because God made a knowable universe for us.
I think fundamentalism and young earth creationism are simply anti-Christian and anti-intellectual, honestly. Fundamentalism makes the world out to be some sort of Cartesian illusion mixed with a kind of crypto-gnostic carnal prison. It posits that the only way to salvation and true knowledge is to suspend the light of Reason and uphold a dogmatic tradition of men (the creationist interpretation of scripture) at all costs, even if it renders the world in which we live unintelligible. Because that's the point. Fundamentalism is unintelligibility because it is a corruption of true faith, a corruption which arose in order to oppose its brother, atheism.
Let's keep it empirical: 1. Christianity is still the largest religion in the world (2.365 billion). 2. This is 2024 Anno Domini, no matter how you "identify" it as Common Era. Which makes us all live in The Year of Our Lord (Philippians 2:11). 3. To this day, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved. 4. To this day, no extraterrestrial life has yet been conclusively detected.
Lets keep it free of stupid arguments: 1. Factually correct based on current statistics. However, suppose it was presented as an argument for the truth or superiority of Christianity. In that case, it might involve an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) fallacy-suggesting that because something is popular, it must be true or superior. 2. Citing Philippians 2:11 as evidence that everyone must consider 2024 to be "The Year of Our Lord" is appealing to a religious text to support a universally applicable claim, which assumes authority over people who may not share this belief which is an appeal to authroity 3. Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) regarding the lack of definitive proof for or against abiogenesis doesn't imply it is false or untrue. Furthermore, there is no direct way to go back in time and prove the origin of life, we must rather look at the evidence. The building blocks of life, amino acids literally come from space look up the Miller-Urey Experiment where in 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment simulating Earth's early atmosphere by mixing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapour, and then applying electrical sparks to mimic lightning which resulted in the formation of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. 4. Appeal to ignorance: Similar to the third statement, it implies that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a logical fallacy. Just because extraterrestrial life hasn't been detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it won't be detected in the future.
@@Taehc I have been studying the evidence for evolution for 40 years. It is absolutely, overwhelmingy empirical. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply lying.
@@cookiecrumblez439 1. Okay, statistically losing minority. 2. Nobody force non-Christian to keep using the number. Atheists can start using Earth's "actual age" according to carbon dating or something. The Muslims can start using Hijriya and so on and so on. Yet ask yourselves, what number does it say on your birth certificate? But you can also revise that too. 3. Knowing what the building blocks of life is fine. But we're talking about how they assemble together to form an actual living being, *on their own.* Even with the help of you eggheads with modern tech, I repeat, *to this day, *abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved. This is a simple Google result. You have problems, take it to Google. 4. Your argument just proved that non believers shouldn't come and mock and make a fool of themselves because all they have are counter-beliefs 😅 Anyway, I repeat, to this day, No extraterrestrial life has yet been conclusively detected. This is also a simple Google search. You know where to go if you have any problem with that.
31:14 A very good expression of the Materialist dogmatic premises that underlie what is known as ''Scientism''. Scientism, per se, is that view which holds that as the Scientific Method is a process that seeks to establish natural causal agents for observable events... AND... that natural causal agents are the only causal agents... then it follows that only those who hold to the Materialist view may call themselves ''Scientists''. This is, of course, totally illogical... but try telling that to a Scientism Scientist.
You make a mockery of Christians all over the world. It is your ilk that made me leave the faith. There is no such thing as "scientism." That is a lie by fascists to tie their beliefs to the state by describing them to some supernatural authority. There is stuff you can prove, and stuff you can't prove. Simple as that.
@@LaserBread Yes, there IS such a thing as ''Scientism''. It is the arrogant presumption that Science is the province of the Materialist alone. Your unawareness of this indicates your ignorance and lack of capacity to comment, let alone criticise. Your use of the word ''fascist'' is incorrect, and the accusation of some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous.
17:45 I think the main proof text for this idea is 2 Peter 3:8. The idea being that seven days doesnt necessarily mean seven literal days to God. Im personally open to either being true. 18:54 now thats just... dumb. 19:45 I used to hold to this because technically they didnt quite have a word for the entire planet back then, so "earth" could just as easily mean the local area. Used to, because it doesnt make a lot of sense given the actual height of the waters described. As im sure will be mentioned here. 41:42 this is the view I dont understand how you can hold it. Evolution as a process requires death, natural selection. Physical death was the cost of sin, so then sin must not have occured before physical death. But if man had evolved into existence, that would require death. See the contradiction? 48:42 I dont think Genesis is the foundation of the cross. Its... maybe vaguely related, but honestly, what isnt? But either way i'd say the foundation is the resurrection.
2 Peter 3:8 is talking about prophetic time….. It’s the foundation for the cross because without sin there would be no need for the cross. And the very first prophecy of Jesus was given in Genesis, spoken by God Himself….
"This theory based on evidence that has been tested for over a hundred years and still holds up to criticism is all based in blind faith. Unlike my beliefs, of which the only proof I have is a compilation of books and stories written nearly 3000 years ago"
That far in? The title using "evolutionists" like a scientific theory is some kind of religious dogma discredits it before the video even began. AIG basically performed an abortion.
Operational science. Is that not just technology? Whatever “science” is useful to the present culture. If it is not useful (as in productive) it is not science??
"Operational science" is a creationist term. Science is a systematic method of investigation, which encompasses any field that relies on empirical research to discover explanations and trends to account for natural phenomena. Not every scientific field needs to produce technological applications.
Im obviously not a theoretical physicist, but Just a thought.If time is relative and the universe is expanding extremely fast.At some point may have been faster. Idont know .Wouldnt the age of the earth be different depending on where you were at? The closer to the speed of light the earth would travel the slower it would age from the perspective of a bistander. What i am asking or insinuating is couldn't the earth be thousands of years old and millions of years old at the same time?I just think that God is way bigger than all these apparent contradictions between science and the Bible.I have all the faith in the world that in the end its going to make sense!
I had an old children’s Bible back in the 60’s and it depicted the universe as all water. So in Gen 1:6,7 when God parts the waters from the waters with a firmament (in Hebrew it is raqa meaning a solid material/substance that needs to be hammered out) other versions say dome. So the ancient Hebrews believed in a 3 tier system: Heaven Earth and the Underworld. There is water above us still. After all these when I studied this back in 2021 it was a wonderful revelation, I felt even closer to my Lord and Savior.
if you think you are being incapable of being deceived (in general, for all contexts) then you are already deceived because that in an of itself is a deception. In other words if you think you are impervious to believing in falsehood, you believe a falsehood.
Just an observation after reading the Bible, nowhere does it say a day is 24 hours. In fact it states light is day and darkness is night. It also stated that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. We are told not to add to or subtract from the Word of God. The solar system cycle wasn't established until the 4th creation day the makes it understanding day and night on planet earth. Other planets have different day lengths. The earth's rotation is slowing down, so we don't know exactly how long a day on planet earth was on day 4 of creation. The one thing that is very clear is that time is relative. Einstein proved that. So who gives anyone the authority to dogmatically insist that a day is 24 hours according to the Bible? There are four different meanings to the Hebrew word for day in the Bible one being a long finite period of time. We don't fully understand what time is, so why can't we all listen to the Word of God and believe what He said light is day and day is night. When God said, " let there be light" He didn't add, it's 24 hours! I wish everyone would stop arguing about something we know nothing about. The Bible tells us to put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. Meaning follow the evidence where it leads. It also stated that the heavens DECLARE THE GLORY OF GOD! Please stop using the age of the universe to disprove evolution. It only causes problems when we know Darwinian evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible. Maranatha
So, we can't be sure God created the 24 hour period for a day? Seriously??Day 1 morning and evening; day 2 morning and evening, Day 3 Morning and evening etc. Jesus stated there was 12 hrs of daylight in a day. By the way how many [ days?] are in a year? How can anyone be sure if we don't don't what constitues a day? How old are you? Do you have any proof of your age? The only place a 24-hour day is QUESTIONED is in Genesis. Wonder Why???
'Y habló Dios todas estas palabras, diciendo: Yo soy Jehová tu Dios, que te saqué de la tierra de Egipto, de casa de servidumbre. No tomarás el nombre de Jehová tu Dios en vano; porque no dará por inocente Jehová al que tomare su nombre en vano. Porque en seis días hizo Jehová los cielos y la tierra, el mar, y todas las cosas que en ellos hay, y reposó en el séptimo día; por tanto, Jehová bendijo el día de reposo y lo santificó. ' Éxodo 20:1-2,7,11
The problem lies on these so-called biblical creationists than blaming science contradicting the Genesis account of creation and the evolution of life. God created the universe and all living things through the process of evolution. These so-called biblical creationists believe God created all things by just saying the word like MAGIC. They were trapped by the debunked model of Darwin's evolution that all living things came from one original species. The Genesis account of living things is abiogenesis that life was formed from the soil. Therefore, there were millions or even billions of original species, and they will mutate according to their kinds or of the same species, a microevolution.
The whole point of the Bible is that God is the main witness, and he's the one putting his testimony into scripture through men like Moses, David, the apostles,... But apparently you didn't get it 🤦. In the end, it all comes down to your beliefs
If im not mistaken second hand evidence is still valid, even if ever so lightly less so. Granted that does depend on if you might count divine inspiration as "first hand"
Another religious rant about the young age of the earth. He gives examples of the opinions of various men in the past but forgets that the bible was written by man and is a complete fabrication by man to try and explain what was a mystery to them. There is no evidence that there was a global flood as described in the bible, and what about the stupid statement that some of the characters were up to nine hundred years old. The good part about science, especially “historical” science, is that opinions can change based upon new evidence. Unfortunatley creationists are stuck in rut and will never get to anywhere near the truth.
@@dooglitasthe accounts who found the tomb empty, the multiplication of fish and bread taking place at two separate places depending on which event you consider true, the fact that there was never a global flood and the Earth is older than 6000 years
It's incorrect to call an old earth geologist an "evolutionist". Geologists study the history, nature, materials and processes of the Earth. A geologist may or may not believe in evolution, just as they may or may not believe in God. Asbis pointed out in this video, the idea that the earth is at least millions of years old significantly predators evolutionary ideas about the origins of living species. There may be shared beliefs about how old the earth is between old earth geologists and evolution-believing biologists and Big Bang cosmologists, but they're studying very different fields. A young earth creationist may have issues with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're all on the same team Young Earth Creationists have issues with many scientific disciplines as well as many liberal arts fields of study, including historians, sociologists, and anthropologists. Humans have always had spoken language communication, there were never any hunter/gatherers. Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel had spoken language. Cain practiced agriculture and Abel animal husbandry
Places on the Arctic Circle have the longest total annual daytime, 4,647 hours, while the North Pole receives 4,575. Who's to say God wasn't there when he created the heavens and the earth instead of anywhere else that might have a 24 hour day/night cycle? Or are we assuming God played by the current cycle humans use used to calculate a day based on their location?
Except there's no reason to believe that He was talking about those areas. Even so, 3 1/2 years is not billions. We know what was meant because God told His people to rest on the seventh day.
I also might add do those who live in those locations stop and restart their watches accoring to the long daytime / and or night periods?? Are they then not in sync with the rest of the world timewise? Just a thought.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
Your long list of scholarly citations look very impressive - until one realizes that, at its bottom, it's just an argument from authority, appealing to the biases of critical scholars without examining the underlying assumptions. Alas, sit down and shout out how Genesis is a by-product of Sumerian culture all you want - actual evidence towards that lies in more than the mere privately judged verdicts of biased scholars
@@thstroyurThe fact that there are stories that are hundreds, sometimes at least a thousand years older than the oldest biblical manuscripts, that remain in similar but slightly different forms of Genesis stories tells us that the stories in Genesis are likely not original. Many of the stories in the Old Testament likely come from older oral tradition shared around the Levant. It's inaccurate to say that these stories are Sumerian in origin, as the Sumerians likely didn't invent these stories either. The most likely scenario is that these stories were passed down orally for hundreds, if not thousands of years before the Sumerians even developed writing, and that both the stories like Utnapishtim's flood and Noah's flood come from a lost origin source that both the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis borrow from. It's important to recognize that the Bible didn't even begin compilation until the late Bronze age when the Israelites were allowed to return to Israel. Their scholars spent four generations exposed to Zoroastrianism and Mesopotamian culture, so it's no surprise that they adapted these stories to tell their own history when writing Genesis.
@@xXMACEMANXx "The fact that there are stories that are hundreds, sometimes at least a thousand years older than the oldest biblical manuscripts, that remain in similar but slightly different forms of Genesis stories tells us that the stories in Genesis are likely not original" 1) Your dating of these sources as older than Genesis is itself contingent on other assumptions; 2) alternative explanation: the accounts are similar because they are witness to an ancestral memory. Example: two eyewitnesses, A and B, give their accounts of a car crash, A' and B' respec. One notices A' and B' are suspiciously similar; therefore, it must be that they colluded/copied from the other - right? "The most likely scenario" according to you and/or critical scholars, is ultimately contingent on a network of unverifiable assumptions, presented as being stronger than what it actually is - namely, lots of speculation and conjecture. "It's important to recognize that the Bible didn't even begin compilation until the late Bronze age when the Israelites were allowed to return to Israel" Just as is also important that, even granting that, one does not get the conclusion that is pointed before us as an inevitability. Sorry, but if your case rests solely on textual criticism, it is nowhere near as persuasive as you'd have the rest of the populace buy into; if you have anything more evidentially solid, like artifacts or the such (and not just the mere interpretation thereof), then we can start a more robust conversation.
@@thstroyur If I didn't judge the claim based on textual criticisms, the argument wouldn't exist. There is no physical supporting evidence for a literal Genesis, at least not the overwhelming majority of the stories in Genesis. These conclusions are fair assessments of the information at hand, all things considered. We have two stories from the same part of the world that share the same story beats, but disagree on key details like who made the boat, what the boat looked like, who went on the boat, and how long the flood lasted. To keep with your crash analogy, say your A response is "I saw an SUV hit a kid on the sidewalk" and your B source says "I saw a truck hit an old lady in the middle of the road." Both of those accounts can't be correct, and by taking the agreeing information, we can assume that the ACTUAL course of action was a large vehicle hit a person. Applying this to the flood, it's vastly more reasonable to assume that the story is older and not reflective of reality given their discrepancies, but retains elements of truth. I fail to see how saying "no instances of a single verse of Genesis were written before the return of Israelite exile" is an assumption when it's just a fact of the matter. For a very long time, we have literally nothing, and then suddenly (after being exposed to these stories for multiple generations), you have a compilation of stories that sound similar to the stories that were believed and recited in the place that they spent multiple generations in. How else would you explain that if not standard cultural homogenization and adaptation? Even the name of the God used in the Bible belongs to an older Cannanite God. Maybe the use of the plural "Elohim" would tip you off to the fact that the people who wrote these sources came from a pantheonic tradition before a monotheistic one.
@@xXMACEMANXx "There is no physical supporting evidence for a literal Genesis, at least not the overwhelming majority of the stories in Genesis" And if it did, what would it look like? Also: is it possible that Genesis is literally true, in spite of evidence that would convince the most hardened skeptic? "These conclusions are fair assessments of the information at hand, all things considered" Nope - they're circumstantial conjecture woven in speculation. I'm not saying that one is not allowed to speculate, nor that said speculation is automatically wrong: I'm saying that a position that rests solely on that is inherently weak, but a highly secularized academia sells us the idea that no, they're basically equivalent to hard facts. "Applying this to the flood, it's vastly more reasonable to assume that the story is older and not reflective of reality given their discrepancies, but retains elements of truth" Lose the qualifier "vastly", which is logically unjustified, and I sign under this sentence. "I fail to see how saying "no instances of a single verse of Genesis were written before the return of Israelite exile" is an assumption when it's just a fact of the matter" The fact of the matter would be, no _known_ surviving instances of such texts. Yes, it could be that these traditions were compilled and written down way later; but even that doesn't get to you to conclude "There, you see? That proves these earlier traditions can't be historically factual". Believing that is as much an article of faith, as the opposite. "How else would you explain that if not standard cultural homogenization and adaptation?" Go back to the witness example: just because A' and B' differ in detail, does that _prove_ that both are equidistant from the true event? What if A was sober, and B drunk? Would that change the odds, here? "Even the name of the God used in the Bible belongs to an older Cannanite God. Maybe the use of the plural "Elohim" would tip you off to the fact that the people who wrote these sources came from a pantheonic tradition before a monotheistic one" By your logic, because the word for God in my language ("Deus") is closely related to the Greek "Theos", that in itself must be proof that I'm a pagan - in spite of the simple fact that God belongs to a different ontic category than the Hellenic deities. What other scandalous thing do you have to share? Could it be that the Hebrews shared bits of their language, currency, or even (shudder) they polytheistic cults - which, you know, I could have just read about in the Bible?
No magic is needed. Just natural processes, actually and they're well documented and observed. Creation and the bible on the other hand is magic all the way down. From 600 year old men building magical ships, talking bushes, snakes and donkeys to mud golems and wizards turning women into pillars of salt.
The ONLY thing science does is explain how things work that which God created. Thats it. Is Genesis still the infallible Word..???? ABSOLUTELY. Has man always been refining his scientific views,....ABSOLUTELY. IS MAN INFALLIBLE....??? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Does man get science wrong...??? Does man misinterpret science as fact..??? QUITE OFTEN. The Word of God NEVER changes and Jesus is our Foundation! Amen!
Sorry, youmight think that a story about how the universe got poofed into existance by an invisible magic wizard who made a man fromclay and a woman from a rib, who thenlived in a garden until one day a talkign snake screwed things for everyone is "infallible", and intelligen tperson is goign to say it's nonsense. _The Word of God NEVER changes_ Which bible is the acurate one then?
If the Bible is infallible, can you explain why both Ezekiel and Jeremiah prophesy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy and conquer Egypt, and that never happens? The Bible calls a bat a bird, says you can change the color of the offspring of an domesticated animal by having the animals procreate in front of a stripped stick placed in a bucket, the value of Pi is 3, etc, and none of those are accurate.
You prefer iron age tales of invisible magic wizards, talking snakes, enchanted fruit, women made of ribs, peopel living inside fish to evidence based science?
God and understanding science aren't mutually exclusive. You became a science denier like flat earthers are to preserve your idea of what the bible says.
Paul was never part of the first church that the disciples set up after the crucifixion. He started his ministry 18 yrs later, with a different view of things!! Hence we have two different views, all to be altered when the second church, from Rome took over the whole jolly lot. Thank goodness Martin Luther came along and nailed his pennies worth, on the great doors of the Church of Rome!!!
@@thstroyur In theory a god could do whatever he wanted. No scientific discussion could be had if YEC's left it there. But it would be strange to leave behind evidence to the contrary of what your inspired and infallible book claims. Also, once you bring science into it, and everything we have learned about the formation of limestone says your story couldn't happen, then you just ruined your own argument.
@@earthisasphere First: you leaving out miracles out of the discussion does nothing to compel the Universe to exorcize any of the putative miracles on historical record out of existence. You can _assume_ all you want no miracle has ever occurred in the entire spatiotemporal extension of the Cosmos - the big question is: how do you _know_ that? What _evidence_ is there for that, beyond your mere opinion? Second: you beg the question when you claim that the mere existence of limestone is already "evidence to the contrary of what your inspired and infallible book claims" (not the least because I can't remember any statement in Genesis specific to limestone itself). Also, since you want to bring science into this, it then becomes fair game to point out that just because you have a scheme or just-so-story to explain away some piece of data does not automatically make your claim scientific - nevermind true. That is the issue with history: the scientifico-empirical method des not lend itself to validate models of the past - which is one and done, and by its own nature, non-reproducible.
@@thstroyur Your nonsense post where you try to use large words to sound intelligent doesn't fix any of your problems. As @klouis said "Because limestone is composed of dead marine animals". So you have two options. God created limestone at creation but is trying to entrap curious humans who study the earth and look for answers by having limestone form in a different way currently, AND the Earth is still really, really old because it takes a lot of dead marine animals to form limestone and the limestone forming now needed millions of years worth of dead marine animals to form, or Earth is just really, really old because of already stated reasons, but also because we can measure the radioactive decay of elements found in different rock layers.
“BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you, BEFORE you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5
“BEFORE I formed you in the womb
Then WHY does god allow babies to be born with horrible diseases and disabilities???.
“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV)
“And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version)
“O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV)
God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
@@PetraKann What is worse, a narcissistic genocidal psychopath or somebody that is justifing their actions? because it sounds like that is exactly what you are doing.
@@VisshanVis you could always do the “right” thing - right?
@@PetraKann I do, and I don't need the threat of eternal damnation hanging over my head to be a good person either
What an awesome very educational video. I have always believed in the young earth Christian view. But must admit it would confuse me at times . I would just go on the Word of God and have faith that one day I will understand all this. This video has helped me greatly to now speak boldly on this matter. Thank you!♥️🙏😊
Have all the faith you want. Everything Calvin says is a lie. Notice all the supporting evidence he provides. Oh, wait, he has none... that should be your first clue. ALL the evidence we have says the flood didn't happen, and couldn't happen.
It is not an educational video, silly. It is science denial and lies, served for the already brainwashed.
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy let him be holy still."
- Revelation 22:11
In other words, feel free to remain the way you are until Jesus Christ/Yeshua Ha'Mashiach returns as the Goel: the Kinsman Redeemer and Avenger of Blood.
Feel free to remain either a believer or an unbeliever, until that Day.
Just remember that free will has consequences.
AMEN!
“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV)
“And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version)
“O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV)
God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
@@PetraKann
That last part...
🤣🤣🤣🤡😜
Thank you. I am glad I stayed on through the last 10 minutes.
I have always believed scripture. Evolution was beginning to be taught to me in 1960. I rejected it then & reject it now. I am very familiar with several Theologians you mentioned that believe in an old earth. I disagree with them about an old earth but also thank God for their belief in Christ.
That's a shame, because Evolution is a fact of science.
What was the basis of your outright rejection of the Evolutionary process?
Do you believe in these bits of your Old Testament Scripture?
“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV)
“And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version)
“O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV)
God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
@@PetraKann Have you actually read the books you got these quote mines from?
@ indeed my friend. I was raised as a Christian and still remain a Christian.
I distinguish many things found in the Old Testament and the New Testament (Gospels).
In fact I have a copy of the Gospels in original Greek with the English translation on the opposite page. I can read and understand both languages so this copy of the Gospels is a valuable spiritual resource.
You would have noticed the quotes I cited were from the old testament.
I dont have a personal conflict between what’s written in the New Testament and Biological Evolution or with Science in general.
You dont have reject one in order to accept the other.
What matters is what you believe us true not dogma and superstition.
It’s unlikely that you will understand what I am saying to you because it appears that you made up your mind many decades ago…..but you never know what can happen in God’s universe
A great resource! Thank you for sharing. Blessings, Jay McCurry, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Which part of this video do biologists/geneticists (or as you prefer to call them, 'evolutionists') not want to see or are afraid to see? Timestamp?
Edit.. I guess I messed up.. my question should be, what part of the video do 'evolutionists' not want *you* to see?
@@joefriday2275 oh, it's Joe:-) hopefully you'll stick around this time. I'll get back to ya 👍
@@joefriday2275 I just reread your comment and realized you didn't even answer my question.
Which part of this video do biologists / geneticists and people who understand biological evolution, not want you to see?
That was the question (paraphrased, but I think you understand what I'm asking)
@@earthisasphere Yes. According to a 2019 Pew poll of science professionals 98% of scientists in all fields and 99.9% of scientists in the life sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) accept evolutionary theory as the correct explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. I notice Joefriday always resorts to lying when someone corrects him on his blunders.
@@joefriday2275 hey man, if you want to use that word, go right ahead.
How many more times do I have to respond to you until you answer my initial question?
@@joefriday2275 *which part of the video do 'evolutionists' not want you to see?*
The organization that uploaded this video is telling us there is something certain people don't want to see.. what are they talking about? Do you know? Because I sure don't.
I really dislike these clickbait titles AiG always makes but thankfully the content is good ! I really appreciate Dr. Mortenson. Thank you for your work.
Here's something for the Bible literalists: Luke 14:26 - “If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
“See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV)
“And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version)
“O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV)
God was not merely saying that regrettable collateral damage might occur during wartime. He said believers should be happy - some translations say “blessed” - to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.
It's a Semitic idiom that means to love less than.
Love Dr Mortenson. Great speaker.
On point
Missed the point.
Yeah, very scientifically accurate 🙄
THANKYOU! God bless you and the ministry.
TY AIG!❤😊
Amen brother!
From Genesis to Revelation the complete historical fact of Eternity past, Creation, the fall of man, Noah's Flood, the redemption of man thru CHRIST, beginning of the Church, Eternity present, end of the Church Age, the millennial reign of CHRIST, Eternity future. Praise JESUS!!!
There are no Gaps or In Betweens...😊
The Bible gets a few names and locations correct, that is about it. Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy Egypt so thoroughly that no one would ever set foot in Egypt ever again. Oops, there goes your factually correct part, and your infallibility claim...
@@earthisasphere Where in the Bible did you read that "Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy Egypt so thoroughly that no one would ever set foot in Egypt ever again"? You may have been misinformed by another lying atheist. That statement cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. I don't really expect honest statements from any atheist but outright lies that can easily be fact checked should be questioned. Infallibility restored!
@@melvinnoble8043 I don't expect honest statements from YEC's, and I was raised as one for the first 25 years of my life. I did misremember. No one was to set foot there for 40 years. Not only was that not the case, Egypt was never destroyed or laid waste to. In fact, there are at least 5 prophecies from Ezekiel , Isaiah, and Joshua alone that are blatantly unfulfilled.
1) Already mentioned - Egypt has never been destroyed or gone 40 years uninhabited.
2) The Nile would dry up during "Pagan Egypt" - that ended in the 4th century, and he Nile never dried up.
3) In Isaiah 7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies. 2 Chronicles 28:1-8 shows that false.
4) Isaiah 19:18 says Egyptians will learn the tongue of Canaanites. Not only has the Canaanite language never been spoken by Egyptians, but it is now an extinct language. Egyptians also never spoke Hebrew.
5) Joshua 3:10 Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites. And yet, the Jebusites still live in Jerusalem to this day, and there is no mention or evidence that they were ever drvien out of Jeruselum.
6) BONUS! Ezekiel 28:24-26 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors. - Israel is never at peace.
Infallibility was never there to begin with...
@@melvinnoble8043 "outright lies that can easily be fact checked should be questioned" That's hilarious, coming from a creationist...
To me the only gaps are the years and months of the ages recorded of people that are given in the Bible. I don't need to know the exact few months over 6000 years over how old the Earth to except the accuracy of the Bible.
In the Grand Canyon, you can look at the strata and clearly see it was made by a catastrophic flood. Hard rock strata bent like putty for instance.
Um, no. Floods sort rock layers by density. The grand canyon layers are not sorted by density. Also, you have alternating layers of sandstone and limestone. That would not happen during a flood. Limestone forms in calm, shallow water with lots of calcium carbonate, which the flood could not provide. We know rocks can bend under heat and pressure over long periods of time. Its like bending clay, take your time, and you can bend it, mold it. Do it quickly and it snaps in half. Also, a flood would have created a giant washout with no switchbacks. The grand canyon has over 100 switchbacks in it, floods don't cause those.
How does a flood 'bend hard rock'? Have you ever been to a beach?
@@joefriday2275Saying "somewhere" and not "from the shells of billions of dead sea life" to hide the actual logic behind it is intentionally intellectually dishonest.
Bearing false witness is a sin
@@earthisasphere yes it would happen during a flood. Noah's flood has water coming from underneath the Earth as well as rain. Some people have speculated that an asteroid hit the land, causing a rupturing of the land and allowing the water to shoot up.
Genesis states that God gathered the land in one place and the water in another. All that landmass on top of the water would cause a great deal of pressure that, when released, would cause the water to shoot out at tremendous pressure. Noah's flood was a massive event.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu most if not all rock starts off from a soft state. The layers bent into their current shape and was left to dry. This is why you see the different shapes and patterns.
So many people think this issue doesn’t matter.. but they are misled
There is a reason that Jesus Christ is called the Word. To deny the Word of God which he testifies to and witnesses of, is to deny Christ, as he is The Word.
You can call Jesus the word and still not deny actual facts of science.
@@Mario_Sky_521 You are confusing Evolution with the science of how life started. These are seperate. Evolution is the natural mechanism through which speciation came about and about which there is no doubt. The age of the earth and the universe, while not exact, is also not speculation.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Every one of your statements shows significant ignorance of the actual science and conclusions they provide.
@@Mario_Sky_521 How old is the Earth then, and what physical evidence gave you that number?
@@Mario_Sky_521 _One that has a limb or organ not quite evolved yet, but getting there!_ Here are two from the fossil record.
_Onychonycteris finneyi_ is a transitional fossil bat dating to approx. 52 MYA. It has wings about half the size of those on extant bats and still has claws on its fingers. Analysis shows it could fly but not very well, more of a fluttering glide that controlled flight. It's a textbook definition of a transitional fossil.
_Odontochelys semitestacea_ is a transitional fossil turtle which liver 220 MYA. It has only half a carapace and is a perfect transitional between shell-less lizard ancestors and extant turtles.
That's two species with "half-baked by evolution but getting there" transitional features.
38:15 or sth ... by about 1850, the majority of Roman Catholic theologians were still strictly Biblical Creationists.
You had Gap Theorists and Day Age theorists gaining ground towards 1880 or sth, but every Catholic Theologian in good standing was either assuming, or repenting of at some time not having assumed that Genesis 1 was history. An example of the latter was a priest who withdrew his book because he understood that if he didn't, it could be put on the index, he was allowed to quietly withdraw it instead and so be spared that disgrace.
I enjoyed Dr. Mortenson's lecture very much and agree with nearly every aspect of the presentation with the exceptions of some of the elements of a little cartoon drawing @ 52:39. 1st the concept of Christmas which has no relationship to Christ and solely based on paganism from the date to the imagery associated with it and the issue of separation of church and state as pertains to the teaching of religion in public schools which like all other subjects is certain to fall under the guidance of the Jesuits and the 10 commandments as corrupted by the Papacy to negate the prohibition of idolatry and change the law of the sabbath substituting the the first day of the week for the seventh day sabbath as sanctified and made holy by God to be kept in remembrance of his creation by His people Israel as a perpetual covenant.
Creationist: "There is no such thing as evolution!"
Creationist: "the 1400+ known species of bats all HYPER-EVOLVED from the single pair on the Ark in only 4500 years!"
😄😄😄
And they still are all bats !
@@dunoze well yeah, populations of organisms don't evolve outside their clade.
@@joefriday2275 New clades can form, but the descendants are still part of all the preexisting clades they were part of.
As opposed to something appeared from nothing then went kablooie 14 Billion years ago despite the fact that they have no observable evidence of it happening? Or maybe you are thinking that life suddenly sprung up from non life 3.8 billion years ago. Which once again has not been observed or repeated. Your religion requires quite a bit of faith to believe.
@@harpintn *has not been observed or repeated.* Being observed or repeated are not requirements for an event to studied scientifically. Only tests on the evidence from the event need to be observable and repeatable. Do you enjoy being this science illiterate?
I agree that we need a new Reformation but not one that divided Believers into Denominations and Traditions.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are biologists, paeleontologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, and a number of others. Each one has a field of study that they concentrate on.
All scientific fields are subject to further knowledge. That is what separates them from religion.
As far as the consequences of that scientific knowledge, that is up to us to deal with it. Science merely tries to explain reality as best it can. How we deal with reality is up to us.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Science does not and cannot include the supernatural. It can't because supernatural causes are unpredictable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable.
_Christianity doesn't have that problem_ You mean Christianity is too arrogant to know and accept it may be wrong too. Science doesn't have that ego problem.
@@Mario_Sky_521 _The fields of study you mention rely on evolution as a starting point_ No they don't. Evolution was a *conclusion* drawn from the consilient evidence provided by those fields. It wasn't the starting point. You have the science exactly backwards.
@@Mario_Sky_521"Evolution as a starting point". Well said. Evolutionists put on their evolution glasses and search for validation of a theory they really want to be valid.
It absolutely doesn't work in reverse, where scientists are open minded and are accidentally stumbling upon evidence for evolution.
"Mario_Sky" seems to have deleted all his posts and vanished. 🤔
@@joefriday2275 You just don't care how bad you make Christians look with your continued falsehoods, do you?
Thanks!
😊 nice donation!❤
@@LarsLarson-u1x cry about it. name calling isn’t going to do anything but show people that its the atheists that are more toxic here. If you want someone to believe your beliefs, don’t name call them.
@@PrehistoricFarmsOfficial You have to admit what Lars observed is true though. People pay AIG to tell them what they want to hear.
@@donteatthecats0001 ok, Same goes for evolutionist then! People paying them what they want to hear!
@@LarsLarson-u1x name calling, typical atheist, just bc we have different beliefs and opinions.
If you believe that some god created your brain, don't you think it is offensive to that god that you refuse to use it?
Good job 👍 thanks for sharing ❤
I am a Christian. This speaker emphasized in the first five minutes that "Anyone can be deceived." I agree, and on that exhortation I would like to show that the speaker himself is in fact deceived and is deceiving his audience.
Here is a list of lies said in this video:
- "There are two definitions of science ... operation science and origin science." This is a lie. There is no distinction between these two invented categories in science. Scientists refer to the same methods and the same body of research whether they are doing physics or astrophysics, minerology or geology, genetics or evolutionary biology. They are overlapping, interlocking fields that mutually reference and confirm one another, and the supposed criterion that "operation science" refers to the "present" physical universe is a blatant red herring that ignores how science actually functions.
- "Operation science [is] the use of ... experiments in a controlled environment, usually a laboratory." Very little science is actually done in a laboratory. A lot of science is done in the field. A lot more science is done in scholarship-speculation, hypothesis, analysis, meta-analysis, discussion, theory comparison, review, etc.
- "Science is for ... to improve our lives [in the present]." This is a modernist fallacy that flows out of the Enlightenment, which viewed science as a means of controlling nature rather than understanding the higher principles of the universe God made. In reality, science is a very broad discipline that encompasses the entire body of literature produced by the scientific community past and present.
- "Science doesn't answer... what happened in the unknowable, unrepeatable past." This is a fallacy because it assumes the past is unknowable and unrepeatable. Actually, the same processes that, for example, formed the Grand Canyon are in operation today, we can actively observe them, we can see the effects they produce, and we can see those same effects in, for example, the rock layers of the Grand Canyon. The distant past is neither unknowable nor unrepeatable; it is ever, imminently present with us today.
- "How did the first dog come into existence? ... That's in the unobservable, unrepeatable past." Actually, we can observe new species coming into existence. We can see the entire spectrum of populations separated by geography and the transition from populations that are fully able to reproduce, to populations that reproduce sterile offspring, to populations too distantly related to reproduce which grow observably more distant genetically over time. That is speciation, and it is still happening-even with canine species!
Anyway, the whole video is full of fallacies like this. Be cautious.
@@joefriday2275 Yes, I am.
@@Mere-Theism Don't bother with Joe. Both supporters and critics of this channel alike know he is nothing but a liar. While I don't share you view on religion, I respect a religious individual being willing to call out AIG's lies.
@@earthisasphere Thank you for the warning, duly noted. When we are so disposed, the one with whom we agree and the one with whom we disagree both aid us in the pursuit of truth, and so I gladly reciporocate your respect. The same cannot be said for those who refuse to listen and see.
@@earthisasphere I corrected Joe yesterday on one of his really lame claims ("birds existed before dinosaurs"). He called me a sc*m bag atheist and said he would mute me. 😄
@donteatthecats0001 I think there are small children out there that could correct Joe on anything he sputters on about. They're generally at the same cognitive level.
JoeFriday continuing to lower the bar for YEC everywhere one day at a time....
25:21 Cuvier was a Protestant. He may not have been a Protestant believer, but he was a Protestant.
Could it possibly be yet another weird video title from Answers in Genesis?
Yes! ''Evolutionists' do not want you to see this'
Huh?
There is absolutely *nothing* an apologetics organization could say or do that would 'frighten' scientists.. ya wackos😊
No we really don't want people to watch this. There's so much bull in it it's a waste of anybody's time to watch this, and I don't want people to waste their time
@@brockborrmann2931 definitely 👍
Excellent message,truth,thankyou.
As a Christian, I'd like to point out some more things about this video that are dishonest. Here is a list of lies:
- "Ernst Mayr said 'Evolution is a historical process,' so we're dealing with a question of ... the unobservable, unrepeatable past." This is a lie and a misrepresentation of Mayr. Mayr advocated for reconstructing historical events because the *processes* that cause these events actually can be observed, repeated, modeled, and compared as theoretical frameworks on a larger scale. If you reject evolution because it deals with "history", then you must also reject the fields of history and biblical scholarship, which is what we use to show the reliability of the gospels. You also have to reject medical science because these kinds of reconstructions and projections are absolutely indispensable to medicine. It is just a very dishonest and misleading use of Mayr's quote.
- "The only difference between evolutionists and creationists is that creationists believe God's eyewitness testimony." No, creationists-at least, the most well-funded and influential creationist organizations-almost deliberately misrepresent evolutionary theory, whereas evolutionary biologists have always directly and unashamedly addressed creationist arguments at their core. There is an asymmetry in academic integrity between the communities that is demonstrable. Also, to call the bible "God's eyewitness testimony" of events in natural history is a huge modernist assumption about what biblical literature even is. The bible is *not* a science textbook.
- "The only difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists deny that testimony." No, this is also a lie. Many evolutionists are Christians. Many Christians working in astrophysics, geology, biology, and any number of related fields maintain earnest neutrality on the interpretation of Genesis and simply follow the scientific evidence where it leads-which is overwhelmingly against a young earth creationist view. Other Christians vehemently hold to a woodenly literal view of Genesis, but then when they see how overwhelming the evidence in the natural world is against it they just stop being Christians because they have been forced by their church communities to think that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution. Creationism is a modern, Western misreading of scripture that causes intellectual and spiritual damage.
- "For the first 1800 years, the almost universal belief in the church was that God created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago." This is absolutely false. Many, many formative Christian theologians and thinkers either outright denied this or maintained explicit openness to denying this throughout history. Augustine explicitly believed that the earth was much older than 6,000 years and that aspects of Genesis are metaphorical because, in his view, *Genesis itself obviously presents as metaphorical* given that it orders the creation of light and plants before the creation of the sun (and you have to take a *less* literal interpretation of Genesis to interpret it literally, ironically). Thomas Aquinas believed it was totally plausible that the universe is eternally created by God. Among many others.
- "[James Hutton] didn't observe any continents going into the ocean." Maybe Hutton didn't, but this is dishonest because today we actually can and do observe this sort of thing happening! It's called subduction zones, and we observe continents subducting underneath other continents in real time during subduction zone earthquakes. Also, Hutton was a strong Christian, contradicting the presenter's earlier claims about evolutionists rejecting the bible.
- Georges Cutier was also a strong Christian who believed in the biblical flood, also contradicting the presenter's earlier claims about evolutionists rejecting the bible.
- Charles Lyell was ALSO a strong Christian. Seems like almost everyone who discovered the evidence for biological evolution and a long geological timeline were faithful Christians, NOT God-hating atheists with an agenda.
you sound like a soft christian. evolution is a lie and a scam.
@@benwilliams3539 Actually he sounds like a science educated honest Christian. There is certainly a dearth of them here.
@donteatthecats0001 sounds like someone who believes egotistical liberal 'Intellectuals' over the bible and common sense.
probably one of those 'christians' who support trans and gay too.
@@joefriday2275 I'm starting to think that evolution is very selective, you never seemed to have evolved past moron.
@@VisshanVis😂😂😂
Here's the thing about a World-Wide flood taken place in Noah's era ... what would have been considered "World-Wide" is what most of us have been taught about in elementary school; one large continent, we called "Pangaea". The rest of the World outside of that continent would have been exactly as we see today, just Ocean.
So a World-Wide flood would have only been covering one (relatively) small portion of the Earth with water (just like the rest of the Earth).
The Bible also says that the fountains of the great deep broke open at that time (Gen 7:11) which can easily speak to why "Pangaea" begin to split and drift apart, giving us different continents. Which, by the way, share fossil records across continents...
There is still the heat problem that would make earth explode if you magically press 4.5 billion years into magically 6000 years because of a bronze age fantasy book.
Pangea was 175,000,000 years ago.
@@joefriday2275 Because ceationists dishonestly used a dating method that the company doing them explicitly says should not be used for such samples, because the margin of error can be + or - several million years, which does not matter if samples are a billion years old but does if they are recent. Many tests have margins of error of a couple percent they are nonethless valid methods. Funny how your lot are happy to hashtag-lying-for-jebus. But then, creationism must include dishonestly, else it would needs admit it is nonsense,
@@joefriday2275 Why don't you accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old? Is your god a liar? Or are you just silly?
@@joefriday2275 You wouldn't know or understand a scientific fact if it jumped up and punched you in the face.
Once you add the supernatural it is no longer science
That doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist
@@christtheonlyhope4578 True, but don't call it science
@@klouis1886 there are some things that can be explained naturally and other things that can be explained supernaturally. The natural explanations are called science. Funny how they both correlate together so well.
@@christtheonlyhope4578 There is no supernatural
@@klouis1886 What is the evidence?
My son came home from college and after speaking with him, he said he believes in evolution. He said the Bible is true or a verse in the Bible said it’s true. So if one thing is wrong that is a lie.
I didn’t have an answer. Any help?
''Evolutionists Do NOT Want You to See This'' Who does titles like this actually work on? Whenever I see the titles of these propaganda videos I roll my eyes.
It works on the scientificly illiterate followers of AIG.
_Who does titles like this actually work on?_ The science denying sheep who desperately need their beliefs pandered to.
@@samburns3329apparently it worked on you 😂
Every visit & comment helps 😉
@@samburns3329no one is denying Actual Science, just the state sponsored & propagated religion falsely called "science"😉
@@sandman9390 AIG denies evolution, as do the vast majority of their followers. Evolution is supported by more evidence than any other scientific idea there is, and is the most heavily studied and scrutinized scientific idea there is. 98% of all scientists support evolution. 51% of all scientists believe in a god. That means that for every 51 god believing scientists, 49 of them believe evolution. There is zero evidence to falsify evolution except for religious claims that cannot be verified. If you don't believe in evolution you are denying actual science. Stop lying, and stop the science denial.
Well put. Love all the legitimate modern discoveries that have naturalist secular evolutionists scrambling in a way that makes their delusions obvious.
That is, of course, true because, unlike science, religious beliefs cannot be disproven. As soon as someone says a religious book is the basis of their proof they have lost me. After all repeatability, and open mindedness are the basis of science. Science cannot be proven while religious beliefs cannot be disproven.
Who created the universe is a religious question; how it was created is a science question. Scientists can believe in God while atheism is not a requirement for science.
1.Religion is just any system of belief that defines the philosophy and morality of its believers. Atheism is just as much as a religion as Christianity. The myth is just that religion involves belief in deity; the fact is that it can, but not exclusive. Confucianism is considered a religion without a deity of any sort. 2. Material science is all about falsifiability. You do not prove things; you disprove things. 3. Claiming atheism as neutral on claims of origin is absurd.
There's more proof for the bible than evolution. There's not one proof. When you look at the evidence which is the same for Christians and evolutionists common sense comes down on the side of Christianity
Then why don’t you believe the repeated experiments?
Fruit flies mutated more than any creature on earth ever was or could be always remain fruit flies.
E. coli across tens of thousands of generations always produce E. coli.
Peas, you guessed it, produce peas.
Staphylococcus bacteria despite gaining resistance remain staphylococcus bacteria.
Influenza viruses always remain influenza viruses….
But you reject all the repeatable experiments and instead fall into your imagination ….
Yet evolution cannot be repeated. Being open minded doesn't mean I let my brain fall out.
@@markgilrosales6366 Christianity should be a moral way of life. Found in no other religion. Many sciences edify the bible such as archaeology, astrology, and paleontology to name a few. And the bible is the only him with fulfilled prophecy 100%
If one could take a Materialist Geologist / Scientist and a Young Earth Creationist Geologist / Scientist to the site of the Mt St Helen's eruption (in Washington State, USA) and asked them ''Explain what you see around you'', both would be able to deduce quite quickly that there had been an explosion of devasting proportions over the terrain.
But... if you then asked ''How long ago did this happen?'' there might be call for a different approach. Both might defer to the age of the trees in the regrowth forest, and call for a dendrochronologist. This might lead to a clear age estimate of around 40 to 50 years.
But trees die in time, most not lasting for more than a few centuries. What if one were to take another pair; a Materialist Geologist / Scientist and a Young Earth Creationist Geologist / Scientist - in one thousand years' time and ask 'When did this terrain get formed''. THAT's where each would revert to their set of premises about the formation of rocks and life on Earth.
Think about it, Gods time is not like ours, he can start the world from any point in "time" he wishes and progress it rapidly or slowly etc, everything science says cannot disprove the bible only frustrate and confuse people from the truth.
Well, there is no “time” for God.
the part in the beginning that he mentioned about deception is what describes islam and a muslim.
Where do you get the 6k age of earth?? I’ve never read that in the Bible. Genesis certainly does not say that. It says the earth was created before man was created. It doesn’t say anything about a number of years.
Oh good grief, you must've seen what these lunatics propose? They add up the ages of the people listed in the Bible and come to an age of around 6000 years! Then they just ignore all the scientific evidence for the fact that the earth is billions of years old, and still follow that old book of Fables and nonsense!
@@davidsteer1941The overwhelming majority of facts support a relatively young earth
From Adam to Jesus to now is 6000 years
Genesis tells you how old people lived and how old people were when they had children. It's 5th grade math to figure out the world is about 6 thousand years. From Adam to the flood is about 1500 years. And the flood was about 4500 years ago.
@@James-tq6tp thank you. I understand that but that gives us a timeline for humans not the earth.
9 Q. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is God's making all things (Gen. 1:1) of nothing, by the Word of his power (Heb. 11:3), in six normal consecutive days (Exod. 20:11), and all very good (Gen. 1:31).
Spurgeon’s Catechism.
Pity you can't actually prove that your invisible magical mystery man ever created anything
Greatest proof of evolution: assumptions 👏👏👏
@@earthisasphere the Bible is greater than science 😉
The irony of this coming from a creationist. A book of fairy tale assumptions and impossibilities, all good. Empirical science based on as few assumptions as possible ''ALL ASSUMPTIONS!''
@@zerosteel0123 No, the Bible is full of misinformation and unfulfilled prophecies. Believe in whatever god you wish, but stop the science denial.
@@LarsLarson-u1x right because there are no assumptions at all in your theory, right? Lol
Both sides have assumptions but ours are superior in every way. Why? Because we assume that God played a part in it and God is greater than you are.
@@zerosteel0123 "Both sides have assumptions but ours are superior in every way. Why? Because we assume that God played a part in it and God is greater than you are." Science relies on evidence, and you have none.
Thank you AIG
Atheist scientists had originally said that humans broke off from ape-like creatures 2.5 million years ago. And that modern man evolved from that humanoid about 250,000 years ago. Well, even if we assume that humans have ony been on the planet for 10,000 years, when the alleged agricultural revolution started and being extremely conversative.
Only doubling the world's population every 150 years (currently the population doubles about 40 years), *after 150 years there will be 4 people, after another 150 years there will be 8 people, after another 150 years there will be 16 people, and so on* This rate is actually very conservative. (we have records of a Russian woman in the 1700's who gave birth to over 60 children). I am taking into account *disease, plagues, famines, natural disasters, wars, and reverse birth to death ratio at various intervals.* Way before the discovery of penicillin in 1928. We have records of women from the 1400's giving birth to 10 children on average, let's say only 5 would make it to old age for the factors mentioned above, so 2 children per couple every 150 years for 10,000 years it is extremely generous. Calculating these numbers, there would have been averaging close to 100 doublings in 150 years. The world’s population would be whopping figure of the # 1 followed by 30 zeros.
Check it out:
1,000000000000000000000000000000. You can still wipe out humanity a couple of times more and the numbers still don't add up.
*Think about this in 1912 when the Titanic sank. The world's population was only a little over 1 billion people. Fast-forward 100 years and we are 8 billion. And we have had world war I and world War II in between (70 million people died). In 1945-46 around 140,000 people died as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima, Plus the worst influenza plague the world has ever seen, which happened 1918 (50 million people die)* Still In the last 100 years alone we can see a population growth of 8 times its numbers.
*Now, let's look at this other math:*
If we start about 4,500 years ago (time of Noah's flood).
After about 30 doublings, which is about 4,500 years, the world's population would have reached about 8 billion people. Just more or less what we have today.
Yes, some Christians and many other religions believe in some sort of evolution. But this is only because they have been influenced by this indoctrination since they were children.
*Math doesn't lie. We can see how man invented the a theory of his origin to try to do away with God’s moral laws. We have lied about our origin, our history. And the studies of archeology, biology, anthropology, and so on. We even rather believe in panspermia (aliens from other galaxies). We are very ready to accept anything but God. BTW, religion is also man's made. For God there's only two religions *good and evil*
There's gonna be people regardless of their educational level that because of their cognitive biases can look at this facts and will still want to continue their merry-way without having any accountability for their actions.
Today's world population is over 8 billion in about 25 years we will be over 20 billion. The world's economy will collapse.
Wait you fail to mention is population starting sizes. Noah had what 6 to 8 people no medicine and alot of inbreeding.
_I am taking into account disease, plagues, famines, natural disasters, wars, and reverse birth to death ratio at various intervals_
No, you're not. There have been periods when human population has actually declined. Exponetial population growth is only possible with industrialisation and mechanised agriculture. For most of our species history, we were naked apes on the plains of Africa - low population levels (indeed, several times, we got very close to extinction). Population growth wasn;t anywhere near that fast for most of our history.
@@wingednut2283
No I did not! The restart of the population was after the flood when probably over millions people perished. The population restarted with Noah and his family a total of 8 people (8 exponentially doubled 30 times is 8,589,934,592) that accounts for the 8 billion on the planet today. Give or take a few million due all the adversities mentioned above.
Inbreeding is not a genetic problem with a big gene pool. Noah and his family still had a big gene pool.
Each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with its tremendous ecological and geographic varieties and diversities. Also big gene pool allows inbreeding without much genetic degradations, but as species grows in numbers the gene pool gets smaller affecting inbreeding to the point of producing offsprings with genetic defects.
A large gene pool has also more genomic diversity and can not only allow inbreeding, but it can withstand an adverse and hostile diversity in environmental challenges. Neanderthal (descendants from Noah's family) were just as human as we are, but with stronger and more robust DNA. We are not evolving, but rather devoluting. We are not better than our ancestors, because we are a copy, of a copy, of copy, of copy....with accumulated gene defects.
@@richardgregory3684
You have no idea what you are saying. You even didn't take the time to investigate my comment. Take it to a science accadiamia first to see who dares to debunk it logically.
The visible return of Jesus Christ is near (after WW3 or the land invasion of Israel) to save Israel & to set up a new Age on earth or, a Kingdom (7th Millennium), otherwise mankind would extinguish himself.
Well, I have been asking, but so far no one has responded.
What is it about this video that certain people don't want other people to see?
The title is telling us that certain people do not want certain other people to see this video. Anybody know what they're talking about?
Nothing. The title is a dogwhistle to the clueless creationist sheep.
@@joefriday2275 Why do you run away every time I try to engage you is a science discussion? You post the silliest creationist dreck then when called to defend it you run away so fast you leave skid marks.
@@joefriday2275 If all the creationist videos containing lies about science were deleted they would have no videos left.
@@sciencerules2825 yep 👌
@@mostlyharmless0642 that's true, and at this point, I wonder if they even realize they are supposed to be talking Bible stuff, not science stuff..
They're so wrapped up in misrepresenting evolution, the Big Bang model, age of the earth, and all that crap, they seem to have forgotten their true mission.
They are so, so afraid of science, really. Got to keep fighting their imaginary war. Hasn't gotten them anywhere after all these years, but they keep chugging along. God love 'em, the poor delusional goofballs.
There are no such things as "operational science" and "historical science". There is only *science* , period. The exact same methodology is used to study an event 1msec ago or 1 million years ago. Creationists invented these two different "sciences" solely as an excuse to reject scientific findings they don't like.
That’s not true….
You can study a star, but you can’t study its formation in the past. And even those they claim are star forming regions already have stars or they have none at all. You can’t actually watch a star forming.
@@stevenwhite8937
You can see a star in the process of forming. But fortunately evolution is much easier because we have enough evidence to make it obvious. Yes, we can learn about what happened in the past through EVIDENCE, just the way intelligent people have always done.
@@jockyoung4491 No one has ever seen a star forming. There are either already formed stars or none….
You’ve got no evidence for common descent evolution except what exists in your mind….
@@stevenwhite8937actually we have seen stars forming.
@@stevenwhite8937 Man, I sure wish detectives could learn about the past from evidence they find in the present... Oh, wait...
I’m a Christian who has loved Paleontology as a child and everything that I learned about. Being converted as an adult, I know without a shadow of a doubt God is real and that he has sovereignly chosen to give me faith and save me. I am looking at both sides to try to figure out what is true, since I am thinking about going to school for paleontology (I think Christians need to be in all fields of science, but I’m worried about everything I’ve known about ancient biological science being untrue). As I’m watching videos from AiG, I’m noticing a lot of fear being produced at old earth theology. At 43:57 it seems like he is saying this kind of thinking leads people to apostate (keep in mind that the Lord is sovereign on who perseveres to the end, he became an apostate because he believed human views of there being no God. Not because of this kind of thinking.) There are many faithful believers who believe in old earth who are not going to apostate or cause others to apostate. This is making Christian’s with not as much knowledge about the field be afraid or even hate those who believe in old earth/theological evolution. I’m open to being convinced of YEC if it is true, and trusting the Lord to guide me in what’s true if it’s His will. But also, pinning Christian’s against each other by saying their views lead to people apostatizing is wrong and divisive on a 3rd-4th tier issue. If someone leaves the faith because they do not see the evidence for God in creation, that is them trading the truth for a lie as it says in Romans 1. But even if evolution is true, it is so crazy that God’s hand has to be all over it. Being convinced of evolution does not take away God. Let’s not make people scared that believing in something that many faithful Christians have believed before us. This fear mongering makes it hard for me to listen to the actual scientific evidence of your position, so that I can see if young earth is actually a viable thing to believe as a future paleontologist. But maybe I should just stick to evolutionary theology because it feels manipulative to make fear of causing others to leave the faith a reason not to believe something. We are Christians. We care about objective truth because we know the author of objective truth. Let’s search for that truth without manipulating people by fear.
@alicat2083 you should go and look up @DrJoelDuff. He is exactly what you need. He is a Christian but also a paleontologist. Even though him and I disagree on the beginning. His knowledge is fantastic as is his approach. He's also very active in his comment section. I've been part of a couple good conversations he's had with some YEC Through the chat. Same with Clint's Reptiles.
@@Johnny_Eh-theist +1 for Clint's reptiles.
@@freddan6fly I second this, and I an not even a Christian. Clint is awesome.
He is illustrating what can happen if we destroy the foundation of scripture. It is dangerous to say i dont believe in a young earth because of what i see with my eyes. if you dont believe in that part of the Word, how can you say what parts are wrong and which you will believe. This is where faith comes in, trust in the Living God. i hear conviction in your comments. it is a lot to wrap a mind around after being in man's world view since a kid. That was me and now i accept young earth because i am not in a podition to say this part is truth and this part is not of the Word. These professors of hight esteem were taken in to it. God created Adam and Eve as adults not babies. So therefore He is able to create the perfectly aged Earth and universe to support His creation. Dont limit your faith in Him. Even those who saw the Red sea parted still questioned what God can do to save them. Let's not follow that example. Pray for understanding.
@@chrism7526 The young earth is disproven by all of science. If you try to squeeze in 4.5 billion years worth of geological activities the earth would explode. it would be equal to 10,000 hydrogen bombs per cubic meter of the earth, and is much more energy density than anything science know off. It is based on literal interpretation of bronze age myths.
AIG's entire premise is built on the following: "When you don't understand science, you are easily deceived."
@@joefriday2275 Oh, the irony of your statement.
@@Mario_Sky_521 If Mortenson is so bright why doesn't he write up his evidence for creation and have it published in a mainstream science journal? It's because he knows his claims are scientifically worthless and only good for gulling his ignorant followers like you.
@earthisasphere...no doubt this is why it was so easy to deceive and indoctrinate most people. If even half of those people applied how science was done before 1970 evolution would never have the stronghold it does in govt run schools and the media.
3:10 He says if you're only exposed to 1 worldview or perspective then you can be easily deceived.
Kinda the whole foundation of Marxism, totalitarianism, communism, the Biden/Kamala Democratic party, and Atheism.
Similar, but I think he's talking about more than just the modern scientific religion.
Evolution v religion
Evolution no money
Religion CASH COW
Decide who's telling
THE TRUTH
Evolution is modern day mythology. Lol Have to feel sorry for those people.
so is ancient mythology better? Your whole argument seems to be " you are just like us".
@@franciscomelendeze only from your perspective it would seem that way
Wikipedia "List of Christian denominations" That is proof that even Christianity (and their ancestors Judaism and Ancient Egyptian Mythology) follows evolutionary path.
@@globalcoupledances and ancient Canaanite religion which used to be polytheistic and included Yahweh And Baal.
@@franciscomelendeze Circumcision and Pork taboo came from Egypt. It is in Herodotus
This man knows how to PREACH!
Maybe, but he doesn't know science.
@@earthisasphere Are you referring to that which is observable, testable, empirical, and repeatable?
At which point, you have to forgo evolutionism.
@@TickedOffPriest Tests on evolutionary evidence are observable, testable, empirical, and repeatable. It's amazing anyone can be so ill-informed they think actual historical *events* have to be observed and repeated. 😄
@@donteatthecats0001 Well, without any evidence or record of an event, it is foolish to call it historical.
@@TickedOffPriest We have 4+ billion years and a whole planet's worth of physical evidence for evolution. It's beyond foolish to deny reality because the implications frighten you.
Hey, atheists, leave us alone in our bubble. Go watch your evolution videos
No i like bubbles
😂
Who is living in the bubble?
What percentage of people actually study and understand science?
Or do they get their info from the news? Hear “Science says” and take it as the gospel?
@@laker_c assuming you come from a place that makes sure kids have an education the majority of the world actually study science from every corner of the globe. Do you hop in your car and assume it will turn on and transport you safely to your destination? If so i assure you it isnt faith that caused that.
Science does not claim to have all the truths that is the difference between religion and science. One works towards understanding the other claims they found it from the ancient david blaine.
Hey theists, grow up and accept reality. The Bible is historical fiction and Israelite propaganda.
You see, the apostle, in his day, had to contend against those who ran away from the simplicity of the gospel into all manner of fables and inventions. Such, in our day, are the doctrine of evolution, the doctrine of the universal fatherhood of God, the doctrine of post-mortem salvation, the doctrine of the final restitution of all men, and all sorts of fables and falsehoods which men have invented.
Spurgeon, C. H. (1893). The Whole Gospel in a Single Verse. In The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons (Vol. 39, p. 143).
_the doctrine of evolution_ Evolution isn't a doctrine. It's an empirically observed naturally occurring phenomenon with an accompanying scientific theory to explain the mechanisms which produced the phenomenon. It's no more a doctrine than gravity or erosion are doctrines.
Evolution isn't a doctrine. It is a fact, and a scientific theory. Sad that you have to reject science for your unfounded god belief. But rest assured, that makes your unfounded god belief false.
Man...I cannot imagine having such a terrible world view that there has to be thousands of books, millions of hours of TH-cam videos, etc. just to try to prove or disprove one part of it.
Christianity seems like it isn't true if you can't actually prove literally any aspect of creation plainly. Just seems nuts.
".I cannot imagine having such a terrible world view that there has to be thousands of books, millions of hours of TH-cam videos, etc. just to try to prove or disprove one part of it." You are talking about evolution, right???
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and ignorance of evidence does not negate the existance of said evidence... this is the EXACT same problem that evolutionists AND astronomers share with Christians, none of us have "proof"... both sides have a certian amount of evidence, and the rest is based on faith, be it faith in Christ, or faith in "science", "technology", or "experts"... both have "evidence" refuting claims made by the other, both have historical findings supporting certian claims, both admit that we do not know the entire story, and both admit that we dont actually have "proof"... the people that will not admit those things, are lying to you, regardless of what side they are comming from... with that being said, i will put my faiyh in Christ before i put my faith in the words of these men that i can see on a day to day basis, telling people they need to use less fossil fuels to save the environment, while they fly around on jets everywhere they go, and have full on motor-cades, or even that rediculous "fact" evolution is actually real, but "people are all the same"... wait, you juuuust said "evolution is real", so shouldnt humans be seeing MORE diversity in its changes? but when i was young they were saying things like "we are all going to end up being one big race", that is the EXACT opposite of evolution... so did all the diversity we see all come from the same "primordial ooze", influenced by evolution? if so it seems like we should be celebrating our differences, but we say all people are the same, and there are no differences... or were we actually diverse to begin with, and over time we are actually LOSING that diversity? because that is what we actually SEE... evolution is all a scam, with cherry-picked "evidence" to fit the narrative
Actually, for those willing to examine the scientific evidence, there is much of it out there that supports creation and disproves evolution. But you have to be willing to both look and have an open mind to be able to see it. I don't mean a mind that is already looking to be convinced, but just a true skeptic seeking the actual truth and willing to entertain the idea they might not know it yet.
Even scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. Where did that beginning come from? It came from the one that spoke into existence. The sun, moon and stars were made for signs and seasons. So where did time come from, if not from the one that created it? God is timeless so it makes sense that He created it for us. Have you ever read and studied the Holy Bible to base your opinions on these matters? Or do you go by what you hear about it?
Ok if you think about what you just said for more than two seconds you realize this goes both ways, right?
🎉
Then we would have records of people living along with dinosaurs wouldn't we
I'm a Christian, but this is silly
No one talked about dinosaurs because they didn't know about them
The divider is not if you believe or not, it is if you have to deny science and reality for your belief or not.
Said by an atheist.
@@freddan6fly Well said.
Sadly, too many do not carry this "rational" "logic" to its end. . . Has it EVER been "observed" that a "man" self-resurrects? {:]
Since we had thousands of eye witnesses that were willing to die for what they witnessed…. So yes, it has been observed…
People resurrect on a daily basis. It is neither a miracle nor divine intervention.
@@stevenwhite8937 "500 people saw Jesus rise from the dead" is not 500 eyewitnesses, it's 1 testimonial
@@msquiggle3590 one testimonial from talking to eye witnesses… more than you have for Alexander the Great…
@@stevenwhite8937 "1000 people saw spiderman fly through Central Park" has the exact same level of credibility
“anybody can be deceived” should be the tagline for christianity
Yes anyone can be deceived including christians but it is only christians that have the possibility of not being deceived.
@@James-tq6tp YEC's are certainly being deceived.
And not for the reasons atheists want to believe in
And it is, actually, starting from Genesis 3 all the way to Revelations.
58:45 q{ philosophy masquerading as science } Synonyms of Mask: Disguise
Cloak
Vizard
Stocking mask
False face
Domino
Face mask
Visor
Great video! Followers of Christ accept observable science and documented history. Scripture deniers grasp at imaginary straws.
Evolution is observable science so that's ok.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu evolution is not observable
@@katherinemcdaniel8676Speciation of fish, reptiles, and birds have been observed in the field. Try again
@@xXMACEMANXx is that supposed to mean something?
@@katherinemcdaniel8676It means evolution has, in fact, been observed
But the biblical daying that for God one day equals 1000 years and 1000 years like one day? What does that mean?
Religion is a closed system of belief. Science is open to testing and examination.
@@joefriday2275 And evolution has nothing to do with science
Which field of science?? there are many different sciences included in the field of evolutionary science.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Science has been testing and rejecting Mortenson's creationist claims for over 150 years. Mortenson just isn't honest enough to acknowledge his nonsense has already been thoroughly refuted decades ago.
@@Mario_Sky_521 You've been given several examples like Mortenson's false claim there are two different "sciences". Like all creationists you just aren't honest enough to admit it.
@@Mario_Sky_521 *Give Mortenson's view explained* Mortenson's view is given in AIG's Statement Of Faith. Any science which disagrees with AIG's literal interpretation of the Bible must be wrong. They can never show *why* all such science is wrong, only declare it to be wrong by fiat. Does that sound intellectually honest to you?
Careful, they think Christians think they're the openminded ones lol.
Most if not all the preachers you sighted (photos) preach "works salvation". Goes to show you another error they have. You may believe in a young earth as I do and hope you also believe that salvation cannot be earned nor lost once gained when you put your faith in Christ. Faith alone.
Because it was never about forgiveness. It's all about control and purging the "undesirables." Religious fundamentalism is a key tenet of fascism.
Because it's about control, not forgiveness. They want to purge the "undesirables." Religious fundamentalism is a key tenet of fascism.
Long age of the Earth is supported by geology, astronomy, biology, physics. It is sad that you lie to confirm your beliefs.
The scientific method is not a time machine.
@@curiousshiba No one said it was, but you clearly don't understand science.
@@curiousshiba The scientific method can certainly be used to investigate and understand events of the past however.
@@curiousshibacan you use evidence to solve a crime that happened days-weeks-months-years ago?
@@curiousshiba What do you mean by that?
I'm looking to share this channel with someone I know who is struggling to make science and the Bible make sense together. What would be a good video to start them on their journey?
Nothing by AIG
@@joefriday2275 And yet you blindly go along with, that an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence only 6000 years ago and without a shred of evidence to prove that it ever happened LOL.
@@joefriday2275 You've posted this same idiocy already. You claimed there are no beneficial mutations yet when I showed you one you ran like a scared bunny. 🐰
The BioLogos Foundation started by Dr. Francis Collins may be a good place to start. AIG hates them with a passion.
@@joefriday2275 _Evolution isn't science. If there was a single, tiny bit of indisputable evidence for evolution, we would all believe in it_
There is indisputable efivence that earth is a globe and orbits the sun. There are cranks who refuse to believe this is so. You could take one of them up in a high altitude jet and shopw them, and they'd insist that they were being drugged by the CIA on behalf of NASA satanists.
One minute in: “A geology textbook by evolutionists.” If you want to be taken seriously, you have to understand the most basic facts of science. Hint: Geologists write geology textbooks. There are YEC who do understand basic science. Use them instead of people like this please.
Give it time. I've watched and listened to Dr. Terry Mortison fir some years now, and to my recollection, I've never heard anything I disagree with from him. I've learned that when you hear something at the beginning you find off for some reason, give it time, they will usually go into it and explain. I realize you don't know me from Adam and what I believe, just give him some time.
Wait so geologists can’t be evolutionists?!
Your comment doesn't make sense. What exactly is your point?
I misunderstood the op. I 100% agree with the speaker.
Geology is very pertinent to evolution, especially with long ages, world wide flood, and that's where fossils are found.
Doesn’t cancer contradict evolution?
No, why would it?
No but it does contradict an all good, all powerful god
As our DNA degrades, more mistakes are added creating more diseases so that is where it comes from. God did not mean for us to live long on this planet.
No, knowledge cannot be found in the bible. The god of the bible is not interested in you having knowledge. Remember, when Adam ate from the Tree of the Knowledge, he was punished and thrown out of paradise.
Knowledge is in the Bible. All Wisdom & Knowledge is given by GOD.
@@jameswood231 Says who?
@@jameswood231 "Knowledge is in the Bible. All Wisdom & Knowledge is given by GOD." So you claim, and yet AIG and all their followers are science deniers.
@@earthisasphere Or fascists. Because remember: "science denier" has become a meaningless label you attach to people whose ideas you don't like. What's next - are you going to call us Flat-Earthers, as well, regardless of what we actually think on the matter? Because once again: there is nothing scientific about such rants - it's all social performance.
@@thstroyur No, science denier means one that denies well tested, scrutinized, established science. Evolution is the most high scrutinized scientific idea ever, and is supported by more evidence than any other scientific idea ever. And AIG denies it without a shred of evidence to back their claims. That is science denial.
As for Flat Earthers, the vast, vast majority, if not all of them, believe in a Young Earth. There is a connection amongst you there, but I can see why you would want to try to remove Flat Earthers from your ranks.
I think this is all much simpler - God created a world for us to discover, and gave us the ability to do just that. Plasma cosmology does a lot to answer many of those "sudden" events. We just need to do more work and be more honest in our science. Whether or not parts of the Bible are literal or metaphorical is completely irrelevant because God made a knowable universe for us.
No it doesn't.
I think fundamentalism and young earth creationism are simply anti-Christian and anti-intellectual, honestly. Fundamentalism makes the world out to be some sort of Cartesian illusion mixed with a kind of crypto-gnostic carnal prison. It posits that the only way to salvation and true knowledge is to suspend the light of Reason and uphold a dogmatic tradition of men (the creationist interpretation of scripture) at all costs, even if it renders the world in which we live unintelligible. Because that's the point. Fundamentalism is unintelligibility because it is a corruption of true faith, a corruption which arose in order to oppose its brother, atheism.
I gotta say, the man needs to brush up on his worldbuilding.
Let's keep it empirical:
1. Christianity is still the largest religion in the world (2.365 billion).
2. This is 2024 Anno Domini, no matter how you "identify" it as Common Era. Which makes us all live in The Year of Our Lord (Philippians 2:11).
3. To this day, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.
4. To this day, no extraterrestrial life has yet been conclusively detected.
5. And biological evolution is accepted by virtually all biologists as obvious because of the overwhelming evidence.
Lets keep it free of stupid arguments:
1. Factually correct based on current statistics. However, suppose it was presented as an argument for the truth or superiority of Christianity. In that case, it might involve an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) fallacy-suggesting that because something is popular, it must be true or superior.
2. Citing Philippians 2:11 as evidence that everyone must consider 2024 to be "The Year of Our Lord" is appealing to a religious text to support a universally applicable claim, which assumes authority over people who may not share this belief which is an appeal to authroity
3. Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) regarding the lack of definitive proof for or against abiogenesis doesn't imply it is false or untrue. Furthermore, there is no direct way to go back in time and prove the origin of life, we must rather look at the evidence. The building blocks of life, amino acids literally come from space look up the Miller-Urey Experiment where in 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment simulating Earth's early atmosphere by mixing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapour, and then applying electrical sparks to mimic lightning which resulted in the formation of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.
4. Appeal to ignorance: Similar to the third statement, it implies that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a logical fallacy. Just because extraterrestrial life hasn't been detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it won't be detected in the future.
@@jockyoung4491
That's not empirical.
That's agreed among yourselves.
@@Taehc
I have been studying the evidence for evolution for 40 years. It is absolutely, overwhelmingy empirical. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply lying.
@@cookiecrumblez439
1. Okay, statistically losing minority.
2. Nobody force non-Christian to keep using the number. Atheists can start using Earth's "actual age" according to carbon dating or something. The Muslims can start using Hijriya and so on and so on. Yet ask yourselves, what number does it say on your birth certificate? But you can also revise that too.
3. Knowing what the building blocks of life is fine. But we're talking about how they assemble together to form an actual living being, *on their own.* Even with the help of you eggheads with modern tech, I repeat, *to this day, *abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved. This is a simple Google result. You have problems, take it to Google.
4. Your argument just proved that non believers shouldn't come and mock and make a fool of themselves because all they have are counter-beliefs 😅 Anyway, I repeat, to this day, No extraterrestrial life has yet been conclusively detected. This is also a simple Google search. You know where to go if you have any problem with that.
31:14 A very good expression of the Materialist dogmatic premises that underlie what is known as ''Scientism''. Scientism, per se, is that view which holds that as the Scientific Method is a process that seeks to establish natural causal agents for observable events... AND... that natural causal agents are the only causal agents... then it follows that only those who hold to the Materialist view may call themselves ''Scientists''.
This is, of course, totally illogical... but try telling that to a Scientism Scientist.
You make a mockery of Christians all over the world. It is your ilk that made me leave the faith.
There is no such thing as "scientism." That is a lie by fascists to tie their beliefs to the state by describing them to some supernatural authority. There is stuff you can prove, and stuff you can't prove. Simple as that.
@@LaserBread Yes, there IS such a thing as ''Scientism''. It is the arrogant presumption that Science is the province of the Materialist alone. Your unawareness of this indicates your ignorance and lack of capacity to comment, let alone criticise. Your use of the word ''fascist'' is incorrect, and the accusation of some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous.
17:45 I think the main proof text for this idea is 2 Peter 3:8. The idea being that seven days doesnt necessarily mean seven literal days to God. Im personally open to either being true.
18:54 now thats just... dumb.
19:45 I used to hold to this because technically they didnt quite have a word for the entire planet back then, so "earth" could just as easily mean the local area. Used to, because it doesnt make a lot of sense given the actual height of the waters described. As im sure will be mentioned here.
41:42 this is the view I dont understand how you can hold it. Evolution as a process requires death, natural selection. Physical death was the cost of sin, so then sin must not have occured before physical death. But if man had evolved into existence, that would require death. See the contradiction?
48:42 I dont think Genesis is the foundation of the cross. Its... maybe vaguely related, but honestly, what isnt? But either way i'd say the foundation is the resurrection.
2 Peter 3:8 is talking about prophetic time…..
It’s the foundation for the cross because without sin there would be no need for the cross. And the very first prophecy of Jesus was given in Genesis, spoken by God Himself….
Genesis is the most relevant book of the Bible. If Christ be not risen, there is no Christianity.
@@masada2828 Are you seriously trying to tell me the resurrection is told in genesis?
Not... You know, Mathew Mark Luke and John?
Evolution is a blind faith-based religion.
Don't tell, let me guess, god did it right???, you couldn't prove that a god ever created anything if you tried.
"This theory based on evidence that has been tested for over a hundred years and still holds up to criticism is all based in blind faith. Unlike my beliefs, of which the only proof I have is a compilation of books and stories written nearly 3000 years ago"
@@joefriday2275 It's amazing how you manage to get a little more unhinged every day.
You don't even know what a religion is...
@@joefriday2275 nobody believes in any of those things
27:54 logic went out of the window right there, just looking at these 5 seconds invalidates entire video
That far in? The title using "evolutionists" like a scientific theory is some kind of religious dogma discredits it before the video even began. AIG basically performed an abortion.
The Bible is the correct worldview because it is God's worldview. 🙏🙏🙏✝️🕊️
excellent work sir bless
It is just lies.
Operational science. Is that not just technology? Whatever “science” is useful to the present culture. If it is not useful (as in productive) it is not science??
"Operational science" is a creationist term. Science is a systematic method of investigation, which encompasses any field that relies on empirical research to discover explanations and trends to account for natural phenomena. Not every scientific field needs to produce technological applications.
Im obviously not a theoretical physicist, but Just a thought.If time is relative and the universe is expanding extremely fast.At some point may have been faster. Idont know .Wouldnt the age of the earth be different depending on where you were at? The closer to the speed of light the earth would travel the slower it would age from the perspective of a bistander. What i am asking or insinuating is couldn't the earth be thousands of years old and millions of years old at the same time?I just think that God is way bigger than all these apparent contradictions between science and the Bible.I have all the faith in the world that in the end its going to make sense!
I had an old children’s Bible back in the 60’s and it depicted the universe as all water. So in Gen 1:6,7 when God parts the waters from the waters with a firmament (in Hebrew it is raqa meaning a solid material/substance that needs to be hammered out) other versions say dome. So the ancient Hebrews believed in a 3 tier system: Heaven Earth and the Underworld. There is water above us still. After all these when I studied this back in 2021 it was a wonderful revelation, I felt even closer to my Lord and Savior.
Expansion accelerates over time. The Earth is known to be a fixed age based on the composition of radioisotopes found in its crust.
Your preposition goes against the law of noncontradiction, you argument is logically fallible, in other words absurd.
I will tell you that religion can decive you as well.
Many kids grow up only seeing the false worship of their family members.
Well that's the point he is making and I thought it was loud and clear, "religion has been deceived"
@@reliezer99 And he is one of he ones doing the deceiving. Many of you are just to indoctrinated to realize it...
Cartoons?
I can’t be deceived about what you are saying (that it’s true), so I am already deceived. ???
if you think you are being incapable of being deceived (in general, for all contexts) then you are already deceived because that in an of itself is a deception. In other words if you think you are impervious to believing in falsehood, you believe a falsehood.
It would seem so.
Just an observation after reading the Bible, nowhere does it say a day is 24 hours. In fact it states light is day and darkness is night. It also stated that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. We are told not to add to or subtract from the Word of God. The solar system cycle wasn't established until the 4th creation day the makes it understanding day and night on planet earth. Other planets have different day lengths. The earth's rotation is slowing down, so we don't know exactly how long a day on planet earth was on day 4 of creation. The one thing that is very clear is that time is relative. Einstein proved that. So who gives anyone the authority to dogmatically insist that a day is 24 hours according to the Bible? There are four different meanings to the Hebrew word for day in the Bible one being a long finite period of time. We don't fully understand what time is, so why can't we all listen to the Word of God and believe what He said light is day and day is night. When God said, " let there be light" He didn't add, it's 24 hours! I wish everyone would stop arguing about something we know nothing about. The Bible tells us to put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. Meaning follow the evidence where it leads. It also stated that the heavens DECLARE THE GLORY OF GOD! Please stop using the age of the universe to disprove evolution. It only causes problems when we know Darwinian evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible. Maranatha
God is beyond space and time 🤔
So, we can't be sure God created the 24 hour period for a day? Seriously??Day 1 morning and evening; day 2 morning and evening, Day 3 Morning and evening etc. Jesus stated there was 12 hrs of daylight in a day. By the way how many [ days?] are in a year? How can anyone be sure if we don't don't what constitues a day? How old are you? Do you have any proof of your age? The only place a 24-hour day is QUESTIONED is in Genesis. Wonder Why???
Who created time?a day is like a thousand years? It's ok Jesus is God 😀
'Y habló Dios todas estas palabras, diciendo: Yo soy Jehová tu Dios, que te saqué de la tierra de Egipto, de casa de servidumbre. No tomarás el nombre de Jehová tu Dios en vano; porque no dará por inocente Jehová al que tomare su nombre en vano. Porque en seis días hizo Jehová los cielos y la tierra, el mar, y todas las cosas que en ellos hay, y reposó en el séptimo día; por tanto, Jehová bendijo el día de reposo y lo santificó. ' Éxodo 20:1-2,7,11
The problem lies on these so-called biblical creationists than blaming science contradicting the Genesis account of creation and the evolution of life. God created the universe and all living things through the process of evolution. These so-called biblical creationists believe God created all things by just saying the word like MAGIC. They were trapped by the debunked model of Darwin's evolution that all living things came from one original species. The Genesis account of living things is abiogenesis that life was formed from the soil. Therefore, there were millions or even billions of original species, and they will mutate according to their kinds or of the same species, a microevolution.
***THERE ARE MANY MORE THINGS THAT YOU REFUSE TO SEE. AND THEY ARE OBVIOUS,***
Just give us one, all we need is one, just one, go on sir.
I didn’t know Moses was an eyewitness to creation.
According to the bible, Moses was a mass murderer and child abuser, but I didn't find anything about him being an eyewitness to creation.
@georg7120 no one stated he was. You simply don't understand your Bible. The bible was written by God through man.
The whole point of the Bible is that God is the main witness, and he's the one putting his testimony into scripture through men like Moses, David, the apostles,... But apparently you didn't get it 🤦. In the end, it all comes down to your beliefs
If im not mistaken second hand evidence is still valid, even if ever so lightly less so.
Granted that does depend on if you might count divine inspiration as "first hand"
@@MarcoPolo39046Does the Bible say that?
yeah theres a gap in their theory its mostly between their ears
I feel for you. I hope one day you won't realize you were just heavily indoctrinated.... That would be brutal.
Good luck.
I'd rater have an enquiring brain between my ears than a bible based lobotomy
So how come we dont find any evidence of of people or Animals in the so called great flood sediment.
Not yet would be the correct scientific answer.
@@reliezer99 Seeing as how there isn't any great flood sediment, NOT EVER would be the correct scientific answer.
Another religious rant about the young age of the earth. He gives examples of the opinions of various men in the past but forgets that the bible was written by man and is a complete fabrication by man to try and explain what was a mystery to them. There is no evidence that there was a global flood as described in the bible, and what about the stupid statement that some of the characters were up to nine hundred years old. The good part about science, especially “historical” science, is that opinions can change based upon new evidence. Unfortunatley creationists are stuck in rut and will never get to anywhere near the truth.
You mean the catastrophic consequences of the truth?
Apparently we can’t handle the truth.
Exactly what "truth" are your referring to?
@@dooglitasthat bible has errors maybe? I mean look at this
@@Yashkingman What errors? Look at what?
@@dooglitasthe accounts who found the tomb empty, the multiplication of fish and bread taking place at two separate places depending on which event you consider true, the fact that there was never a global flood and the Earth is older than 6000 years
Don't you think Charles Lyle was most likely trying to avoid zealots? Much harder to find a truth working with closed minds
It's incorrect to call an old earth geologist an "evolutionist". Geologists study the history, nature, materials and processes of the Earth. A geologist may or may not believe in evolution, just as they may or may not believe in God.
Asbis pointed out in this video, the idea that the earth is at least millions of years old significantly predators evolutionary ideas about the origins of living species.
There may be shared beliefs about how old the earth is between old earth geologists and evolution-believing biologists and Big Bang cosmologists, but they're studying very different fields.
A young earth creationist may have issues with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're all on the same team
Young Earth Creationists have issues with many scientific disciplines as well as many liberal arts fields of study, including historians, sociologists, and anthropologists.
Humans have always had spoken language communication, there were never any hunter/gatherers. Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel had spoken language. Cain practiced agriculture and Abel animal husbandry
To summarize: YECs have issues with reality.
Places on the Arctic Circle have the longest total annual daytime, 4,647 hours, while the North Pole receives 4,575.
Who's to say God wasn't there when he created the heavens and the earth instead of anywhere else that might have a 24 hour day/night cycle?
Or are we assuming God played by the current cycle humans use used to calculate a day based on their location?
Except there's no reason to believe that He was talking about those areas. Even so, 3 1/2 years is not billions.
We know what was meant because God told His people to rest on the seventh day.
There's no end to stupid theories people come up with are there?
@@bobdalton2062 not exactly sure where you're going with that.
I also might add do those who live in those locations stop and restart their watches accoring to the long daytime / and or night periods?? Are they then not in sync with the rest of the world timewise? Just a thought.
@@priscillajervey8345 that has what to do with what?
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"*
(Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
Your long list of scholarly citations look very impressive - until one realizes that, at its bottom, it's just an argument from authority, appealing to the biases of critical scholars without examining the underlying assumptions. Alas, sit down and shout out how Genesis is a by-product of Sumerian culture all you want - actual evidence towards that lies in more than the mere privately judged verdicts of biased scholars
@@thstroyurThe fact that there are stories that are hundreds, sometimes at least a thousand years older than the oldest biblical manuscripts, that remain in similar but slightly different forms of Genesis stories tells us that the stories in Genesis are likely not original. Many of the stories in the Old Testament likely come from older oral tradition shared around the Levant.
It's inaccurate to say that these stories are Sumerian in origin, as the Sumerians likely didn't invent these stories either. The most likely scenario is that these stories were passed down orally for hundreds, if not thousands of years before the Sumerians even developed writing, and that both the stories like Utnapishtim's flood and Noah's flood come from a lost origin source that both the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis borrow from.
It's important to recognize that the Bible didn't even begin compilation until the late Bronze age when the Israelites were allowed to return to Israel. Their scholars spent four generations exposed to Zoroastrianism and Mesopotamian culture, so it's no surprise that they adapted these stories to tell their own history when writing Genesis.
@@xXMACEMANXx "The fact that there are stories that are hundreds, sometimes at least a thousand years older than the oldest biblical manuscripts, that remain in similar but slightly different forms of Genesis stories tells us that the stories in Genesis are likely not original" 1) Your dating of these sources as older than Genesis is itself contingent on other assumptions; 2) alternative explanation: the accounts are similar because they are witness to an ancestral memory. Example: two eyewitnesses, A and B, give their accounts of a car crash, A' and B' respec. One notices A' and B' are suspiciously similar; therefore, it must be that they colluded/copied from the other - right?
"The most likely scenario" according to you and/or critical scholars, is ultimately contingent on a network of unverifiable assumptions, presented as being stronger than what it actually is - namely, lots of speculation and conjecture.
"It's important to recognize that the Bible didn't even begin compilation until the late Bronze age when the Israelites were allowed to return to Israel" Just as is also important that, even granting that, one does not get the conclusion that is pointed before us as an inevitability. Sorry, but if your case rests solely on textual criticism, it is nowhere near as persuasive as you'd have the rest of the populace buy into; if you have anything more evidentially solid, like artifacts or the such (and not just the mere interpretation thereof), then we can start a more robust conversation.
@@thstroyur If I didn't judge the claim based on textual criticisms, the argument wouldn't exist. There is no physical supporting evidence for a literal Genesis, at least not the overwhelming majority of the stories in Genesis.
These conclusions are fair assessments of the information at hand, all things considered. We have two stories from the same part of the world that share the same story beats, but disagree on key details like who made the boat, what the boat looked like, who went on the boat, and how long the flood lasted.
To keep with your crash analogy, say your A response is "I saw an SUV hit a kid on the sidewalk" and your B source says "I saw a truck hit an old lady in the middle of the road." Both of those accounts can't be correct, and by taking the agreeing information, we can assume that the ACTUAL course of action was a large vehicle hit a person. Applying this to the flood, it's vastly more reasonable to assume that the story is older and not reflective of reality given their discrepancies, but retains elements of truth.
I fail to see how saying "no instances of a single verse of Genesis were written before the return of Israelite exile" is an assumption when it's just a fact of the matter. For a very long time, we have literally nothing, and then suddenly (after being exposed to these stories for multiple generations), you have a compilation of stories that sound similar to the stories that were believed and recited in the place that they spent multiple generations in. How else would you explain that if not standard cultural homogenization and adaptation?
Even the name of the God used in the Bible belongs to an older Cannanite God. Maybe the use of the plural "Elohim" would tip you off to the fact that the people who wrote these sources came from a pantheonic tradition before a monotheistic one.
@@xXMACEMANXx "There is no physical supporting evidence for a literal Genesis, at least not the overwhelming majority of the stories in Genesis" And if it did, what would it look like? Also: is it possible that Genesis is literally true, in spite of evidence that would convince the most hardened skeptic?
"These conclusions are fair assessments of the information at hand, all things considered" Nope - they're circumstantial conjecture woven in speculation. I'm not saying that one is not allowed to speculate, nor that said speculation is automatically wrong: I'm saying that a position that rests solely on that is inherently weak, but a highly secularized academia sells us the idea that no, they're basically equivalent to hard facts.
"Applying this to the flood, it's vastly more reasonable to assume that the story is older and not reflective of reality given their discrepancies, but retains elements of truth" Lose the qualifier "vastly", which is logically unjustified, and I sign under this sentence.
"I fail to see how saying "no instances of a single verse of Genesis were written before the return of Israelite exile" is an assumption when it's just a fact of the matter" The fact of the matter would be, no _known_ surviving instances of such texts. Yes, it could be that these traditions were compilled and written down way later; but even that doesn't get to you to conclude "There, you see? That proves these earlier traditions can't be historically factual". Believing that is as much an article of faith, as the opposite.
"How else would you explain that if not standard cultural homogenization and adaptation?" Go back to the witness example: just because A' and B' differ in detail, does that _prove_ that both are equidistant from the true event? What if A was sober, and B drunk? Would that change the odds, here?
"Even the name of the God used in the Bible belongs to an older Cannanite God. Maybe the use of the plural "Elohim" would tip you off to the fact that the people who wrote these sources came from a pantheonic tradition before a monotheistic one" By your logic, because the word for God in my language ("Deus") is closely related to the Greek "Theos", that in itself must be proof that I'm a pagan - in spite of the simple fact that God belongs to a different ontic category than the Hellenic deities. What other scandalous thing do you have to share? Could it be that the Hebrews shared bits of their language, currency, or even (shudder) they polytheistic cults - which, you know, I could have just read about in the Bible?
Evolution is based on magic. 🪄
An invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing and only 6000 years ago, isn't that magic???.
@@VisshanVis We can see the results of what physical things are unable to do.
No magic is needed. Just natural processes, actually and they're well documented and observed. Creation and the bible on the other hand is magic all the way down. From 600 year old men building magical ships, talking bushes, snakes and donkeys to mud golems and wizards turning women into pillars of salt.
No. Just natural processes. The bible however has more magic and than Harry Potter.
@@LarsLarson-u1x There is no process for writing instructions that aren’t there.
The ONLY thing science does is explain how things work that which God created. Thats it. Is Genesis still the infallible Word..???? ABSOLUTELY. Has man always been refining his scientific views,....ABSOLUTELY. IS MAN INFALLIBLE....??? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Does man get science wrong...??? Does man misinterpret science as fact..??? QUITE OFTEN. The Word of God NEVER changes and Jesus is our Foundation! Amen!
Sorry, youmight think that a story about how the universe got poofed into existance by an invisible magic wizard who made a man fromclay and a woman from a rib, who thenlived in a garden until one day a talkign snake screwed things for everyone is "infallible", and intelligen tperson is goign to say it's nonsense.
_The Word of God NEVER changes_
Which bible is the acurate one then?
the Bible is not God's word
@@xXMACEMANXx Where else does Genesis appear?
@@joefriday2275 Joefriday never changes his reliance on lying.
If the Bible is infallible, can you explain why both Ezekiel and Jeremiah prophesy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy and conquer Egypt, and that never happens? The Bible calls a bat a bird, says you can change the color of the offspring of an domesticated animal by having the animals procreate in front of a stripped stick placed in a bucket, the value of Pi is 3, etc, and none of those are accurate.
If you deny God, you will fall for anything. I can't believe I actually believed in evolution at one point in time.
You prefer iron age tales of invisible magic wizards, talking snakes, enchanted fruit, women made of ribs, peopel living inside fish to evidence based science?
If only you understood it...
@@joefriday2275 Evolution is not conrcerned with the origin of life
God and understanding science aren't mutually exclusive. You became a science denier like flat earthers are to preserve your idea of what the bible says.
@@LarsLarson-u1x no you really can't
Paul was never part of the first church that the disciples set up after the crucifixion. He started his ministry 18 yrs later, with a different view of things!! Hence we have two different views, all to be altered when the second church, from Rome took over the whole jolly lot. Thank goodness Martin Luther came along and nailed his pennies worth, on the great doors of the Church of Rome!!!
Luther did not nail the 95 thesis on any door.
What is your proof of this?
@@rm2h It is not the place anyone would have put their thesis. There would have been another location to place for such documents to be placed.
If you believe the " fall" idea there would be no limestone at creation.
What was the Earth made of?
And why so? Why would God be forbidden to create limestone at any moment He pleased?
@@thstroyur In theory a god could do whatever he wanted. No scientific discussion could be had if YEC's left it there. But it would be strange to leave behind evidence to the contrary of what your inspired and infallible book claims. Also, once you bring science into it, and everything we have learned about the formation of limestone says your story couldn't happen, then you just ruined your own argument.
@@earthisasphere First: you leaving out miracles out of the discussion does nothing to compel the Universe to exorcize any of the putative miracles on historical record out of existence. You can _assume_ all you want no miracle has ever occurred in the entire spatiotemporal extension of the Cosmos - the big question is: how do you _know_ that? What _evidence_ is there for that, beyond your mere opinion?
Second: you beg the question when you claim that the mere existence of limestone is already "evidence to the contrary of what your inspired and infallible book claims" (not the least because I can't remember any statement in Genesis specific to limestone itself).
Also, since you want to bring science into this, it then becomes fair game to point out that just because you have a scheme or just-so-story to explain away some piece of data does not automatically make your claim scientific - nevermind true. That is the issue with history: the scientifico-empirical method des not lend itself to validate models of the past - which is one and done, and by its own nature, non-reproducible.
@@thstroyur Because limestone is composed of dead marine animals
@@thstroyur Your nonsense post where you try to use large words to sound intelligent doesn't fix any of your problems. As @klouis said "Because limestone is composed of dead marine animals". So you have two options. God created limestone at creation but is trying to entrap curious humans who study the earth and look for answers by having limestone form in a different way currently, AND the Earth is still really, really old because it takes a lot of dead marine animals to form limestone and the limestone forming now needed millions of years worth of dead marine animals to form, or Earth is just really, really old because of already stated reasons, but also because we can measure the radioactive decay of elements found in different rock layers.