Do Fossil Bones Have Blood Vessels? | Creation.Live Podcast: Episode 10
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.พ. 2023
- Fossils are frequently cited as evidence for an old universe and the evolutionary narrative. But is that really the case? Or does fossil evidence actually indicate that the Bible is right in its account of a young universe? Plus, should this topic even matter to believers?
In this episode, hosts Trey and Lauren talk with paleobiochemist Dr. Brian Thomas and geologist Dr. Tim Clarey about this topic that tends to raise questions in many people's minds.
#CreationDotLive #Christian
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every fourth Friday to catch the next episode on TH-cam. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Google Podcasts. Or visit our website to find us on other platforms: www.icr.org/podcasts
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Thank you for watching the Creation.Live Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: store.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/
Here is the spreadsheet mentioned by Dr. Thomas: tinyurl.com/4htm54w9
You've a spreadsheet for nonsense? How compelling. . . .
@@taylorthetunafish5737 you have a nonsensical comment on a Christian TH-cam channel? How compelling.
@@taylorthetunafish5737 How is a spreadsheet of peer reviewed papers on biological material found in fossils "nonsense."
I think your comment just demonstrates that you didn't even open the link, yet you felt like it was intellectually honest to criticize it. The link is to a bunch of papers and not from Christian sources. I saw many from Nature.
Please, take the time to think through things next time. Actually look at the links and see what they are. Don't just make idiotic statements about what is contained in them when you don't have a single clue what is. Or do as you want but we will all know that you are nothing more then a village atheist and ignore you.
First I would like to congratulate the person who decided to open comments on this discussion. It seriously damages the argument for creationism when a person of faith posts videos on apologetics but shuts off comments. There reason for doing so is incidental. Viewers can only conclude that they don't believe their position would hold up to public scrutiny. Secondly I believe the first stumbling block for Christians is that their religion is in conflict-not with fossils- but with math and subatomic particles. Correct me if I'm wrong but creationism can not coexist with the belief that unstable isotopes decay at a predictable rate. You can believe that the earth is a couple hundred years old OR you can believe that certain elements have a half life of 500,000 years but you can't believe both.
You are an ignorant embarrassment rational atheists. @@taylorthetunafish5737
The fact they are finding carbon and proteins in fossils completely rips apart the evolution timeline. Sorry evolution.
I’m sure they’ll explain it away somehow. They always do. It’s a joke.
@@siegistic How is it pivotal? Can you please explain why it would break evolution apart?
Evolution theory died when they had to cook up the stupid stories of Mullerian Mikey, and convergently evolved features throughout a vast number of varying species of completely different body plan types. It was a nonstarter for anyone who could possibly think critically, so why bother taking it any further?
@@siegisticas Dr. Thomas has said, they're grasping for straws, and I might add that those straws don't even exist.
Wait. Weren't the dinosaurs wiped out in a meteoric catastrophic event millions of years ago as evidenced by geology and dating? That would mean little preservation of rough interior tissue. Otherwise, how do you contradict things like the Grand Canyon, which geologist have shown come from slow, gradual wearing out? How do we ignore Homo Heidelbergensis, Denisovans, Neanderthals, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Africanus Austropithilicus?
30:14
DEAD MEN DON'T BLEED
Psychiatrist has a patient who thinks he's dead. Psych sends him on anatomy course. He cuts up cadavers. They don't bleed. He graduates the course.
'What have you learned?'
'Dead men don't bleed.'
'So if you bleed, you're not dead, right?'
'Right.'
Psych cuts the patient's finger. It bleeds.
'You're bleeding. What does that tell you?'
.
.
.
'Dead men do bleed after all.'
Yes! Exactly!!
😂
I heard a similar version by the apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery...in his version a wife was trying to convince her husband that he wasn't dead...lol
Really interesting. The discovery of protein in the T-rex is pivotal in breaking apart the evolution theory.
Nope. Listen to what the original scientist says about it. These guys know nothing.
Yep. They didn't have to evolve when spotted by humans themselves alike Book of Job. Evolution theory based on 'Millions of years' doesn't rule out lavas else flood sediments flowed in settled as Rocks layered formation?!
Somehow Bible only target practice..
@@MrWeezer55 Nope, Schweitzer is trying to save her career and ability to get grant money. There's no way to explain the existance of blood vessels, collagen, hemoglobin, etc in a fossilized bone that is supposed to be between 60-70 million years old.
And don't tell me about iron solution as preservative. Iron was not present with the T-Rex bone she found the material in.
@@MrWeezer55Cope harder
@@jacobostapowicz8188 So, no support for your claim of 'breaking evolution?'
Im 67 when l was very young my mother would read the bible to me and my brothers everynight. Ofcourse like all young boys l loved dinosaurs and with the Cleveland museum just down the road it was wonderful to see there remains. Well looking at the 6 days of creation l ask my mom what about the dinosaurs being so old and all. She said someday it will be revealed to us and so it is. As usual the older l get the more l see man is just full of it. We dont understand anything correctly DNA has crushed all there nonsense they just wont admit it. Thank you gentlemen for the truth.
Your Mother was a wise lady
We share 50% of DNA with bananas and 99% of DNA with lettuces and cabbages. Atheists and evolutionists hate that knowledge. They use DNA to prove evolution, natural selection, etc. But they can’t prove how bananas and lettuces evolved by chance and probability to us. It’s funny but not really.
A really meaningful presentation, so considerate with such knowledgeable and well behaved persons - wonderfully done. Thanks so much.
What I love hearing is the testimonials of thoughtful evolutionists who set out to prove creationists wrong and end up bowing to the truth that they uncover, and then bending their wills and knees to the King!
Agreed, I also find the reaction by some from the evolutionists rather interesting. There are some who are emotionally tied to evolution and this information challenges their belief in evolution, thus the harsh judgmental postings. Scientists would welcome new information that challenges existing theories and improves the knowledge base and would keep an open mind, going where the data takes them; truth is truth. Apparently not so with evolutionists, for them it is their religion being challenged not their science.
Although I've never heard any single one.
Heartwarming to hear discussions between mature, God fearing, professional people.
valjadasplodgny455 ***God is not to fear, God is Love***
This is a wonderful channel, and I so much thank the presenters here. But I would wish that others would receive my thanks too.
Like…the brilliant creation scientists who have contributed so many hard hours in their research, the people who donated funds for that research and for ICRs beautiful facility, and to all those who have helped us get this knowledge out.
May you and yours be blessed as I have prayed. 🙏
I so appreciate ICR. Dr. HenryMorris was my moms Sunday School teacher at FB Dallas and took me to many conferences of ICR, I remember when your Dallas center opened. I have many books by scientists from ICR that I used to teach my sons. God bless you all for continuing Dr. Morris' vision.
Awesome God glorifying conversation!!
We only want the truth. Thank you for showing the mental gymnastics of the non believers.
Well said.
Well said - we just want to know the TRUTH.
I remember when they first started finding viable tissue in the Cambrian layer
Thanks for this ICR ☺️🙏✝️ God bless you
Believing in a mystical process that can preserve soft tissue inside fossilized bones for millions of years requires even more faith than believing in a young earth and a creator.
@@mirandahotspring401935:50
AMEN!!!! Thank you ICR.
The evidence is everywhere that dragons were with man. Teachers that don't give up to date lessons don't deserve their pay.
"Teachers that don't give up to date lessons don't deserve their pay". Unfortunately, teachers giving up to date lessons would endanger their career. Evolutionist bosses don't forgive deviations from the "party line".
This is fascinating. Glad I found this channel!
Another channel you might like is prof philip stott.
I marvel at all the ways God has made sure that it could be proven that He is the Creator.
I pray that countless hearts will be opened to the TRUTH of God's existence.
We give Evolutionists a huge head start by allowing them to avoid the question of abiogenesis; that is, life coming from non-life. No discussion of Evolution should be allowed until the question of abiogenesis is addressed by the scientific community. Dr. James Tour deals with this issue in a very comprehensive way, arguing that the organic chemistry necessary for abiogenesis makes no sense from a purely random, chance process.
James Tour? he is clueless... fir reall though. Tour is a joke.
Your program is critically important.
Evidence for evolution is shrinking! Good job creationists
Less than zero is still zero, lol!
@tjsays8916 It really isn't. Neither is the evidence for some type of creation
They never has been any evidence to shrink. Claims don't equal evidence, EVER.
@@dumpster_drake8creation is proof of a creator. Like a building proves that there's a builder even if they are no longer there. I don't have to see the painter. The painting proves there's one.
@@thegoodfight365 well it's a good thing we have more than claims then isn't it lol
I am sure everybody that agrees with this can relate that it is so refreshing to hear this truth.
Just like my dad said; "If you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." Doesn't that go for God as well??? Live every day for The Lord, and you won't have time for sin, or time to worry about it. The biggest deception of Satan, is that we have plenty of time!!! We don't!!! Amen.
Great information! Thank you ICR!
Hebrew myths are myths. Please type Bible Criticism online and learn the Jews created Jehovah God etc in 950 BCE. Then let's chat!
Great show more information in this video then a lot of others i have seen. Extremely well paced and discussed. This should be a required video. So much appreciated. I Just wanted to say thank you and great job.
You are doing the Lords work. Godbless you all 🙏
☦
I find it odd that the lord's work is merely the acts of humans.
Love it!❤
Lovin' the new theme song
Thanks for sharing
this is Truth and why we need to home school
Mockery is a sign of desperation and fear and as discouraging as some of these comments can be, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Jesus and God first." But in that remember the verse right before this.... This is my command: Love each other.
John 15:17-18
Great conversation, I had almost forgot about the soft tissue in fossil thing. Saw a documentary on the lady that found it.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bjbut it does point out it’s not millions of years old, so life didn’t slowly evolve accidentally over the course of 4.5 billion years, when not so long ago we had dinosaurs(at the same time as humans, when you do the math after this discoveries).Makes intelligent design way more plausible
@@giancarlospiridon9283No, she says it's millions of years old.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj Is your life in evolutionist dreams great?
@@haggismcbaggis9485 She said it only after she was made clear that her career was in danger. The fact of fresh tissue didn't go anywhere of course.
@@jounisuninen That's not what she says in interviews and she does say the tissue is fresh. It is strange that one does not find dinosaur meat like there is in wooly mammoths.
15 “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God, yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it; it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes, or trap it and pierce its nose?
Thanks for posting the nice description of an elephant.
@@jelitone1197you missed the significance of the tail. The description fits a sauropod.
Some people say that it describes a crocodile…. But I agree with Steve… sauropod…
@@stevegoulding6328but how could a sauropod be concealed by lotus plants, hidden among reeds? Sounds great until that.
@@GRAYgauss
In the hebrew translation it is actually lotus trees. Which is dramatically different to pond plants. Lotus plants can grow in water 18 inches deep or slightly deeper. The beast that is being described would hardly be that small. Sometimes things don't translate well from Hebrew or Greek. Hopefully that makes it clearer.
To me, everything from nothing requires more faith than believing that in nature we see highly complex intelligent design that requires a designer.
you realize you're criticizing precisely no scientific theory when you say things like that?
And you know when Mary Schweitzer found and reported this, she tells how her (mentor?) convinced her that this does not disprove evolution.
The persuasion of an influencer is amazing.
Great video!
Good job!
Thank you so much for the work that you do. I find your videos so interesting, and I share them with anyone who will listen.
I suspect the Flood thoroughly mixed the fossil layers to the extent one can no longer use the layers as the basis for age.
Curious, given the age of the bones, no matter how "mixed" their locations might be, how could you possibly have soft tissue after multi-millions of years? You cannot.
@@johnathondavis5208
Yes, A total Impossibility. Evolutionary Theory today is Fallacious however it will remain, taught in Universities until Prof's pass away, opening the door for change and even then, it will last a good Century or two. Everything we knew about the history of the Universe, plants, animals etc came from Scripture. A renown paleontologist in a forward printing of "Origin of the Species" in 1953, answered a question. "What was the legacy of Darwin', Origin of the Species. His response; It allowed Science to put origins on the table for examination and theorizing, allowing Science to throw Scripture in the trash heap of History. This was the birth of the Fight between Science and GOD. Science will, for dear life hold on to that trash can cover of history.
He's right. Believers should not trouble themselves with the complexities of science when you can simply read God's Holy Word and be right.
What utter contemptable nonsense
"... you can simply read God's Holy Word and be right." In this you are more right than you probably even understand. However, Bible also tells us to study Lords works in the universe.
Isaac Newton on the Solar System:
"Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
- General Scholium to the Principia
In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
The most remarkable scientists behind the birth of modern science such as Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur all believed in the genuine planning which can be observed in nature. Of Nobel Prize winners in science 60% believe in God (stat.1900-2000).
Awesome!
You guys are just awesome 👍
I really appreciate your sharing this valuable information. I like your video. Thanks.
Oil is being created by mechanical/thermal/chemical processes in the mantle.
Please point us to the URL for the spreadsheet with the journal articles mentioned @ 9:30 / 48:05.
Here you go: tinyurl.com/4htm54w9
I have certainly been captivated with these findings. Thank you for pointing out how many. Last I heard several people were trying to duplicate Mary S. Experiment and grateful they try.
Poor Mary Schweitzer. She accidentally let the cat out of the bag and has been trying to redeem herself in the eyes of evolutionists ever since.
@@KenJackson_USive had this same thought, she is caught in the middle and lost credibility with everyone. Creationists will gladly take her but she wants the 'intellectual' classification.
When Creationism becomes obvious i will be embarrassed for them.
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Many scientists have duplicated her findings
You do know Mary was not the first, at least 100 examples with the same results. More to follow I'm sure.
I didnt see any link posted to the spreadsheet mentioned of the list of studies about soft tissue findings.
My buddy Dr. Brain "The Brain" Thomas has done some fantastic work in this area and is a true brother in Christ as I can personally attest to his condescending to men of low estate (Romans 12).
Another motivation is simply following a leader.
A lab "aging" study relying soley on low heat is like preserving tissue by dehydration. They should age by simulating the summer heating followed by winter freezing. Do it 100x to simulate 100 years, then see how preserved the tissue is.
Mark Armitage along with others found a Triceratops horn at the Hell Creek Montana dinosaur graveyard buried some two feet from the ground surface. Of course that would mean that the specimen would have endured hot (radiation) and cold environmental conditions for what evolutionists claim would be millions of years...yet researchers found soft tissue in the Triceratops horn.
Samples from the fossil were sent to Dr. Alexander Cherkinsky at the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies for dating via the carbon-14 dating method. Since the current half-life of carbon-14 is “only” about 5,700 years, there should be no detectable levels of it in the original parts of the fossil, if the fossil is millions of years old. However, Dr. Cherkinsky’s lab found very detectable levels of carbon-14. In fact, there was so much carbon-14 in the fossil that it was given a date of 41,010 ± 220 years.2 This is well within the accepted range of carbon-14 dating, and it is actually younger than other carbon-14 dates reported in the scientific literature.3
Well stated
Why were two tone cars popular years ago
An entertaining and easy-to-understand story about the evolution debate is in the book Axis of Beginning.
How do you explain the continent-scale hydraulically-sorted fossil-bearing miles-deep layers of sediment that cover the whole earth if not from the obvious worldwide flood?
Oh, they will.
Usually starting out saying something like " there is absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood. "
Then why is there seashells in mountain rock on top Mt. EVEREST??
According to ' hydro- plate ' theory of Walt Brown the Himalayan mountains and Mt Everest were formed during the upheaval of the great flood causing an imbalance of the earth resulting in an axis shift which caused the present tilt and made the seasons of climate.
The Himalayas were likely once sea floor but in very short time became some of the highest elevation land.
I would explain it if it were true, but it's not. There is no such thing 'over the whole earth'. I've fossil hunted for many years and can tell you that the fossils in the oldest rocks are creatures that no longer exist and are extremely simple.
Hydraulic sorting is just a word salad.
@@michaelszczys8316 ..The friction generated by that would cause the world to melt into a ball of lava. Stripping away its atmosphere, water, and everything else besides the now molten soup of rock. Which would take millions of years to even begin to cool down. Beyond catastrophic.
04:40 why would we interpret some verses one way and other verses another way?
My biggest questions are 1. Why no dinosaurs on ark or what happened? 2. Why no human remains mixed in with flood remains or are there?
..``.... Reisz and his colleagues argue that the mineral apatite that now makes up most of the bone matrix managed to protect the protein and collagen against further degradation.``
A spreadsheet of articles listing the articles about soft tissue in fossil bones being linked for retrieval. Where is that link?
Posting links is tough. TH-cam purposefully block those for the sin of being scientific, peerreviewed and published. Think Covid.
In 2017, for example, California State University at Northridge (CSUN) fired a Christian scientist after he published explosive evidence indirectly contradicting the theory in a peer-reviewed journal. Basically, Mark Armitage, a microscopist, found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone that was supposed to be around “65 million years old,” strongly indicating that the dinosaur in question died much more recently. The university paid him almost $400,000 in a settlement.
That's the prejudice you're up against squeezing facts out of science. I did, however, follow up on a counterexperiment ran to debunk that finding, in particular. Ready for this? They put ONE culture, in a cupboard, left it TWO YEARS, and extrapolated if the DNA can last 2 years, it can survive 65 Million Years. No, I'm not joking. That experiment is referenced as the debunking criteria in hundreds of evolutionary articles. Often preceded by "science has proved ". Personally, I've got older foodstuffs in my freezer and I wouldn't eat it in 65 Million years with the help of a time machine. Even though my freezer dissolved 64.9 Million years earlier. Basic physics.
I'd like to present an electrical process that has been overlooked in my video 'Begining of understanding '
My icon is a seraph transfigured into stone
God bless you and your work
It makes it function
@@dennisholst4322 I hope you'll consider my video because I'm referring to creation
And a transfiguration of the universe from the seraphim
Thank you for your time
years ago I found hand chipped stones in shapes in a 400 million Precambrian Blue Siltstone . I took a photo of 2 still in the Siltstone banded layer . I read where their were only micro fossils in Precambrian Formations ? ?
Still complexed
You need a discussion of how to disproove carbon dating which evolutionists depend so much.
Carbon dating is a creationist’s friend. They have found carbon 14 in coal and diamonds and fossils, and that makes for dates less than 50,000 years max.
Evolution has little dependence on C14 dating. And only "Creation Science" websites talk about C14 in coal and diamonds. ROFL
@@richardgregory3684
If carbon 14 has been found in coal, then explain that. If not, then you’re a faker.
@@richardgregory3684
From a paper that tries to explain away the problem that carbon dating has yielded some difficulties for geniuses like you:
“The recent discovery of radiocarbon in dinosaur bones at first seems incompatible with an age of millions of years, due to the short half-life of radiocarbon. However, evidence from isotopes other than radiocarbon shows that dinosaur fossils are indeed millions of years old. Fossil bone incorporates new radiocarbon by means of recrystallization and, in some cases, bacterial activity and uranium decay. Because of this, bone mineral - fossil or otherwise - is a material that cannot yield an accurate radiocarbon date except under extraordinary circumstances. Mesozoic bone consistently yields a falsely young radiocarbon “date” of a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of years, despite the fact that it is millions of years old. Science educators need to be aware of the details of these phenomena, to be able to advise students whose acceptance of biological evolution has been challenged by young-Earth creationist arguments that are based on radiocarbon in dinosaur fossils.”
ROFL. Neither you or they can explain that result away no matter how many mental backflips you do.
I am agnostic about these dating techniques, because the finding of proteins and RBCs in fossils supposedly 75 million years old is a very strange result indeed. You are an armchair expert of nothing.
We don't date dinosaur bones with Carbon 14
Simple.
where is that list? I would really like to see it and study it...Does anyone know where it is...???
I would as well. If someone could link it that'd be wonderful
Question when they did the sequencing, did they find iron?
Sounds like to me,,, that we need to study proteins and collagen more, and see what "may," be missing from our data on decay.
Brother James OSB (St.Gregory's Abbey University. University of Oklahoma, Norman, School of meteorology.)
So far this is the only thing that has made me question the "old earth" negative. The explanation of hemoglobin preservation put forth worked, ish, for large creatures but for the small ones, not so much. This material should NOT survive millions of years.
Would be very useful, if you give us links to those facts, you talking about
I know that there are probably many problems to work out to make a Jurassic Park possible, but with the current research with A.I. can this be resolved?
Not yet… but as the Bible says that, as in the days of Noah, it will be in the end time, I’m pretty sure that we are going to be making more strides in genetics and defiling the genetic lines. I think that’s why the Bible says that if Christ did not return when he does, that there would be no life left. Humanity is on a suicide course between AI, and genetic engineering.
Not without fully intact dinosaur/dragon DNA strands. Even in the movie they used gene splicing and frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps in the dinosaur DNA. That is complete science fiction.
Seems more likely pre learning involved into how proteins are measured is perhaps flawed.
03:35 Am I going to take God's word on this the same way I take God's word when it comes to me being a sinner and in need of salvation?
It's men's words
I Love Mud Fossils.. Interesting👍
Awesome work. Please check the microphones next time. It’s difficult to hear what the man on the right is saying
"Embrace your biased" and that's exactly what Chrstns do.
Just ring Nobel prize department; Stockholm and they will ship your medal within the week. You have obviously passed all the evidential requirements for verification of your hypothesis, so hop to it and claim your prize. 🐨
Oil and gas result mostly from the rapid burial of dead microorganisms in environments where oxygen is so scarce that they do not decompose. This lack of oxygen enables them to maintain their hydrogen-carbon bonds, a necessary ingredient for the production of oil and gas.
If oil is made by fossils. Where did the oil come from or the bitumen that Noah used to paint on the inside and the outside of the bottom of the ark?
Right.
Oil does not come from fossils.
Oil is found at a much deeper depth than the deepest fossils that have ever been found!
Oil is actually a mineral, the second most plentiful liquid in the world, behind water.
Can they accelerate the aging of those T-Rex tissues to the equivalent of million's of years to see if they will still last that long?
I believe they already know the answer to that so , no. They won't do that particular experiment .
The Holy Bible is built upon a science far too advanced for us mere mortals, but we are living in an age where it can become much clearer and Jesus Christ is a critical pointer towards a blood purification process so desperately needed in this day and age. From Abraham and Isaac, through the tabernacle period of the Jews, and down to our present age by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this same science is thrust at us by Almighty God...feel, sense, and show compassion for the innocent, spilt blood of these sacrifices and our own stale blood will feel a refreshing chemistry via a space-age science owned by our righteous Deity...much needed in these last days.
@@mirandahotspring4019 It really depends on what you want to believe. If you believe Jesus Christ and follow his teaching you find, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are attaching yourself to a wonderful science, built upon blood purification, which takes you into a deeper understanding of modern science whilst removing all stale lymph as we progress, and now is replacing what is removed with a vibrant 'living water' freely available to those who love righteousness.
@@mirandahotspring4019 The worldwide flood of course produced many tales but only the description in Bible is real history that can be confirmed by modern archeology and DNA-studies.
A lot of us out here are not scientists but we keep up with the latest discoveries that prove the Bible is correct.
The Bible is not correct about the origin of the Universe or the world, of course. And science proves that conclusively.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Science is a methodology... what you're talking about is an Ideology, that's not "science," that's something else.
@@michaelg377 And you believe stories copied from other civilizations by 6th century retired goat herders are facts/science?
@@StudentDad-mc3pu You are replying with facts to people who believe in fairy tales. You will accomplish nothing.
I prefer to use the bible itself .
You believe man and the earth was created by God. (not you)
So which one?
The bible acknowledges multiple Gods
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me"
Elyon/Elomin/El was the head Canaanite God. *Yahweh* was just a secondary Canaanite God, the God of Israel/war.
*Says so in the bible*
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls)
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
More Likely:
“Anu” the Sumerian God
*Amon Ra* the Egyptian God Egypt invades sacks and loots Canaan/Israel 1207 BCE and 910 BCE
*Hadad* the god of Aram Damascus invades and sacks the Northern and Southern kingdoms around 825 BCE
*Ashur* the Assyrian God The Assyrians conquer Israel 722 BCE and vassalize's Judah
*Marduk* the Babylonian God Babylon conquers Judah 586 BCE
*Ahura Mazda* the Syrian God Syria conquers Judah around 538 BCE
*Zeus* the Greek God Greeks conquer Judah 332 BCE
*Jupiter* the Roman God Takes control around 60 BCE and obliterates Judah around 130 CE
Now every one of these Gods defeated Yahweh in battle except Anu
I will still go with *Anu* the main Sumerian God. Since the Judahites did copy the Sumerian Creation/Flood stories.
Creation:
When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own…
The text describes the Sumerian high god Anu’s creation of the world.
She in turn roused her son Enki, the god of wisdom, and urged him to create a substitute to free the gods from their toil. Namma then kneaded some clay, placed it in her womb, and gave birth to the first humans.
Flood:
Only the good man, Atrahasis (his name translates as `exceedingly wise’) was warned of the impending deluge by the god Enki (also known as Ea) who instructed him to build an ark to save himself. Atrahasis heeded the words of the god, loaded two of every kind of animal into the ark, and so preserved life on earth.
A mother floats her baby down the river in a basket and is rescued by a gardener and grows up to be powerful in the kings court.
“ is it,is it,is it, is it,
*Moses*
no its Sargon. Aka Sargon the Great
The bible is little more than a collection of hand me down stories.
Copied by retired goat herders in the 6th century
@@fordprefect5304 Really cool info, thanks.
36:00 In other words, Science of Straw.
04:05 we should take the bible literally in all things, including the historical parts
So we are to take "a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes" (Rev 5:6) literally?
@@1754Me
Yes we should, as long as it was written down and translated accurately, because that is what was written. And because we have no basis to refute something somebody else witnessed through Revelation by God.
I assume that if God did not want us to take it literally, he would have shown something different.
However, I do not take the fifth of the ten commandments literally when it says: Thou shalt not kill.
I do not take that literally, because it is a mistranslation.
The original said: Thou shalt do no murder.
@@1754Meif you read the bible at all, it would be glaringly obvious, even a child would understand the theme of the Passover lamb is fulfilled in Jesus...
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Bulls hit !
THE EARTH HAS ONLY BEEN HERE THOUSANDS OF YEARS NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS.
Nah, just typing on CAPS does not make this any less silly
@@StudentDad-mc3pubut I can tell you what is more silly, believing that life was made from non-life. If you employ just some basic math skills, you find out that a single cell organism would have needed more than 4.5 billion years to form a molecule accidentally. Because of the really high number of combinations between the 20 aminos needing to sit in a perfect 150 sequence, it would take 10 to the power of 150 years of trial and error until it happened once successfully by accident. Then it would need to keep evolving until we appeared. See how silly evolutionism looks now?
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The earth has only been here thousands of years not millions.
Young Earth:
Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64-66. Related to this is the concentration of nickel in the oceans.
The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. J. Creation (TJ) 14(3):83-90.
Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” -Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64-66.
Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130-137, 1988).
Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay, with fluctuations especially during and after the Flood, is evident from historical measurements and is consistent with the hypothesis of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily-with a little rhythm, CRSQ 47(3):193-201; 2011.
Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, J. Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.
Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work.
Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25-100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296-298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
God created everything including all the sciences all the processes of nature and much much more that we have yet to discover if we ever do. Evolution is one of those things. Whatever there is anywhere was created by the holy father including evolution. It is not right to deny any of Gods creations.
It would still be happening we would see the progression. Why would it have stopped? Where are these fossils ?
In the Bible day is used as a metaphor for an Age. As in where it says in that day the wolf will lay down with the lamb during the reign of Christ. Speaking of which if a day is as a thousand years then Jesus thousand year reign would be 1,000 x 365 x 1,000 which is 365,000 years. The millennium reign could be way longer than people think.
I've considered that point. But then there are 1260 days and 1335 days. Which means Jesus gave Satan longer to wreck it than he takes to fix it if the Peter equation is used prophetically. I'm thus inclined to stick to the plain use.
Let's remember the Lord can snap his fingers and fix anything. We are the ones that initiated the wreckage and gave Satan reign
This is why it is important to look at the context of Genesis, the word Yom is used with the numeric adjective. Every time Yom is seen with a numeric adjective it means a literal/ordinary day. Also, the Hebrew words for day/evening are used with Yom meaning an ordinary day. This is why in the English translation we see "there was evening and there was morning, the first day". If you believe in epochs between the days, then Adam did not live long enough to see day 7 because he dies at a recorded 930 years old. You referenced 2 Peter 3:8, which doesn't comment on the days of creation. It doesn't directly say a day is 1000 years, it says that one day is LIKE a thousand years or AS a thousand years, this is called a simile. Peter in that passage is referencing Psalm 90:4 and the purpose of Peter's letter is to show the reader not to worry about why it seems like God is taking his time with regards to judgment. Here, I'll post a few different links. which you can copy and paste into your search bar, to help show this idea too.
www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/22/what-can-you-tell-me-about-hebrew-word-day-yom-use/
creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
apologeticspress.org/does-the-hebrew-word-yom-endorse-an-old-earth-5215/
thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/46775
365 is number of days in a year maybe he never left
@@sethbyington9526 whenever I've attempted to answer the statement you so eloquently answered, my logic never seemed quite adequate.
Thank you for your answer, I'm saving it because I'm sure I will be borrowing it soon!😁
💙🙏💙
The only time carbon dating works correctly is when they date something that already has a date on it.
Truth!
The fact that you said 'carbon' dating tells us that you know absolutely nothing about radiometrics.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Excuse me. Should I have said Radiocarbon dating. Grumpy gus.
@@davidkubasiak9093 HI, thanks I AM a grumpy guts, that is quite true. However my point is that we don't use carbon 14 to date dinosaurs. We use isotopes of argon (or sometimes Potassium) which have far longer half lives. When I was an evangelical I attended a church where one of the Elders was Professor Edgar Andrews who wrote a book: God, Science and Evolution. In his book he points out that Radio Carbon dating can not be used to date Dinosaurs if these creatures are millions of years old as Evoutionists claim. It was only later that I realised he must have known that this was completely misleading if not down right disingenunous.
Radiomeric dating has had numerous peer reviewed papers and articles researching its accuracy and methodology - suggesting, like you did, that somehow laboratories start with the date they should achieve and then reject data that does not fit is simply not true, and quite rude. In most cases samples are tested in seperate labs, and eery care is taken not to allow the supposed age to lead the results.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu In order for that dating to be accurate, you need to know the original condition of the material being tested - for most dating methods that includes knowing the original amount of the parent isotope, the original amount of the daughter isotope, you need to know that the rate of decay remained constant, and the material needs to be in a closed system (ie. unaffected by any other chemicals/processes, etc. that could skew the results). Unless you have a time machine, I don't see how we can reliably test any of these *assumptions.* Every scientists knows these limitations of radiometric dating. *What do you do when you have multiple tests yielding different results on the same substance, like young Carbon-14 inside of "billions of years old" diamonds, for example?*
If science is fixed and settled why do we need a journal?
Science is rarely fixed and settled. There are a only a few science facts or laws or axioms. The rest is always up for debate or more detailed explanation. Unlike the dogmas of religion.
54:30 'Don't bother me with truth!'
What is the name of the scientist that discovered the soft tissue in the petrified bone? Hasn’t he been completely shunned because of it?
I don’t know her name…but it was a female Dr that made the discovery.
He mentioned her -Dr Mary Switzer in 2005.
Wasnt a he it was a woman; Mary Schweitzer, apologies if i spelt her name wrong it was mentioned around 6:35-37
Thank you MK and David :). There is a guy that has a yt channel and I guess he continues to find soft tissue somewhere? Idek lol. But I appreciate your replies :))
Mary Schweitzer was presumably near to lose her job if she not withdraw her spontaneous reaction to her findings. Of course she understood that the T-Rex fossil could not be millions of years old.
In a previous show you gave a great explanation of the variety of meanings of 'fossil'. Here I hear the word 'petrification' or turn to stone which would be the equivalent of the sole word in Japanese ad far as I know for fossil: kaseki (change.stone) ( incidentally a great J film).
I agree with you 100% on the science and am having a feast this w/end watching all your vids which I've just discovered.
Not so much on the consistency of your biblical exegesis. Read John 6.
So…. How old is the earth?? Do you believe the earth is a flat/level plain? That’s what turned me around. I am a believer. Amen
If you still have Evolution stock, sell now.
I tried to watch this video all the way through without being judgemental, keeping an open mind. But unfortunately I could not watch it all it got to be too painful for my brain. I would advise that there are more than one way to date fossils and the age of the earth.
But were they wrong though? Is their science incorrect?
What happens after a huge flood.. all the drowned mammals bloat and float.. forming huge mats of rotting carcasses. As the waters subside these carcasses mixed with sediment sink and settle in the low lying areas.
Different scale to modern floods. Even Japan 2004, 2011 didn't produce appreciable depths of sediment and add compression factors, you're talking a couple of millimetres. You need water, pulsing tsunamis by the hour, and a massive injection, as well as continuous but variable speed deposits.
Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth
By Ker Than, published February 28, 2007
The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union. And they did.
They go further 28th November 2016:
"Scientists have made an incredible discovery: Earth has an underground ocean - deep underground, in the planet’s lower mantle far beneath the crust.
The underground ocean consists of water trapped within minerals, and it may be the size of all of the Earth’s oceans put together.
Those are the findings of two parallel studies conducted by researchers at Florida State University, the University of Edinburgh, and Northwestern University.
The first study, carried out by Florida State and Edinburgh, found that water can exist far deeper in the Earth’s mantle than previously thought. They focused on how the water could exist so deep within the planet, and found that a mineral called brucite stores it. Their initial studies should that the water stored in the Earth’s mantle could account for as much as 1.5 percent of the Earth’s weight.
The second study at Northwestern sought to determine how deep the water-storing brucite could go. A Brazilian diamond from a volcanic eruption 90 million years ago offered some clues.
The diamond contained an imperfection caused by minerals that were trapped within the gem as it formed. The imperfection suggested that the diamond formed in the Earth’s lower mantle, a third of the way to the planet’s core. But it contained hydroxyl ions, which come from water.
The researchers believe this indicates that brucite containing water can be found in the lower mantle as well.
The information gathered by the studies shows that water may be an important part of the volcanic process, including “convection” that circulates the molten rock in the Earth’s mantle."
At first (2007) they thought they'd found something as large as the Arctic Ocean. Now the global observations are in they now know its bigger than all the world's oceans combined, ranging from 160 to 610 miles. The zipper is the Mid-atlantic ridge. Now, I know this, so it wasn't hard finding it. But do you see this in evolutionary text books, school curriculums, MSM? You know the answer. You know why.
As happens I've seen hydrological experiments in Austalia to simulate megaflood conditions, and the geology is reproduced on flood models with water, not without. No banding, no folds, no patterns. Not dry. Not as seen in nature. That type of research needs to go mainstream and open forum. Not for lack of trying.
God said he will never do that again
IM YOUR FRIEND...for eternity.....
No, fossil bones to NOT have blood vessels.
Can anyone say how far we are from a true Jurassic Park?
How would they test each layer of rock to get millions of years?
Radiometric dating
@@StudentDad-mc3pubut it’s not really dating, it’s the assumption that it could have taken this long if there were no big changes, no contamination, no mixing. These are very big ifs, we know that happens everywhere so it’s impossible for conditions to have stayed roughly the same for so long. Those rocks were “shaped” by big events, earthquakes, flood, fire
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Radiometric dating is proven unreliable.
@@giancarlospiridon9283Rock formations are usually dated relative to inclusionary lava flows. The uranium-lead in zircon crystals is not affected by earthquakes or water. Perhaps, super hot fire, but one would find evidence of that.
millions of years old flints are actually jellyfish that were baked during The Flood 4,370 years ago.
And my mother was a grapefruit.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Yes I can quite believe that.
Now go away until you grow up.
@@rosewhite--- Fints were not jellyfish.
Why is there no investigation into what the Jews have written over the centuries about the age of the cosmos, the world and mankind? To begin with f.i. With ‘Ozar ha’Hayyim’ from rabbi Isaac of Acco in the 13th century. Or the 1st chapter of the book of rabbi Gabriel Cousens MD: ‘Torah as a Guide to Enlightenment’ who writes about this. We are missing explanations from within the Hebrew. Is knowledge about Hebrew the problem?
@D-Bunker-zv1bj You said it right …‘probably’. A very strong scientific argument.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Don’t make any illusions, you don’t have and cannot bring up any discussion. Not a theological one, not a spiritual one, not a esoteric one, not judgemental one…. just your meaningless opinion which contradict in essence.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Argumentum ad hominem is an attempt, with or without a fallacy, to discredit an opponent. If you try to avoid the discussion by stating unfounded, unscientific, that Hebrew is irrelevant, the concept of Creation is stated in Hebrew and must be explained from within the language itself, then you are not interfering in this discussion because then you are making an ad hominem attempt by discrediting the essence of the matter, essentially the whole concept of Creation itself. The only proper response should have been silence.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Ad ignorantiam. Reasoning violates a fundamental rule of argument: that you should not draw any conclusions out of ignorance. To say that Hebrew has nothing to do with the Biblical explanation of Creation because I think so is insight to ignorance. If you don't know something, you only know that you don't know, but nothing else. If you draw different conclusions from your ignorance, you are engaging in the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Hebrew in all it letters and words have esoteric knowledge. This is the essence of Hebrew
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Your unfounded answer, which has zero credit to my statement and question, is the ad hominem fallacy, just because you think Hebrew is not the problem but esoteric explanations, while Hebrew essentially has esoteric messages in the letters that which you deny. How do you decide that? How do you decide that a 13th century scholar has no say in the discussion in this video? Pure ad ignorantiam. Do I expect from scientists that they hold by the 13 exegetical principles of rabbi Ishmael by which the Torah is expounded? no. Do I expect that the 13 principles should be respected? Yes. Do you likewise? no. I hold that science formulates and deals with theories and hypotheses, while the Bible deals with absolute truths. These are two different disciplines, where 'reconciliation' is entirely out of place. In that case valuing ideas without a base or lack of knowledge is ad ignorantiam.