What's the Natural History of the World According to Genesis? - Dr. Kurt Wise
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Taken from "Beyond Is Genesis History? Vol 1 : Rocks & Fossils." Check it out on our website: bit.ly/BIGH-1
After you’ve watched the documentary film and want to learn more, this is your next step. Explore the impact of the global flood on the Earth in these 20 new videos featuring scientists from the film.
☞ Purchase all three in the series here: bit.ly/BIGH-Set
After explaining why people can study nature without acknowledging the biblical truths of a recent creation and a global Flood, paleontologist Kurt Wise goes over the primary events of the five "epochs," of earth history. These epochs are: Creation, the Edenian Epoch, the Antediluvian Epoch, the Arphaxadian Epoch, and the Modern Epoch.
Dr. Wise earned his BA in geology from the University of Chicago, and his MA and PhD degrees in paleontology from Harvard University. He founded and directed the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College and taught biology there for 17 years. He then led the Center for Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 3 years, before founding and directing the Center for Creation Research and teaching biology at Truett McConnell University for the last 7 years.
His fieldwork has included research in early Flood rocks in the Death Valley region, late Flood rocks in Wyoming, and post-Flood caves in Tennessee.
For more information on Dr. Kurt Wise, please go to bit.ly/2zUN3U9.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
★ Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
★ Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
★ Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
I have always had my faith. After watching these videos over the past few months I can now be sure in what the Holy Bible tells. I am 53 yrs old and have never heard things explained like this before. Thank every so much for taking the time to make these videos. To me they and you are a true Blessing.
@Christus Mea Lux
The Lord is awesome. Your testimony is tribute to that fact. Thanks for sharing!
@Christus Mea Lux When you say that you "said the sinner's prayer," you peaked my curiosity, since it's found no place in the scriptures in word or in concept. Jesus Christ, Himself taught the gospel as "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand " and throughout scripture we see the second birth following faith and godly sorrow that leads a man to repentance,, whereby confession of sins (not confession of being a sinner) and a much greater belief in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, having shed His Holy blood for the remittance of one's sin, brings the availability for the Holy Spirit of Christ to enter into a man. I had never ever heard that the Spirit of God indwells man, until the day I became born again. Since 1998, my life has been new and His Spirit has taught me much, in His word and shown me many deceptions that are all too common in churchianity. Among those is "The sinner's prayer." This originated in the 1800's and was made popular by the late 33rd degree, bound and rejected mason satanist, Billy Graham. That man was affiliated with John D. Rockefeller and his ministry beginning was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and he was placed in a position of great influence. I know a man that knew Billy of stage and said the evil about him was so thick, and that his circle of comrades were of the same spiritual darkness. Through the commonly repeated "sinner's prayer," he confirmed a faith and a hope of an irrevocable salvation into the minds of many false converts that have never been born again, literally sealing them in chains unto damnation, because they will not be convinced that they must have the Spirit of Christ in them and must hear the voice of Jesus Christ, Himself, to know that they are His. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." My sheep hear my voice."
So my question to you is eternally significant, in that you must "Examine yourself, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own self. Know ye not your own self, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be a reprobate?"
The idea of accepting Jesus as a personal Lord and savior is also not found in the words of God (to my knowledge) or "inviting Jesus into one's heart" without having the Spirit of Christ in them. I hope that you are able to consider these dangerous departurea from scripture for what they are and know that I am sincere in my concerns for your soul and the souls of men that have been beguiled by philosophies that are heretical. I'm certainly not saying that you haven't been born of the Spirit of Christ. I'm calling into question if you have and how is it that "the sinner's prayer" was any part of that.
@Christus Mea Lux if the fruit of the sinner's prayer was good, I never would have called that into question, however, my experience has been that the vast majority of people that have been converted thereof, have not been born again. Chuck Missler and Derek Prince are also affiliated with secret esoteric societies, so that causes even more pause to question. Not intending to offend you. It is the grace of God that leads any man unto repentance which can only be done through faith and, yes, without repentance there is no way that anyone will ever find mercy. Jesus said repent, the apostles said repent, but the heretics which know not God say repentance isn't needed for salvation.... that is a damnable heresy. Godly sorrow leads into repentance and John did baptize the baptism of repentance, yet only Jesus Christ can baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire
@Christus Mea Lux Baptism is an outward sign of an inner commitment. The thief on the cross to whom Jesus said "Today, you will be with me in Paradise" was not baptized and never took communion, yet he is in heaven with our Lord because his heart was truly changed and his repentance was genuine. If you feel the need for full immersion, then you should do it, but if you feel that water on your head is correct, then do that. Don't get caught up in the debate between the two, it is pointless and can be destructive.
@Christus Mea Lux - full immersion in a state of knowledge and understanding of the gospel with consent is baptism. Baby sprinkling is a pagan concept. One must have free will with understanding.
It's amazing these people! every time I check their channel they are just uploading a new vid! Great work! This is what Christians should always be doing, giving God the place He deserves.
dr unwise
What i like about Dr.Kurt Wise is that he is always so happy and exstatic about the evidences he found !
I absolutely love the "Is Genesis History" videos. They teach and explain so many things we Christians all wonder about. Thank you so much for them!
I love the Truth!!! Dr. Kurt is fantastic. I love his enthusiasm!!
dr unwise
@@bonysminiatures3123 Rather than an ad hominem statement, could you please provide the reasons you disagree with Dr. Kurt? God bless!!!
Thanks again for these videos. I remember seeing or hearing a report about the area of Mt St. Helens. It had to do w/the wildlife getting back to normal after the 1980 eruption. Animals like deer were giving birth to more than one fawn at a time to repopulate the area. This was at least 15 yrs ago and I wish I could remember where I found that information. I only mention this in regards to how fast the animals might have repopulated the earth after leaving Noah's Ark. Enjoy the work you guys are doing. It brings honor and glory to The Lord God who is worthy to be praised forever. The mocking, scoffing, and lawlessness going on today show we are so near to going home w/our Savior leading the way, so near.
Bill Perez
Home is here on earth ...
@@thomasbressler4575 Home is the Kingdom of GOD.
tsimahei
You are right in this present time ..but I am seeing the future when the kingdoms of this world have become our gods and his Christ .. Revelations chapter 11
Deer normally give birth to twins. Sometimes triplets. But i see your point.
@@billperez1141 Are you attempting to correct Thomas as if he is mistaken?
If so, you are apparently forgetting this:
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done in
earth, as it is in heaven.
Also translated as:
Let your Kingdom come.
Let your will be done, as
in heaven, so on earth.
I appreciate these videos very much, thank you for making them.
Just cant stop watching your amazing work 👍😊💕💕
Creation and the flood, are not just different events, they are foundational to our faith.
Yes absolutely, if the flood and creation are not real, then the bible would be incorrect at least in part. So we wouldn't know what parts of the bible were true and what parts were false. I say we keep claiming the flood happened no matter what evidence the scientists present
Hans De Mos so tell us how life began from rocks and water?
it is so sad that even in the 21st century, some people believe that humanity evolved from pond scum and want others to believe that because ... science.
All I can say is, Praise The LORD!!! Love you, Jesus!
I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate these episodes. Thank you.
I absolutely love watching these videos thanks guys
For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory forever. Amen.
Love the new content, please keep it coming and may the Lord continue to bless your program and outreach!
God is amazing...
Thank you for this answer. We may never find all the truth here. But when we shake Jesus hand he will set the records straight
and how do ya argue with that?! Another slam dunk Dr. Wise...thank you
You can't. Science cannot convince of the truth somebody who disregards evidence and stubbornly persists in faith. Kurt Wise confessed that even if all evidence pointed to an old Earth, he would still be a creationist. He told how he discovered the Bible is wrong and how he dismissed that evidence to persevere in his faith. Well, all scientific evidence points to an old universe and to the evolution of species and Wise is still a creationist. How can somebody be so dishonest!
@@jordillach3222 science doesnt prove evolution.
@@HS-zk5nn _"science doesnt prove evolution."_
Then you don't know what science is. Science doesn't "prove" anything, it is a method to explain reality through the acquisition of the best possible evidence, organizing it in falsifiable theories that can be tested and peer reviewed. It is continuously growing and revising itself as new evidence is found to improve our knowledge of the natural world. Evolution through natural selection is one of the fields in science that have the best and most complete set of evidences to the point that we may consider it a fact.
😎👏 science and scripture are interwoven perfectly. The bible though not written specifically as a scientific textbook makes straight forward statements quite often that point towards the sciences.Scientific research will prove it true always. Though this is not necessary to a Christian who live by faith it adds to our joy and knowing there is an all-wise creator who is abundant in dynamic energy in creating the earth , planets and celestial body’s.Isaiah 40:26 states =Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars? He brings them out like an army, one after another, calling each by its name. Because of his great power and incomparable strength, not a single one is missing.
@Christus Mea Lux - I don't think you've read this article, - the harboring of genetic material and cells that were exchanged between fetus and mother during pregnancy" NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Your scriptural analogy is a not scientific at all . In fact it's very ill informed.
@@logicalatheist1065 Science does not disprove the bible. But if You are not looking for the truth, you will not find it. If you believe a lie, you will only see the lie. If you are not able to see the bible, it would be wiser to listen to what their science says than to believe what other people tell you. Perhaps all you need is a more informed decision. Keep searching for the trith, and the more closely we arrive at the truth, the better all men will be. God bless you and strengthen you in your fight.
Thanks again for this honest look at our history. Very soon we will all, even those people talked about in the Bible, witness catasrophic events!
Waiting for another excellent explanation from people who fear the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible.
@Christus Mea Lux exactly :)
@Christus Mea Lux thank you for your message. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ.
@@ryanpedersen5722 thank you for your message. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ.
@ReligionlessFAITH you look like a very angry person. The Word of God also says to not judge others. How can you think of saying, ‘Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye...Luke 6:42
ReligionlessFAITH I can’t fear what loves me as the Heavenly Father does. I am fearfully and wonderfully made. I am not afraid of my creator. The reason I no longer fear is my high priest, who has ushered me into the Holy of Holies, blameless and pure. It is Jesus Christ alone who could accomplish this for those of us who call Him friend.
You left out the best story of Genesis.
The promise of the Messiah!
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
I love this channel.
Thanks, that was eye opening
Dr. Wise has a wonderfully exciting intellect that he uses to convey the elegance of the physical world God created. The bible says none are with excuse in which they can use to deny the Almighty. This is God's "General revelation" via scientific evidence. God bless Dr. Wise for honestly and enthusiastically conveying the scientific Truth's that further point to Biblical Truth.
I like Kurt's sense of humor :-)
These guys make Billy Graham look down from heaven and smile.
I think he is laughing !
A friend in Puerto RICO works excavating to place electric poles has found many interesting artifacts, he shows me around a beautiful stone carve, a royal rose, and I told them that it was not Indian that it was from the Sumerian period.
So awesome!! Thank you & God Bless!
Bedankt voor deze informatie... ik ga me goed verdiepen in jullie kanaal
@@hansdemos6510 , That's YOUR job, Hans; Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their dead. You, however, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
There is a reason that he’s brilliant and focused. He’s in love with God and Truth. This enables him to lecture on a hot day, probably surrounded by a few biting gnats and mosquitoes and never break a sweat but instead smile continuously as he expounds On God and His involvement with man.
They knowingly lied to us ! The great awakening WWG1WGA
Remember a day with the lord is a thousand years to us
@@marymatejka2934 Ok, but what's WWG1WGA stand for?
@@marymatejka2934 Context defines scripture. Taking a snip from one place (out of its context) and applying it to another scripture with a completely different context, is what is called "wresting the word," which is damnable.
"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. "
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Everything had to have been created within six literal days, because God created life of everything in heaven and in earth with interdependence to show His glory and death didn't come until Adam sinned, Therfore the gap theory is heresy
@@marymatejka2934 a day is as a thousand years, not a billion years!... Why didn't God use a billion years or at least a million years?
For one thing, in context, that scripture has nothing to do with the creation narrative!
For another, there's no such thing as millions, let alone billions of years. And another, God knew people would come along and defy Him and His word, so He deliberately used a word that couldn't be transposed into the perverted doctrine of billions or millions of years!
If that's what you're implying here, it's sad... Pathetic, even!
It takes so little research into this subject to see first hand the secularists are just guessing! They're constantly contradicting themselves! They have zero observable evidence, etc.
They build charts, create animations, make bold assertion upon bold assertion, in matter of fact terminology and people simply accept whatever they're selling!
In this day and age, there's no excuse for attributing what only God Almighty could do, to nature's severely inadequate attributes!
Nor is there any good reason to disregard the clear teaching of God's word for a Christian.
God is who knows what happened. And a careful examination of the respective facts always serves as confirmation, and never as contradiction.
I realize the concept of billions and millions of years has been droned into our heads and hearts, but by who!
Satan certainly benefits from that mantra!
After all, it's an atheistic presupposition.
One that undermines the rest of the bible, btw!
If genesis can't but trusted, neither can the rest of it!
Did you purposely forget the very next sentence?
Can you do video called "What's the Natural History of the World According to Science?"
So freggin glad I found this channel!!!!
I love these... Please create more🙏🏾🙏🏾
Excellent, love Kurt
Love this channel but its opened up more questions for me. They say all these fossils were captured during Noah’s flood due to the large amount of sediment deposited on them quickly. If so. Where are the human bones and the bones of giants that were killed in noahs flood. Shoudnt they be mixed in with all the other fossils????? Or at least found in some sediment layer somewhere??? How many people were on the earth at the time of the flood and were they mostly in the middle east?
We're glad that you have been enjoying our content!
No confirmed fossils or artifacts from humans have been found in rock layers that most creationist paleontologist consider to be from the Flood. The same is true of most mammals, birds and flowering plants. This implies that an entire ecological community was not preserved in the fossil record. Some creation scientists have suggested that this ecological community was destroyed by geological upheavals during the Flood, similar to what happened to the Greenland-sized continent of Greater Adria. It has also been pointed out that, in Genesis 2, the river coming out of the Garden of Eden is described as dividing into four rivers, indicating that the Garden of Eden (with its fruit trees, mammals and man) were located at a high point geographically. If so, then this community would have been the last to be destroyed in the Flood, and thus was not buried very deep in the sediment. The remnants of this community would have been especially prone to destruction by erosion during the receding stage of the Flood, as well as after the Flood, than the other communities we do find in the fossil record.
Unfortunately, due to the catastrophic processes and reshaping of the earth during the Flood, we will likely never know how many humans were alive by the time of the Flood, or where they lived. However, research is being done to shed light on what the pre-Flood world and the processes that destroyed it were like. Below are further resources you may find of interest:
- www.icr.org/article/assembling-pre-Flood-world
- answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/doesnt-order-of-fossils-in-rock-favor-long-ages/
- creationicc.org/2018_papers/32%20Clarey%20megasequences%20final.pdf
@@hansdemos6510 Yes, Genesis History believe in a bible written years ago before you or I was born. This bible was compiled by many human writers, but they believe they were ultimately inspired to write what they wrote by God, the way your father or mother teaches you what happened to them when you were a child. You can believe that God is evil and hence the history of the bible is flawed like a pretty fairytale made to puppet people, or you can believe that God is good, and human nature is unchanging and that those who wrote what they wrote, wrote it because they wanted to tell others what they saw and heard. They cannot relive the past, only pass on its contents to others. The bible is very much like that. Don't trenders and twitter followers do the same thing when they tell others what they saw and heard?
Yes, Genesis History reject some men who believe in evolution. But the whole problem with the evolution vs. Creation theory is exactly what was explained to you. Either catastrophism from said flood occurred, sweeping all previous evidence away, OR evolution over raw millions of years occurred which slowly preserved fossils to this day. Neither Of which is verifiable in the world TODAY. Of the two, I find evolution the more lacking in its basic explanation for creation of human life, of genetic entropy, and quite simply it's realm of mathematical probability.
For instance, if all life came about by chance, what are the chances that over a million years, an asteroid large enough to penetrate the earth's atmosphere would wipe out all life early and we would have to start from scratch again? Likewise, what are the chances that a meteorite smashes the continental crust, upheaved the entire earth, and created the global flood posited by the bible today? I'll tell you one thing: if people saw a meteorite fall from the sky big enough to tear open the surface of the earth and cause magnetic flips and tectonic plates to move, they would not be alive to tell others about it. So the people in the bible would never know what caused the flood. Indeed, it would be sufficient enough for them to say that God did it, since he was the one who moved the heavens into place to cause this to happen. Again, the bible was written to tell people what they needed to know. Knowledge of HOW things happen are not necessarily as important as telling people THAT they happened. And if you are writing on your "modern" stone tablet your granddad gave you for your birthday, you would not want to take the time to chisel in all the specific details of events which to you then seemed so obvious and unimportant.
But the thing is, neither creationism Nor evolutionism offers a complete picture which we can 100% presume to be factually provable and immutably correct. They can't. History is quite literally the guessing game of what happened before our lives and science cannot reasonably predict all things that are recorded in the annals of history. Science as in observational science can guess, but it stands no better than the historical record. Science is good at learning provable data. History is not the same thing. Science cannot prove Hitler killed millions of Jews, or that he was even a person. We would need science to point that Hitler did exist, and that he was the cause of the murder of Jews before we could dig up graves of skeletons and decide where they come from. In other news, when something countermanded historical fact, we would often hold historical fact over our own scientific observations, since history is a fact, though how it may occur can be disputed. We have no such luxury as observational science in, say, in biogenesis OR geological changes. If it was billions of years, no one can prove it, but if it was thousands of years, no one can disprove it either. It is simply a matter of perspective and whatever one thinks is more plausible. There are few other ways to prove history, because, well, we weren't there. Evolution does not offer a complete picture. It merely fills in what we don't know with its own implications and theories. Creationists, it can be said, do the same, but while they operate within the historical context of the biblical historical record (which is at least better than nothing), the evolution system operates within whatever is capable of the primary axiom (genetic mutation + natural selection) combined with scientific observation (which is little better than guesswork, if we are to be honest with ourselves). But neither side can terminate the other If you still believe in the opposing viewpoint. Evolution and creation are not science but faiths. They are not 100% provable, they only be accepted or rejected. They are, in some ways, tautologies, since someone who believes in evolution will always hold creationism as wrong and vice versa. It is nearly impossible to step back and view both with an honest scientific understanding of the topic, because both sides lead to extremely different purposes and predictive results. And Observational science is not good for measuring history (as explained earlier). If our modern instruments are measuring a crime scene we simply CANNOT recreate because we are looking at the evidence wrong, we will permanently remain stuck on the question of ots history and possibly lead ourselves to ridiculous conclusions. Believing science is a genuine attitude that nearly every creationist stands behind. But they will always know that science, as man-made, is subject to flaws when working with it does not know - like history of creation. And they also know that evolution is not science.
Evolution is one of those theories which cannot be proven but also offers an explanation of the world. Creationism does the same, it cannot be proven. For instance, if God was still creating life to this day, people could pretend that the primary axiom is what causes life to exist or universal energy continues life, and while it would SEEM to explain the situation, it would still not be true but there is no way to prove it wrong so long as one totally believes in these ideals over what actually is true. In the end, we are beyond science when we loom at hiatory. At that poont we are dealing with a philosophical issue and the purpose of life, and you are ultimately being told what is true while you actually cannot see it happening.
Do you see at least the dilemma of the evolution-creation debate? It is ultimately a black hole of an argument. Either you believe that God made the universe- and you - or you believe all hell broke loose and everything is a mess and always was and always will be. Sure, no one can prove you wrong. But if you look around, I doubt people can prove you undoubtably right. The evolution-creation debate is a matter of ideas, not of science. Creationism, at least, is based on historical facts which have tangible proofs. Ask genesis history for some truths the bible has predicted which work and you may be surprised how much the bible has made reason and history and science come together in ways other historical books have not.
Keep on your search for truth. May God bless you and strengthen you in your fight for your soul. Dominus tecum.
@@hansdemos6510 Thank you for the discussion. I enjoyed reading it, but unfortunately I cannot respond to this because college has started and I must redirect my studies towards my major, which is not science and biology. Science, theology, history, and biology are exciting hobbies of mine, and I have obtained many resources on the subject, but the problem is that it takes forever to pull the resources up. And that is time that can be diverted towards school and work. So I cannot make any real significant response anymore.
I will say this however. The whole purpose of my discussion is to point out that Evolution theory is not science. Science has done many things. But science uses observational forces to explain what happens. It cannot explain history, whose forces may only occur once and never again. In that case science must collaborate with history or it will be a flawed science.
Evolution theory was not founded by scientific methods, nor proven by scientific methods. Many ethical and moral conundrums follows indirectly from this theory. However, history does not support evolution by historical records, only modern observational science can support it and that depends on interpretation of results, which cannot PROVE evolution is possoble, so it can only conjecture what happened, not state THAT it happened, as histories can.
I say this because you can see the Is Genesis History science team can take the same raw data which Evolutionists measure and come to different conclusions. This inconsistency of raw data analysis means that it can be nearly impossible to argue which side is right, because neither follow science. Therefore, the evolution-creation debate is highly divided because the two cannot reach a consensus since they are not based on science, neither of them.
As said, I know what science is, but science depends on knowledge and history depends on knowledge of history for support. If historical records indicate something happened, science must be used in accordance with history, not the other way around otherwise, the "scientific theory" will not be scientific anymore because there is no scientific consensus. Remember, same raw data, different interpretations, different results. That is an endless discussion until the root of the problem is finally analyzed. One cannot claim it is scientific if the same raw data leads to divided viewpoints. It means the basic root of the problem is not based on science. It is based on something else.
I will see if I can get back to you later or if this let's you dig deeper into the discussion.
Pax tecum
cos its complete bullcrap from dr unwise
I truly love this particular segment. Thank you for exposing the materialists. A hugely damaging Principality that has blinded generations to God.
Excellent.
Still warming from the ice ages is what I always thought. This is the only place I've ever heard it besides from my mouth.
The earth is still thawing out.
I'm confused. If, during the Edenic Epoch, there was no death, why did God command,
"And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
- Genesis 1;22?
I don't see a similar command given to the "livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth." Verse 22 seems rather strange.
Read verse 24.
@@masada2828 - There is no command _"Be fruitful and multiply ..."_ given to the land animals.
Fascinating! I'm grateful not to have been living during those circumstances 🙏!
Very interesting. I always enjoy a new video from you. I do have a few questions.
You said that the whole universe was created during creation week. What is the evidence you would give that 'He made the stars also' is not a parenthetical statement? The other question that I have is about the ice age. When the fountains of the deep were opened, that shot water high into the atmosphere where it would be cooled immediately. Do you have evidence that the ice age did not occur DURING the flood rather than afterwards as you said? Thanks in advance for your answers.
The ice ages are fiction - since the flood of Genesis occurred near "the beginning", Earth's expansion occurred AFTER the flood of Genesis - this fact is clearly documented in hundreds of historic records - since the flood occurred across a small region of Earth known as Iraq ( Erech in the bible ) and parts of Armenia, many mysteries in the bible are explained when you understand the obvious.
14:30 post flood error ?
comment. Stann Deyo has a theory of a impact event off India. He has a site.
Animals have a separate purpose than men. (Genesis 1:27)Man inherited death through sin (Romans 5:22) soil is a universe that includes dead animals.
Cool
William Lane Craig said in an interview that the research these geologists have provided for the case of a young earth is “hopeless”
What’s your response to this?
I personally disagree with him...
William Lane Craig is hopeless.
I thought about whether Genesis 1 and the rest of Genesis is necessary to the gospel for many years. I wavered back and forth many times and have heard many speakers on both sides. I have come to a conclusion. At the end of the day, if you don't believe Genesis 1, you don't believe God. His written Word is as much His words as these are my words. 2 Peter 1;21 tells us the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture. If a man denies scripture I would think that is tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
I never listen to William Lane Craig. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is dangerous. He could convince an atheist to believe in God and then show the atheist the wrong God. That's dangerous.
WLC is a philosopher, theologian, historian, and apologist, and while good in philosophical debates, he is wrong on an old earth position and deviates from clear teaching in the Bible.
Ivan Uribe - His statements prove only that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the processes that formed the Earth, and that later reshaped it during the Global Flood. Science has an admitted goal of explanations that do not "allow a divine foot in the door." They will reject any explanation that might possibly support scripture or validate the idea of an Intelligent Creator, and they will do so EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF TRUTH!
Therefore, we must DEMAND that scientific claims be based on the Scientific Method of OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. These are things that are largely missing in modern science, which has made it easy for atheistic scientific leaders to cobble together a story that conflicts with the Genesis accounts of creation and denies the Flood event. However, if we demand EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the scientific claims, there is none to be had. It is entirely based on inference and consensus. If we do not just BLINDLY ACCEPT those claims, it becomes clear that this is an "EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES" situation.
*Let's see who's lying...*
Modern science teaches that the Earth formed by ACCRETION. Though taught as fact, this has *never been proven,* nor have we ever witnessed another celestial body forming this way. In fact, testing shows that high-velocity collisions of Earthly materials *do NOT* result in the melting and merging of the bodies into one larger body. *The observed result is SHATTERING and SCATTERING.*
Another problem with the ACCRETION model is that *minerals are crystals.* They have a crystalline structure and crystalline properties, often including magnetism and piezoelectricity. HOWEVER, once melted, they lose those crystalline characteristics and become amorphous (glasslike). *If the world had formed from a sphere of magma that had cooled on the surface, we would be living on a ball of GLASS.. but we don't.* Additionally, most of the crustal minerals RETAIN their magnetic and/or piezoelectric properties as *evidence that they were NEVER MELTED.*
So, how do minerals form?? They form *in water* at varying *high temperatures* and *high pressures (DEEP water).* How long does it take? Anywhere from hours to days... NOT millions of years. *Minerals form in and of WATER... not from a MELT. Melts make GLASS... not minerals.*
Whichever liquid the Earth formed from is the *same liquid* that is *inside it now.* Science says that liquid is MAGMA, but it is actually WATER.. *just like it says in scripture.* So, when the world began to flood.. the "fountains of the deep" produced the massive amounts of *Floodwaters from INSIDE the Earth.* There was more than enough water to flood the world to over the tops of the highest mountains. Where did the water go afterward? Back where it came from.
*REAL Science and real EVIDENCE, actually SUPPORT the Genesis narrative.* The Science Fiction that is taught in classrooms... does not.
@@freemind.. ~ Exactly! I don't even live on the same world they are describing, they've bought into the lies of scientism and the lies of his world.
Paul saw the future the third heaven and earth, could you explain that .......
It did not say that he saw the future. There are currently four heavens defined in scripture. 1: the air where the birds dwell 2: the heaven where the sun, moon and stars are 3. The realm where the angels battle 4. The dwelling place of God.
"In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth." From thence He divided the heaven.
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
It clearly says that he knew a man that was caught up.... not that he, himself was caught up or that he saw a new heaven or a new earth. Sick with what is in the words of God and do not be deceived with skilful doctrines that are created by adding to, or taking away any of the words of God. That's how people get ensnared
@@myotheraccount5947 if you read all of Paul's letters Ico text, it's clearly understood that the man he is speaking of is himself. That is the reason why he was given the thorn in the flesh....
2 Corinthians 12:7 (KJV) And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2 Corinthians 12:2 Paul is talking of someone else. The text clearly says that. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
He says "of myself I will not glory," showing that the man that he knew was not him. You're making Paul out to have disassociative personality disorder.
The "thorn in the flesh" is what Paul was given because of the abundance of revelations. He clearly identifies himself separately from the man that he knew fourteen years earlier...not himself, but someone that he knew when he was caught up to heaven. Why do you attempt to connect the two together? The context does not allow for such private interpretations, which are forbidden in the scriptures. That's how ppl become deceived
Interpreted literally? Wrong.
In that way, Genesis is wrong about the history of the world.
So much false information sold as science!
Confused gentlemen for a confused audience .
As an atheist and former Christian I fully reject the insult of willful ignorance. These types of insults from creationists helped fuel my journey from Christianity.
Considering evidence of science and heavily researching claims is the exact opposite of willful ignorance.
The creationist needs to do work and overturn the consensus of science and stop insulting people.
Larry Cloyes you are missing the point. The accusation of wilful ignorance is not coming from these men but from the Bible 2 Pet 3.5.
Larry Cloyes, I'm sorry you did not consider yourself worthy of pursuing the high calling of faith in Christ... You permitted something less to swamp the best of all, and would lose life's eternal value for a moment's escape from the Great Race. (Philippians 3.4-14)
Larry Cloyes - You are putting your faith in Man rather than in God. I did the same, and I rejected my religious beliefs in favor of the Science that had supposedly disproven biblical creation and the Global Flood. I was wrong. After 30 years of non-belief, I began to realize that MANY of the scientific FACTS that we are taught are NEITHER SCIENTIFIC NOR FACTUAL... but are instead *based entirely on inference and consensus...* and require large amounts of FAITH... the very thing they mock religious believers for having.
Science has been coopted by an atheistic elite with an admitted goal of explanations that do not "allow a divine foot in the door." They will reject any explanation that might possibly support scripture or validate the idea of an Intelligent Creator, and they will do so EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF TRUTH!
How can we believe them?? Unless their claims are *evidence-based..* we can't.
Therefore, we must DEMAND that scientific claims be based on the *Scientific Method* of OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. These are things that are largely missing in modern science, which has made it easy for the atheistic leaders to cobble together a story that purposely conflicts with the Genesis account of creation and denies the Flood event, because *the real goal is NOT the discovery of TRUTH,* but rather the ERADICATION of God and Religion. However, if we demand EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the scientific claims, there is none to be had. If we do not just BLINDLY ACCEPT those claims, it becomes clear that this is an "EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES" situation.
*Let's see who's lying...*
Modern science teaches that the Earth formed by ACCRETION. Though taught as fact, this has *never been proven,* nor have we ever witnessed another celestial body forming this way. In fact, testing shows that high-velocity collisions of Earthly materials *do NOT* result in the melting and merging of the bodies into one larger body. *The observed result is SHATTERING and SCATTERING.*
Another problem with the ACCRETION model is that *minerals are crystals.* They have a crystalline structure and crystalline properties, often including magnetism and piezoelectricity. HOWEVER, once melted, they lose those crystalline characteristics and become amorphous (glasslike). *If the world had formed from a sphere of magma that had cooled on the surface, we would be living on a ball of GLASS.. but we don't.* Additionally, most of the crustal minerals RETAIN their magnetic and/or piezoelectric properties as *evidence that they were NEVER MELTED.*
So, how do minerals form?? They form *in water* at varying *high temperatures* and *high pressures (DEEP water).* How long does it take? Anywhere from hours to days... NOT millions of years. *Minerals form in and of WATER... not from a MELT. Melts make GLASS... not minerals.*
Whichever liquid the Earth formed from is the *same liquid* that is *inside it now.* Science says that liquid is MAGMA, but it is actually WATER.. *just like it says in scripture.* So, when the world began to flood.. the "fountains of the deep" produced the massive amounts of *Floodwaters from INSIDE the Earth.* There was more than enough water to flood the world to over the tops of the highest mountains. Where did the water go afterward? Back where it came from.
*REAL Science and real EVIDENCE, actually SUPPORT the Genesis narrative.* The Science Fiction that is taught in classrooms... does not. There is much more to the story, but that should at least raise questions worth discussing rather than a wholesale dismissal of Genesis as mere myth.
Pat Collins nope, they said it. They need to be held accountable for their words.
Larry Cloyes you still don’t get it, do you. They were quoting Scripture
This channel has got some great stuff but they never talk about the day God created the firmament He spent one day creating all plants one day creating all animal life and one day creating a firmament thy will not touch on the firmament because they're trying to mix a globe heliocentric model which does not blend with scripture, the New Testament also says, the wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God, the wisdom of God is foolishness in the eyes of man. we do not live on a spinning ball hurling to infinitely. "Nature abhorrens a vacuum"
*God wrote it down? you have the original in God's own handwriting?*
Sick of the same old narrative. If God is truly at rest, then explain where souls come from?? Get out of denial and deception.
Please do it again all the videos that you did with this professor or whatever he is, because defenly he is not a good comunicator.
I just skip his videos, the other videos are great and you ask the perfect queations but this guy just make everything complicated.
Kurt is a liar - his greed for status and attention is far more intense than his passion for truth.
@@JulioPerez.234 Since the forces and the timeline of the destruction all across our Earth is documented in old records, written in over a dozen languages from all across our Earth, lies, theories, speculation, wild imaginings, etc., are unnecessary.
@@JulioPerez.234 Kurt and other "scientists" have lies, speculations, wild imaginings, etc.
One day is a 1000 days and a 1000 days is as one day, with the Lord. So, 6 days is 6000 × 1000 per day with the Lord = 6 million days.
Might want to check your math and the actual Bible verses
@@vtwinjimmyful read the above comment. What's your answer?
6x1000 = 6 thousand not million
but even if you are talking about 6 million days that's merely ~16 thousand years. The earth has billions of years
@@JR-nh7fc Billions of years is exposed as nonsense by thousands of independent sources, documented by our ancestors, which tell us when and how our continents were formed, when and how our oceans were formed, when and how our mountains were formed, when and how our tectonic plates were broken and subducted, when and how the ocean trenches and archipelago islands were formed, when and how the Grand Canyon was formed, when and how the Siberian and Deccan Traps were formed, when and how the boot of Italy was formed, when and how the Arabian and Iberian Peninsulas were formed, when and how the Yucatan and Olympic Peninsulas were formed, when and how the Antarctic mountains, glaciers, ice shelves, etc., were formed, when and how the Mediterranean Sea was formed, when and how the Ross Sea was formed ... on and on and on ... all across our Earth.
If you prefer "billions of years ago", you are free to do so but since the true timeline for our oceans, continents, mountains and cataclysms is documented by those that observed the Earth Changes, the "science" is exposed as deception. When you understand the five different ways that mountains are formed, you will understand that they form across decades and centuries - none of our mountains are millions of years old - none of our mountains are thousands of years old - none of them - not even Mount Ararat - and the bible never says that it is.
@@WhirledPublishing the gradual elevation of mountains and separation of continents due to tectonic plate movements can be accurately measured today and occurs at the inches/year scale. Do your math and tell me if these events could ever happen in just a few decades/centuries or if million years are required!!!
The stone ate 5 apples.
That's an absurd sentence, but that's what sentences are, combination of words. That sentence is a lie, that is, not according to reality. You pick things that exist and bundle words together and you have something that does not exist. Stones exist. Eating exists. Apples exist. Stones eating apples(combination of three words) does not exist. In a perfect non-fallen universe that combination of words should be impossible. It is only because such a thing as lie has entered the universe that such a sentence is possible.
By changing one word in a sentence it can turn from truth into lie. Suppose Jim lives in England. If I change the word 'England' and write: Jim lives in Brazil. No longer truth. Such combination of words that form sentences like 'The Earth is quadrillions of years old.' or 'Dinossaurs died 678000 zillion years ago.' are not truth.
However if say, one makes up a sentence like: 'The Earth is trillions of years old', add some meaningful words such as 'fact, evidence' to it and present it under the group of truthful discoveries known as the word 'science' to gain acceptability, spread it through schools and get lots of people adapt to it, it still doesn't make that sentence truth.
Words are incredibly powerful things. Most wounds in the body will heal within time, because the person and others see it and find a way to treat it if necessary. However bad words spoken by a mother or a close one to a child such as 'you can't do anything right', 'I wish I didn't have kids', can have the child carry that through 40 years of life, because the child will grow and walk around and people will see the exterior but can't see the interior.
Words have a lot of power, a lot.
Mathematics is explained through words. This video is explained through combination of words. Speak good words to a person you will bring life and joy to that person. Speak bad things to a person and you probably can't find a quicker way to bring someone down. Words are not just sounds, they have power to change emotions, to have someone who was hopeless have hope. The implications of a sentence like: 'The son of the all powerful God will return and make all things new and rid the world and the human heart of evil' are so great.
Well, I hope if you have read this far, that you might come to understand that any sentence(combination of words) can be not truth (truth is: according to reality), and be better at denying lies in your walk with the Lord Jesus. God bless you.
Wrong. The six "days" of creation were not literal 24 periods. In reality, God used six long periods of time, using the laws of physics He created, to form the universe as we see it. today. God is not a God of confusion. Both science and the bible agree.
It is confusing to a person whos has acceptance to evolutionary thinking, not the mind of Christ. Yes literal 24 hour days. Because God is not the author of confusion.
In the beginning, the days were NOT 24 hours - do the research, look at the evidence and blow your mind so you can see the truth - the bible never says "24 hours" in a day because in the beginning their days were much shorter than our days.
Since hundreds of creatures had already been created, since these creatures served as prototypes for the humans and other Earthly creatures and since "science" tells us that "reality" is a "holographic simulation", to fail to grasp these facts is to be detached from reality.
No, the bible is right.
Genesis 1:1 Describes the Actual Act of Creation Out of Nothing and Is Not a Title or a Summary
Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
This is not a title or a summary of the narrative that follows. Rather, it is a background statement that describes how the universe came to be.
In Genesis 1:1, “created” is in the perfect tense, and when a perfect verb is used at the beginning of a unit in Hebrew narrative, it usually functions to describe an event that precedes the main storyline (see Gen. 16:1, 22:1, 24:1 for comparison).
Furthermore, the Hebrew conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 supports this reading.
If Genesis 1:1 is merely a title or a summary, then Genesis does not teach creation out of nothing. But I think Genesis 1:1 is describing the actual act of God creating “heaven and earth” (a merism for the universe, indicating totality-like “high and low,” “east and west,” “near and far,” “rising up and sitting down,” “seen and unseen”). Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of everything “visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16), with Genesis 1:2ff. focusing upon the “visible.”
After the act of creation in Genesis 1:1, the main point of the narrative (in Gen. 1:3-2:3) seems to be the making and preparation of the earth for its inhabitants, with a highly patterned structure of forming and filling.
The Earth, Darkness, and Water Are Created Before “The First Day”
In Genesis 1:1, God creates the “heavens and the earth.” (In Joel 3:15-16 we see that “heavens” encompasses the sun, the moon, and the stars.) Then in Genesis 1:2 we are told that this earth that was created is without form and void, that darkness covers the waters, and that the Spirit is hovering over it.
If Genesis 1:1 is not the act of creation, then where do the earth, the darkness, and the waters come from that are referred to in Genesis 1:2 before God’s first fiat? Further, if the sun is created in day four (Gen. 1:16), why do we have light already appearing in Genesis 1:3?
It helps to remember that in Hebrew there are distinct words for create and make. When the Hebrew construction let there be is used in the phrase “Let your steadfast love . . . be upon us” (Ps. 33:22; cf. Ps. 90:17; Ps. 119:76), this obviously isn’t a request for God’s love to begin to exist, but rather to function in a certain way. Similarly, if the sun, moon, stars, and lights were created in Genesis 1:1, then they were made or appointed for a particular function in Genesis 1:13, 14, 16-namely, to mark the set time for worship on man’s calendar.
The Seventh “Day” Is Not 24 Hours Long
In Genesis 2:2-3 where we are told that “on the seventh day [yom] God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day [yom] from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day [yom] and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” The question we have to ask here is: was God’s creation “rest” limited to a 24-hour period? On the contrary, Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 teach that God’s Sabbath rest “remains” and that we can enter into it or be prevented from entering it.
The “Day” of Genesis 2:4 Cannot Be 24 Hours Long
After using “the seventh day” in an analogical way (i.e., similar to but not identical with a 24-hour day), we read in the very next verse, Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
The precise meaning of this is debated. But what seems clear, if we believe the Bible does not contradict itself, is that this (singular) “day”-in which the creation events (plural “generations”) occur-cannot refer to a single 24-hour period. In fact, it does not seem to correspond to any one of the creation week days, but is either a reference to the act of creation itself (Gen. 1:1) or an umbrella reference to the lengthier process of forming and fitting the inhabitable earth (Gen. 2:2ff). In either case, this use of yom presents a puzzle for those who insist that “young-earth” exegesis is the only interpretation that takes the opening chapters of Genesis “literally.”
Defenders of the 24-hour view acknowledge that yom can mean more than a single calendar day but often insist that “[numbered] yom“ (e.g., “first day”) always, without exception, refers to a 24-hour day in the Hebrew Bible. This is not true, however. Not only does the rest of the canon tell us that the ”seventh day” is not 24 hours, but Hosea 6:2(“third day”) seems to be used in an analogical way that does not refer to a precise 24-hour time period.
The Explanation of Genesis 2:5-7 Assumes More Than an Ordinary Calendar Day
The twofold problem?
1. No wild vegetation had appeared in the land.
2. No cultivated grains had yet sprung up.
The twofold reason for this problem?
1. The Lord God had not sent rain on the land.
2. There was no man to cultivate the ground.
The twofold solution to this problem?
1. God caused rain clouds to rise up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
2. The Lord God formed the man.
Note the reason why there were no shrubs or small plants in the Garden: because “it had not yet rained.” The explanation for this lack of vegetation which is attributed to ordinary providence. But if the sixth day is a 24-hour period, this explanation would make little sense. The very wording of the text presupposes seasons and rain cycles and a lengthier passage of time during this “day [yom]” that God formed man. This doesn’t mean that it refers to thousands of years, or hundreds of years. It just means that it’s very doubtful it means a 24-hour period.
So What Does God Mean by “Days” in Genesis 1?
Let’s go back to the “seventh day.” On the seventh day, according to Exodus 31:17, God “rested and was refreshed.” Why would an omnipotent and inexhaustible God need to be “refreshed”? It’s the same Hebrew word used for getting your breath back after running a long race (Ex. 23:2; 2 Sam. 16:14). The reason it is not improper to say that God was refreshed is the same reason it’s not improper to say that God breathes, hovers, is like a potter, gardens, searches, asks questions, comes down, etc.-all images of God used in Genesis. God’s revelation to us is analogical (neither entirely identical nor entirely dissimilar) and anthropomorphic (accommodated and communicated from our perspective in terms we can understand).
So when God refers to “days,” does he want us to mentally substitute the word “eons” or “ages”? No.
Does he want us to think of precise units of time, marked by 24 exact hours as the earth makes a rotation on its axis? No.
Does he want us to think of the Hebrew workday? Yes, in an analogical and anthropomorphic sense. Just as the “seventh day” makes us think of an ordinary calendar day (even though it isn’t technically a 24-hour period), so the other “six days” are meant to be read in the same way.
The seven days of the human week are copies of the seven days of the divine week. The “sun-divided days” are images of the “God-divided days.”
This agrees with the biblical representation generally. The human is the copy of the divine, not the divine of the human. Human fatherhood and sonship are finite copies of the Trinitarian fatherhood and sonship. Human justice, benevolence, holiness, mercy, etc., are imitations of corresponding divine qualities.
The reason given for man’s rest upon the seventh solar day is that God rested upon the seventh creative day (Ex. 20:11). But this does not prove that the divine rest was only twenty-four hours in duration . Augustine (the most influential theologian in the Western Church) believed something similar, as did Franz Delitzsch (perhaps the great Christian Hebraist). It was the most common view among the late 19th century and early 20th century conservative Dutch theologians.
God is portrayed as a workman going through his workweek, working during the day and resting for the night. Then on his Sabbath, he enjoys a full and refreshing rest. Our days are like God’s workdays, but not identical to them.
There is no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.
@@PR-cq4zc "universe" ... ? What bible verse says, "universe"?
The Hebrew phrase "Heavens and the Earth" is an idiomatic expression for all time, space, matter, and energy. Repent and believe in Jesus before you die in your sins.