@@JV-tg2ne No they're not.

People laugh when I say the Earth is 6 or 7000 years old

​@@nickmorgan8434nobody knows how long earth been here ( it's not even scripted in the Bible) the Bible doesnt say ,ppl tryna predict something of the first day of earth and don't even know the day when it's gone end (nobody knows it but God)

Anybody want to learn holiness go search (gino pastor jennings) he preaches directly from the Bible (you'll realize yall been lied to)

Anybody want to learn the truth look up (pastor gino jennings) he preaches straight directly from the bible.

Perhaps have faith in human advancement, not a book written by people 1700 years ago, or more. They didn't know very much. We don't either, but we know a damn sight more than we did.

@@danellis-jones1591 The logical end to the human "advancement" you idolise is teaching children to cut their own balls off. You won the culture war and now the best you can offer the few children you bother to reproduce is a double testictomy. That, and the return of the Islamic caliphate to fight your finest women and trans soldiers on the front lines. It's been less than a century with you Freemasonic naturalists at the wheel, a wheel you subverted and stole from us, and now you've totalled the vehicle. You should think about that before you go mouthing off about Christians who held Western Civilisation in place for that 1,700 years you mentioned.

@@danellis-jones1591 Based on various archological finds and "ancient" monolithic stone cutting and construction techniques, early man knew more than us... we've devolved, however our arrogance has been on the rise as each generation perceives itself as greater than the last ... to our own folly. Read "the song of solomon" ... there is nothing new under the sun.

⁠@@danellis-jones1591about science- yes. About God - nope. The Bible has had an unchanged message in all that time.

It's perfectly fine if you personally wish to interpret Genesis 1-11 literally. But you have absolutely no right to tell other Christians that they are simply not trusting the Bible hard enough or whatever simply because they disagree with your interpretation. No one has a theological monopoly on Biblical hermeneutics.

Paraphrasing, test all things and hold to the truth. The Bible has not failed to be true so far.

@@johnglad5The Bible has so many things factual wrong with it. Snakes don’t talk, virgins don’t give birth, people don’t come back from the dead, there wasn’t a worldwide flood, and Adam and Eve 100% did not exist. Those are few big things that it got wrong, and your entire worldview pivots on those factually incorrect, and frankly, silly things.

@@roscius6204 You say the Bible isn't true, example please. Grace

@@roscius6204 Bats are flying creatures that fits in with the Hebrew word. There is no comparable translation. The same goes for whales are fish. This information is easy to find. You are not trying very hard.

@@roscius6204 Different kind[s]. Gen. 1.21 - And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.

Impossible for the sheep...

If I understand your criticism correctly, your saying he shouldn't blindly believe the Bible, and make the "evidence" fit that narrative. I think that's actually a pretty logical argument. However, the assumption he is using is the Bible's timeline. But, and this doesn't necessarily make it more incorrect, radio dating's assumption is multi-faceted. There are a number of assumptions, but really that's the case with a lot of science, and it's one of those things where you do what you can, and make the best guesses with the information you have. I imagine you'd agree. However, we have to remember that there are an extensive amount of assumptions, and guessing in science. If you're ok with that, I can't see how you could be logically opposed to the assumption he is using. Not that I can't see why you'd be opposed at all, just that I doubt your opposition would be logical, more so than emotional, let's say.

@@mpersand I agree with you 100%. However, I must emphasize just as vehemently that science is not about showing possibilities, but provable probabilities. The Bible, on the other hand, only makes assertions. These assertions cannot be supported scientifically, which means that the probability that the stories in the Bible happened exactly as they did almost evaporates. Against this argument, such attempts at explanation as "Science doesn't know everything either" and "With God, nothing is impossible" seem almost like helpless wishy-washy defense tactics. Anyone seeking answers cannot ignore the observable phenomena of the universe. That would be (as Jesus says in the Bible) a faith built on sand, a faith in a stopgap God instead of a God who actually IS the truth. That said, none of us knows the complete all-encompassing nature of God. That is why we are all searching. Whether we call it the search for God or the search for truth is the same (at least according to this definition of God). And this is where another very important point comes into play: science only deals with a partial fragment of the truth. A fundamental one, but science cannot describe what love is, for example, nor can it contradict its existence. And this is where things like the Bible come into play again. Just because the Bible should be doubted historically does not mean that there are no truths to be found in its stories. The truth is to be found where personal experience and the experience of others meet. This applies not only to science, but also to our faith. Incidentally, it should also be mentioned here that those who handed down the Bible stories were not so much teachers of history as teachers of ethics. The interesting thing about these stories was not whether they happened exactly as they did, or what they said about the lives of others, but what they said about your own life.

If you believe the bible, certainly you believe that the Spirit of God spoke Romans 5:12. Paraphrasing: by one man sin and death came into the cosmos. The Greek uses the word "cosmos"

​@@puppyupper4565 I agree. If you do something, you do it. Correct.

They used to say it takes 5 years for deceased humans to skeletonize, but then we saw humans being mummified in 70 days, so that went out the window.

I know. Totally crazy, right? How dare science change their opinion once new evidence arrives and our understanding of a topic improves. They need to dogmatically stick to their opinions! Oh wait.. that's religion.

I had to tear down a house that was built in the 1940s. I thought I would use some of the lumber in my new construction, but I couldn't drive a nail into it. The wood was so hard my nail gun struggled to get a nail in. Even then it would not properly sink the nail. I would have to finish it with a hammer and the nail would fold every time.

You are currently using a piece of technology created by the same methods it took to prove the Earth is billions of years old :D

If you were gullible enough to believe every thing petrified is millions of years old, that is on you. I just hope you aren't gullible enough to believe in things like young earth or flat earth. I encourage you to do your own research both in carbon dating and maybe critically look at the old testimate of the bible.

There’s to much beauty on this earth for anything to be meaningless. Your living proof of that. Walk with god. Fear no evil for he is with you now. God bless you.

That is an amazing testimony. Thank you for sharing 💚

I am very confused about this comment lol@@blackkman1324

The truth has set you free! Maranatha!

I thank God that He saved you and preserved your life. May God bless you and your union amd may He bountifully fill you with joy that overshadows your pain.

@@OnivertInHouston if you don't understand how stupid trying to throw THAT back at someone is.. 💀💀💀 bruh... We KNOW how life works and what you need for it, and that is OUTSIDE of our planet too, and of the billions of possibilities out in space... How CAN'T there be life? Use your head once.

@@lxw6657 Bruh, yes compounds exist outside of earth to make organic compounds BUT just because life exist on Earth via organic compounds does not mean they can randomly assemble in other planets and spawn life. On earth life was created. If you're honest with yourself there is no way DNA code could randomly arrange itself, mathematically impossible. And if it did, no way it could evolve into humans through random mutations. If you believe that, you believe some pretty stupid assumptions.

That way of thinking leads you to false ideas. Listen carefully to people who have contrary views to your own. Keep doing this on a fegulat basis and truth will be yours. Grace

I believe in God because that makes sense to me.

it's called "confirmation bias"

I am a Christian and believe that God created as described in the Bible, not through evolution as some Christians believe. I will detail my thoughts here because they may help others realize that there had to be a creator and that macro evolution (a change of kinds) is not plausible. The evolutionary claim is that evolution needs a tremendous amount of time (after an origin of life event that they've failed to explain: a few basic amino acid building blocks in a laboratory is highly insufficient) for a change in kinds to occur because the changes that might occur at any point in time would be tiny (today we see minor changes within species happening very infrequently). If all one is thinking about is that to get cumulatively big changes from many incrementally small changes, one will naturally conclude that we need much time. But there is a fly in the ointment. The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor. Additionally, that DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek (not that I agree with everything he has said) gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)

@@phillipaj.5588 Yes, I am born again! I have used 'a' to refer to me being an individual follower of Christ and member of the body of Christ. After reading your comment, I think that both 'Christian' and 'a Christian' work well. Also, there were Catholic influences in the early church writings (e.g., Origin's Septuagint appears to be fake--actually an A.D. creation, not a B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament, and it contains the extra books of the Apocrypha which have doctrines that match Catholicism and which are nowhere else in the Bible). Jesus warned that grievous wolves would soon enter and spare not the flock. As such, I take the early church writings as helpful but very not authoritative, especially since opinions varied. I wear a headcovering, for example, almost 100% of the time, but some of the writers thought we should also cover our faces and look toward the ground to hide our faces when speaking with men.

@@phillipaj.5588 I'm glad you like my explanations!

​@jennifereverett6298 Those Christians sadly are deceived, and Don't fully trust God's word!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah sure.

@@r.b.l.5841 I take it you are not a believer yet

Why does the Bible being historically correct reinforce your belief that the Bible is the word of God. The Jewish people do not claim it is historically true. And it was the book 1st. The Bible is a guide provided by God and he has not required anyone to believe it is historically correct only morally correct.

When Jesus spoke about events in the Bible, he talked about it like they actually happened.

@@tallywave25 you are correct. But you are basing that on the same book that already has contradiction in it. I mean Harry Potter talks about his history like it really happens but we know that it's fiction and that the other is using the story to get a point or lesson across to the reader. I'm not discrediting the Bible. It's central to my faith. But I understand that God's intent is to teach me lesson I need to be a better child of God.

I am a Christian and believe that God created as described in the Bible, not through evolution as some Christians believe. I will detail my thoughts here because they may help others realize that there had to be a creator and that macro evolution (a change of kinds) is not plausible. The evolutionary claim is that evolution needs a tremendous amount of time (after an origin of life event that they've failed to explain: a few basic amino acid building blocks in a laboratory is highly insufficient) for a change in kinds to occur because the changes that might occur at any point in time would be tiny (today we see minor changes within species happening very infrequently). If all one is thinking about is that to get cumulatively big changes from many incrementally small changes, one will naturally conclude that we need much time. But there is a fly in the ointment. The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor. Additionally, that DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek (not that I agree with everything he has said) gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)

Because they come from the Jewish Faith, the faith Jesus grew up in and followed. Of course he spoke about those things 😂

@@Vekkgods You fail to realize that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies from the Old Testament about a messiah who would die for the sins of the world, to atone for them or pay the death penalty on our behalf, because God is *that* serious about sin/rebellion and does not pardon (upon repentance) without justice being carried out, too, like in a real court of law. Jesus, being perfect, was the only one who could atone for our sins. (See Hebrews 9 about how he replaced the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament/covenant because they could not really atone for sin but only foreshadowed his coming.) He literally "took the bullet for you" out of LOVE for you and the desire to have you in Heaven with Him for eternity IF you will repent and serve/obey Him (your creator and savior) now, yet you mock! Psalm 22:16-17 (the piercing in hands and feet was fulfilled through the crucifixion which did not exist at the time the prophecy was written) and Isaiah 52:13 - Isaiah 53.

@@jennifereverett6298 Yes a messiah/prophet. A man sent by god, not god himself. You follow the teachings of a Jewish man who did not want to be worshipped and never claimed to be god. And let's unpack the claim that "god created us", a supposedly all powerful being created all of humanity (capable of everything we are and having to live in a world as cruel as this, that he created) just to worship and obey him otherwise we are subject to eternal unimaginable punishment and pain. That's is not a just, nor a good creator! That is pure evil! Not someone to be worshipped, if you truly believe the bible and think god is good then you clearly cannot comprehend the difference between good and evil.

@@phillipaj.5588 I edited my first comment to clarify that evolutionists do not claim that it started the origin of life. The origin of life is a separate event that they also have not explained.

You need to activate the "Return KZfaq Dislikes" browser extension for this

Dear God, I ask that during this person’s search for truth they discover the imprint of Your love and mercy in their heart. Amen! God already claims you as His. But sometimes it takes a little humility and legwork to feel His spirit within you. You’re headed in the right direction listening to these fine people.

Mount Saint Helens was the opening for me as it challenged my assumptions based on Charles Lyell's uniformitarian model for everything. From there I had to explore the historical nature of the Bible and it moved on from there. In 1988 or January 1993, had someone told me "you'll become a Christian, a believer in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and most importantly the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ", I would have said they were mad, an idiot. Then March 1993, that all changed with Mount Saint Helens- Evidence for Catastrophe. Later that year I put my faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Evolution theory starts with the assumption that the Earth is billions of years old and they make the evidence fit that narrative. So, there are aspects that depend on your worldview. The main test is: are there other evidences in historical books, archaeology, cosmology that support your theory. And in this sense, Creation comes on top (if you're non-biased).

@@GuillermoPerez-qg8mz ouch. Zues comes on top if your non baised. if i or say somthing that does not make it true. how silly of you. archaeology, cosmology evideice. yes fossil records and rediometric dating. cosmology.... starts, light, distance speed, ... do you not read? is it a case of just being ignorant?

@@GuillermoPerez-qg8mz it is a proven fact that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Physics do NOT change over time, you just need to learn and understand how they work, and then you can just extrapolate from that as much as you want, everything will work.

Physics DO change over time since time is relative and all matter used to be squished into one ball

@OnigoroshiZero You may assume the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old but it is not a fact, and there is no empirical evidence to certify this. Therefore, what you call fact is just a theory.

Go to their website. The research on Mt. St. Helens is there.

The writers of the gospels thought the Earth was a Flat Disk, covered by a solid plate (FIRMAMENTUM in the Vulgate or Rakia in the Hebrew) immersed in the infinite waters of Chaos. Exactly like the Babylonian and Egyptian creation stories say.. Yeah, the inerrant book screwed that one up. Too bad you are too full of pride, the sin of satan, to look into the real meaning of Christianity.

The literal creation story also tells us that the sabbath of the Lord is not Sunday, but the seventh day, which is the true Sabbath starting from Friday evening at sunset to Saturday sunset. But how sad that many Christians neglect researching the matter of the fourth commandment. They discard it and make all kinds of excuses that are not biblical.

@@beatricepineda5923 If you search you find that the Chabad, has nothing to do with Saturn's day or your god. Like the 7 day week, It comes from the Babylonians. The people of Mesopotamia feared the God Enlil would try to kill humanity again by sending a great flood as he had when humanity had become to numerous and noisy. Noah is just the Jewish version of Athrahasis of Akkadia who built an ark and saved life. A thousand years later the myth was copied by the Babylonians as Unapishtin who was used by the Jews for the Noah myth. Orthodox and conservative Jews to this day have a list of prohibited activities. It is not a day of "rest" and worship. It was a day of prohibited activities. The Apostolic Catholic Church made Sun day Dominĭcus, the 1st day of the week, a day of Mass obligation because it marks the day of the resurrection.

​@@beatricepineda5923I hear you, you are right, cuz that's what the Bible says

Wow you're pissed that evolution is wrong.

Well someone said “and I think, God isn’t real” tells me everything I need to know about evolutionary theory.

it usually comes down to, even if God was real, I wouldnt worship him.

When the Believers say that science First Problem is “believing” now things get fun.

The words, I believe, is used quite frequently buy secular scientists and the like. "You don't believe in Climate Change!"

I personally think the Flood was cosmic. Looking at the volcanism on Io, Mars, and Venus. Galactic jets. Galaxy collisions. Isaiah 34:4, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 21:1 says the end will come by the fire of the stars falling towards the supermassive blackholes. Noah's Flood started it as a foreshadowing of what will become of our Solar System as it is vaporized to be part of the jets.

The biblical flood is nothing more than folklore storytelling. It originated in ancient Mesopotamia, and the same flood story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh... though told slightly different, and with different characters. Many aspects of the story are impossible without a crap ton of God magic or intervention. It's a bit silly and illogical as well. Besides, YEC science can not explain the heat problem that comes with all of the shifting and radioactive decay of organic materials over such a short period of time. This is a known issue.

@@andrewc1205 God magic...? Try Amos 4:13. God is the mind that governs all things. Understanding how the painter paints doesn't negate the painter's existence.

@Hydroverse with all I mentioned, the only thing you could bring up was the god magic? Do you have a response to the bigger problems in question? The only reason I mentioned god magic is because the story about Noah's Ark is not supposed to involve any god magic or divine intervention. Otherwise, why go through all of the trouble of building an Ark and loading it with all those animals when he could just poof the evil away. Yet, for the events to take place, and for everything work out the way it portrays, there would have to be a crap ton of divine intervention (aka god magic).

@@andrewc1205 If the Flood actually happened, why wouldn't several civilisations have the same story reflecting the same event, but told differently? Since it was known to be true, they would all have different explanations, not necessarily copying from each other? Next, you'll tell me the Vikings, the Aztecs, and the Chinese copied the Epic of Gilgamesh too!!

please include a link to your peer reviewed paper so that others may check your integrity and qualifications.

Would love to read your evidence for that, please.

@@sids5002 i share your pain.....but we are dealing with the indoctrinated and deluded.

@@UrbFoxFact Indeed, I sympathise. It's not like there's only one dating method. There are loads.

i know nothing about dating methods....but i know poor epistemology when i see it 🤣@@sids5002

Hypothesis. Or rather, bad hypotheses

Or the lack thereof

Evidence tightens Bible to correct more with every tick of the clock.

and Santa Claus' Reindeer are are all adults except for Rudolph which is a juvenile , this is all making sense now !

@@MrLeonightis nope you dont make sense

@@MrLeonightisyeah, but how old is blitzen?

Are you saying that God created the earth to look old and that could be measured as old?

God didn't create the Earth to look "old", He created the Earth to look MATURE, get your facts straight...

^^ and the fountains of the deep opening up explains continental shift and mountains.

Correct but fake religions purposely call Genesis fake to lead people away

And so wrong Q

@@slik00silk84 Always go with the science... Until it doesn't prove what you like 😁

@@jimhughes1070 Haven't run into that problem as I like the truth. This god crap comes from the "wishful thinking" of those who can't handle the truth!

@@slik00silk84 Bless your heart 🤣

Oh really? Do you know that your Blood cells die every 3 months and your liver producers new red blood cells? And every 7 years every cell in your body is replaced? What do you call that?

Then what would have happened if Adam ate from the fruit of the tree of life? It's pretty clear that according to the Genesis Fable he would only have lived forever after he ate the fruit.

Yes you can. Your blood cells in your body die every 3 months. Your entire body is replaced by new cells every 7 years. What do you call that?

PROVE IT.

@@Locust13 unfortunately your ignorance of scripture, while quoting from it, is your downfall here.

I’m curious, how did u end up with an unbelieving husband, did u come to God during your marriage, just curious that’s all?

God please heal this situation, and be glorified.

🙏resolution

When a claim made by man and the evidence of the world do not agree, I wonder which is closer to God? When a man attempts to discredit the very creation itself in order to hold himself up as a higher authority, I wonder which he serves, God or himself....

I pray that the lord will comfort you. As you go down the questioning path, as Jesus for guidance, wisdom and truth. The fear if the lord is the beginning of wisdom. Because what good is knowledge without wisdom. I have questioned my faith (while still holding on to it) through evolution, flat earth etc. So what id like to say is in summary, what this video is about is observation (which the scientific method is) and how radiometric dating has assumptions because you cant observe the past. What can be observed in the present? Earth itself. How has earth been observed? What is the conclusion based on the observation? Just a thought to saturate in. Im sorry about your divorce. A husband should be able to sit and talk, discuss with his wife. and not hate. Just first go to Jesus for wisdom and pray on it. He will show you through his word. God bless you on your adventure with him.

My book says we are on a spinning ball tho. How do we know who is right?

Dating laboratories? These frauds selected a test (Potassium Argon) that they KNOW is not suitable for material younger than 350,000. This is willful satanic deception

Peer review

​@@matt8264is that why all the other planets are round...were the only flat planet aye? 🙄

@@vickyesperanza8267 Something can well be round AND flat, just like yummy pancakes... just saying. Planets are not just "round", they are nearly spherical.

@@vickyesperanza8267 Everything is located in the firmament not millions or billions of miles away. You cannot land on the moon or another planet. Again they were known as wandering stars for millennia. In regards to your comment: The other planets are round so the earth must be round is akin to saying all the billiard balls on the pool table are round so the table must be round. Faulty logic.

thanks for trying though, faith is what matters, the world will always be against God's word

@@daletaco835 you're a good man, Dale. See you up there.

@roscius6204 nice try. Explain the reality of soft tissue in dinosaurs from multiple specimens spanning 6 decades. ...or is your bias too scared to even do a Google search? Are you able to comprehend the ratification of this discovery? How about the Organic Chemistry approach? There is no way to build left handed amino acid chains needed for life in the miniscule 4 billion years, not to mention carbohydrates, lipids, etc. You sir, are the one leaning on faith: Not i.

This interviewee is woefully ignorant of science but don’t take my word for it, do like I do and research both sides of the issue.

@@robindhood9125 the burden of proof is on you in finding fault. I spoke of reasons why I don't believe in evolution. Please either counter them. I cannot see the evidence I've seen and evolution being viable. Based on what I've seen in the world over the last 5 years, I can see weak minded people swallowing whatever the state spoons out. Masks any one?

They cross reference them with each other and other methods of dating to assure accuracy and reliability. Why would radioactive decay change over time. Why would your god purposely make the age of the Earth appear older in orders of magnitude.

They are, for the most part at least, using the laws of physics that have been studied for 100s of years, we can predict, and use our scientific theories(theories are bassically laws not like a "theory") to uncover the secrets of the earth. For example with c14 diamonds, diamonds are being formed all the time, not all are billions if years old, all they require is pressure and heat to be made, hell we make them in labs all the time

In the Christian worldview, we have good reason to believe the future will be like the past because the orderly Christian God, which is necessary for science and its repeatability of experiments. With materialism, time and chance acting on matter gives us no good reason to believe materialism produced consistent from the inconsistent. We call this "justification" for a belief.

Religion is rapidly. Becoming obsolete as Stone tools The true new age is on its way. But you keep your memorabilia. Trinkets and souvenirs For the multicultural festivities. In hell

I am a Christian and believe that God created as described in the Bible, not through evolution as some Christians believe. I will detail my thoughts here because they may help others realize that there had to be a creator and that macro evolution is not plausible. The evolutionary claim is that evolution needs a tremendous amount of time to create life at all at then a change in kinds because the changes that might occur at any point in time would be improbable (today we see minor changes within species happening very infrequently) and tiny. If all one is thinking about is that to get cumulatively big changes from many incrementally small changes, one will naturally conclude that we need much time. But there is a fly in the ointment. The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor. Additionally, that DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek (not that I agree with everything he has said) gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)

That’s a bit harsh isn’t it? The only thing I have to believe is that Christ died for my sins. Or does the Bible teach that we have to believe Christ died for our sins AND that the earth is 6000 years old?

Which version is 100% right? King James? English Standard? Older versions written in Hebrew or Aramaic?

I do believe the Bible but you're reading it WRONG! The Bible never says how old the earth is. The Ancient Hebrews didn't even know where the Sun went every night!

You're wrong about this. As a Christian, I realize that ultimately, people wrote the Bible, not God. It's God's word as written by people, and in the case of Jesus and other historical figures, is a historical account. We aren't perfect, so the Bible can't be perfect. It's not possible. Only a book actually written by God can be literally perfect.

@@posthawk1393 You are 100% correct. These people worship the Bible as their "God." They cherry pick all the verses they like and totally ignore all the verses they don't like.

So if it guides you into all truths, why do you believe his lies? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the “Holy spirit” guides you to always believe in him regardless of what’s true?

Bull manure!

Yes, it has been great laughing at the ridiculous claims they make!

Jesus said to the apostles "I will make you fishers of men". Great for the fisherman, not so great for the fish. Stop being the fish! The church is milking you for money, and making you revile people you normally would get along with, about things that NOBODY CAN KNOW! Stop taking the bait. Read a science book instead of a book written +2000 years ago by goat herders. They though lightning was created by god because he was angry, people got sick because god was angry with them, people died because of god's will, etc..your god appears to be an angry a$$, if you truly believe the authors.

Amen brother.

The Mount St. Helens/Grand Canyon argument is a classic example of a logical non-sequitur. Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism are not mutually exclusive. The geologic record has plenty examples of how both processes were instrumental in various land formations. To highlight one example and suppose it applies to all the evidence is a serious flaw in your logic.

@@Thin447Line Lyell and Darwin started from the position of a uniformitarian model for everything. Because of the evidence of catastrophic events, materialistic evolutionist adopted into their equation of 'punctuated equilibrium'. So something that evolutionist had originally rejected because it was too Biblical in consequence had to be adopted because of the evidence. Creationist also believe in slow and gradual processes but have always been a step ahead on catastrophic fluvial geology.

Where are you in Oz? Really interested in connecting and sharing about this to many.

It's actually called a Patsy discussion where the interviewer puts facile obstacles in the guest's path, and holds his cheek intoning Mmmmm whenever he tries to get some malarkey across the line .

​@@mikev4621 Cynicism doesn't help prove an opposite view either.

@@Eddie33154 Someone has to say it

Totally agree, Dorothy Dix questions are created to appeal to non-thinking and weak willed personalities who are easily misled. Sorry thats the truth of it !!! @@mikev4621

​@@mikev4621, sorry, but you haven't contributed anything usefull yet ('Dude') !

full of nonsense...for sure

​@@Gecmajster123456Why? Do you have something better we should believe?

@@Apollos2.2 so you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

@Gecmajster123456 Yes, I believe it's aprox 6,000 years old.I don't believe it's millions of years old. Neither of us were there to see it form by itself or be created, so each of us are relying on evidence presented by people that believe like us. Since we cannot "know" for sure how old the earth is, well not like the same way we know gravity works, we all believe or have faith about it. Usually, what determines how you think about the age of the earth evidence, is whether or not you believe God exists. It's not a 100% correlation but I don't know any atheists who think the earth is young. I think the better question is, do you believe in the God of the Bible or any god at all?

@@frigyou1078 shocking..

Exactly. If rocks had an age,they should all be exactly the same age. Sedimentary rock isn't real rock just because it got hard. It's the lack of our language that we even call many types of matter by group names. Our labelling something is not a statement of anything factual. God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. And we have been naming sh!t ever since, and thinking that by naming something, we have somehow understood and defined it. We delude ourselves with our pattern seeking brains.

There is no flaw. If you date a piece of lava at 100 mln years, it is never younger, maybe its components are even older, but then the whole young earth story still falls apart.

​@@urbanguardHow did you get that 100 million year age? We have documented age of the earth by men who witnessed and wrote it down. I'll go with that.

@@johnglad5 The men you speak of were ignorant of everything around them, couldn't read or write and probably died at 30 of something they couldn't see. Everything was all handed down by word of mouth and written down a hundred years later by some other ignoramus who wasn't there. We have scientists now who can actually read and write and know how to use radiometric dating, so we know how old the earth is. I'll go with that.

If the moment of solidification is not taken as t=0, you in turn have the same, if not a bigger problem with the same dating methods he's criticizing. Now you have to ask, when does t=0? If it's the moment it came into existence, let's say the Big Bang, then everything would have the same date. I think he has to take the moment of solidification as t=zero, since that's probably what the sciences say. At least for extrusive igenous rocks, and upon searching this, it appears that is when that rock is considered "born".

Loving Gods were once adolescent arsonists who drowned humans like kittens in a sack. If the One True Eternal God is made in everyone's image, what's his email/twitter handle, and does He party with Hunter B. ?

​@@sativagirl1885interesting response...quite creative. If those kittens are evil kittens, mass murderers or kitty pedophiles, then your analogy would be closer to the truth of the flood of Noah.

The earth IS millions upon millions of years old and God's word declares it.

​​@@sativagirl1885Just pray to Him. God is above such shallow, petty BS!

The Bible aren't to be taken literally. It's inaccurate ( Jesus the Christ himself said this to his followers,)

But how do we know it is uniform all the way back? We don't have an absolute sample that we know is a billion years old to accurately test to know the system is accurate. Basically we have to believe it is accurate by faith.

@@jamminjimmy3848 physics don't change...

If you go back far enough the physics do change

​@@jamminjimmy3848because if it was different...physics would have changed...and if that happens then ALL scientific theories are wrong...from germs to gravity.

and that is why you get numbers far from reality everytime you use this methode to messure the age of rocks with known age (Aetna, St. Helens. Krakatau, Hawaii, Island and many more)… very logical. We should determine the worth of a method by provable results, not by what a religion (Darwinism, evolutionism) commands

There are trees that are over 6,000 years old? They have to be huge.

The vedas say th3 earth it's old really old....!😊 the cycle were in Maybe just started a few thousand years old...

Adam and Eve were born adults, so was there earth.

Then the rings probably don’t mean years but seasons and yes the trees must be enormously thick to be that old. There’s more evidence of it being 6000 years old.

There are false rings due to seasonal weather and hardships. It’s not as accurate as you believe…

I don't understand why people actually believe this nonsense. I have no problem with people putting their faith in God or Jesus but to actually think that the genesis story written in the old testament is true is mind boggling for me. He also the said writing history started with Adam and it was Moses who wrote the old testament, that is just plain stupidity. The evidence he gave for this was that God was the eye witness. The Bible is not meant to be taken literal, too bad many people just believe everything they hear or read is true before actually researching it.

@@amymolenberghs7392 Fully agree with what you say. The main culprit for believing in the tales of old is indoctrination and this can brainwash peoples mind's from an early age. When people reach adulthood it is still with them and they will defend their belief against anyone. Christians live their life in guilt and especially fear. This is terrible oppression and takes away your natural life. The concept of God and religion all began a long time ago in the minds of our ancestors. It is unfortunate all religious people do not realize this and read other things into it. When you see well educated people like William Lane Craig and John Lennox believing and preaching such nonsense, one feels embarrassed to be in the human race.But didn't you know that writing history did start with Adam .. he simply nipped down the cornershop to buy a birow and writing paper !😃

You can believe you came from monkeys with no purpose for life here on earth and no hope for eternal life after death. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm going to pass on that. Instead, I'll take the Biblical account of creation as inerrant, which is full of purpose and hope.

Blind sheep

It’s a good thing we have many different ways to date age now. They are all consistent with one another too. The cup analogy he used was an argument from ignorance.

@@Tabroski No they're not

@@usernametaken6659I’m interested to hear why you think that. Young earth creationism has not only been debunked for hundreds of years, but in a colossal amount of different ways as well. Don’t want to accept carbon dating data? Fine. Take your pick from the rest of the pile. It’s a huge pile to ignore and right off as “wrong”.

@@Tabroski "They are all consistent with one another too." I think they just proved they are not.

@@Tabroski "Young earth creationism has not only been debunked for hundreds of years" By whom and by which way?

I don't think this was meant to be a debate friend

@@anthonychiocca8835 maybe not 🤷

Dumb and Dumber

Who said it was a debate?

@@ronaldperry nobody

I think they just pointed out that all radio-active dating methods are unreliable.

No kidding Ashame they can't teach catastrophic plate tectonics as an alternative to uniformitarianistic plate tectonics. Show folded mountains in Google images. Let the students see how logical a single global flood could be. Cold spots in the mantle. Man made items encased by coal So many anomalies explained by catastrophism

@@knightclan4 The only concern I have with CPT is the apparent conflict with the Great Earthquake of Revelation being said to be the worst tectonic event ever since mankind has been on the Earth up until that point. It has mountains and islands being destroyed, but no global flood. But yeah, I agree a variety of views should be taught.

@@Hydroverse Today we see fault lines opening up in africa, california, big Earthquakes reaching 9 or higher volcanic eruptions increasing in frequency and size, it is good to note that since 1900, both volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes have increased in frequency and magnitude so something really big is about to happen on a global scale. Only God will God cut the days short as is written in mathew ch 24.

@@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM Earthquake making mountains versus earthquake destroying mountains. Sounds similar enough to create concern with the model from a biblical perspective.

@@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM True. I guess it seems sketchy to me that tectonics would cause the Flood, but that's my interpretation of the text.

which god should bless him? allah? vishnu? or your special flavour of god?

The wall of that canyon is loose sand. The Grand Canyon consists of rocks

Trees can produce more than one ring per year. Each tree ring is produced by seasons of drought, or heavy rain. Ice layers can form many layers per year also.

Can you find an ice core or tree ring that goes back a billion years???

Glacial Girl. There a few P-38 Lightenings landed in Greenland during WW2. In the 1990s ateam searched for the aeroplanes and made what should have correct calculations based on the ideas contemporary regarding how long it takes for the snow and ice to cover the aircraft, how far under the surface and their co-ordinates. The estimated depth was about several metres. Where the found the aircraft was a few miles off from the estimated distance and more striking was the depth, which was about 270+ feet. Using the conventional ideas about Greenland ice layers would have meant these planes had landed centuries earlier, based on the depth alone. So there has to be a rethink as to how to interpret the Greenland ice layers. Layers do not indicate years or even change of season. In fact multiple layers can form over weeks with slight variations in temperature, a storm, wind direction changes and so forth. The surprised the scientists in the labs in mainland universities but not locals.

@@1969cmp Ah yes, the "if i see a hole in a wall, the wall doesnt exist" Fallacy

the converse is true.....baseless claims with zero evidence.

That’s not evidence Dum Dum!!

Dawkins said, on his interview with Alex O'Connor, that he wouldn't bother giving his time for generic dumbasses anymore (I'm paraphrasing here).

@@arushan54 Can you blame him? I get sick of it after 10 minutes of that type of interaction, but Dawkins has logged *thousands of hours* doing the same thing. I have no idea how he justified going as long as he did. Better to try once, and then just leave the idiots behind. Or just don't even try. People who can't figure such hideously basic things out on their own aren't going to suddenly become smart via outside help.

What John Lennox’s discussion with Dawkins, they’re excellent

Yes, creationists always hide these truths to keep their followers ignorant

This feels like something chatgpt would write.

There have also been multiple studies showing that while temperature and pressure does not change rate of decay, foreign radiation that is strong enough can alter the rate of something decaying. Scientists have used meteors to date the Earth since upon reasonable assumption they should have been created at the same time, then how do you date a planet that has multiple sources of protection from foreign solar radiation with something that came from space with no protection to solar radiation. Due to these studies, I personally believe the Earth was misdated merely on the fact that a meteor could have shown much higher decay then that of the Earth, due to the foreign solar radiation interfering with the rate of decay. The past climates portion doesn't make sense, because we see even today how much our climate changes just going year by year and yet we can't believe that there were different climate conditions a couple thousand years beforehand? There are plenty of studies showing differences between dating the only one of which being considered accurate is the radiometric dating, that of which as mentioned in this video takes assumptions when inserting variables just to make it correct.

2. You are wrong on a scale that is almost unbelievable. Different methods have given wildly different ages.

@johnglad5 - the age of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland was determined to be 3.60 ± 0.05 Ga (billion years ago) using uranium-lead dating and 3.56 ± 0.10 Ga (billion years ago) using lead-lead dating, results that are consistent with each other. Dalrymple, G. Brent (1994). The age of the earth. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780804723312. 142-143

yet they still believe the earth is a ball flying through space rotating around the sun.

I am a Christian and believe that God created as described in the Bible, not through evolution as some Christians believe. I will detail my thoughts here because they may help others realize that there had to be a creator and that macro evolution is not plausible. The evolutionary claim is that evolution needs a tremendous amount of time to create life at all at then a change in kinds because the changes that might occur at any point in time would be improbable (today we see minor changes within species happening very infrequently) and tiny. If all one is thinking about is that to get cumulatively big changes from many incrementally small changes, one will naturally conclude that we need much time. But there is a fly in the ointment. The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor. Additionally, that DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek (not that I agree with everything he has said) gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)

@@mustaffa1611 Exactly, the earth is clearly a pyramid where giant trolls live underneath stealing socks, underpants and the remote control to the TV. The Bible clearly tells us that.

@@mustaffa1611 Rationalising with Rev. 1.7 somehow escapes them.

@@AntiCoruptionCentral And who is he leading back to earth ??? The church !!!

Brain rotting. This was full of BS that have nothing to do with actual reality.

Of course it is. Have you ever been in a plane? Looked out at the horizon? Isaiah 40:22 says it’s a circle + our experience. I don’t know if this is serious Q but ppl actually think otherwise. Strange.

helped you what?

I was just reading your comment. In it, you mentioned the shifting of the continents indicating that the force of a great flood caused this. The flood supposedly destroyed all life on land. So, how did life get across the oceans? Did not NOAHs ark come to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 8:4 says, "Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat." So life had to cross vast oceans in order to inhabit those lands, did it not? I believe that there was a catastrophic flood in the Mediterranean. If you go back throughout history regarding this particular area and look at evidence that is found today, there are towns and cities found deep beneath the Mediterranean Sea. This is a clear indication that the Mediterranean sea back then was much smaller. When the land bridge between Europe Gibraltar and North Africa existed, this was like a natural dam, therefore separating the Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranean basin. Now imagine an earthquake happening in that particular area and the natural dam broke because it became fractured and the millions of tonnes of water pressure bearing down on it from the Atlantic ocean. Now imagine that wave that would travel across the Mediterranean basin. Bringing water levels up to the level of the Atlantic. This would appear that the flood was global to those people and explains why so much evidence can be found of such an event because of all those submerged towns and cities in the Mediterranean. The story of this supposedly global flood has been handed down from generation to generation, which is why most of the world's cultures speak of such an event. So yes, a great flood in the Mediterranean did happen, but I doubt very much that it was global.

The amount of dirt moved by an exploding volcanoes has no comparative relationship with rain water accumulating on Earth. Accumulating pools of water don't explode dirt revealing an underbelly of rock and lava. Water weighs down the surface, doesn't cause land to rise up into mountains, etc and especially for less than one year. I do believe there was a great flood, but if anything serious happened to the Earth to transform it, it wasn't because of a single event due to water, it was geologic in nature over vast eons of time, not hydrologic over a one year event.

flood of Noah. 🤣

@oscarsotelo8548 Is that it? have you nothing more to add to your comment? At least you could give some reasoning with evidence backing up what you have to say. I would love for you to share with us your reasonings on this subject, but only if you can prove what you say with evidence to back up your claim. 🤔

The Grand Canyon is a classic example of slow water erosion happening over thousands of years. There is a massive body of evidence to support this. Least not the fact that is observed to be still happening.

cassim, we believers in God's Holy Bible DON'T believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old.

Human created religion ... We human we r God

@@firstbornlohe7578 We are made in the image of God as a by product of his extension. There has to be a beginning and that beginning must've started with God. So if you say we created God, then you must say that we conceived the idea of God from God himself in the beginning because every idea of conception came after that. We cannot base our thoughts and emotions on feeling, history is factually documented that if we were to say history is false then how can we believe we really created God. You don't even know where you came from with factual evidence that was conceived over time. So I pray for you brother to conceive of a idea greater than yourself because ultimately you will pass away but your soul I want to be saved before you reject the gospel and perish in hell.

For eternity*

@@firstbornlohe7578iohe, you speak just like Satan did to Eve. . Please repent.

Call and debate Kent

But your problem with his assumption is at the very least the same, if not magnified when presented to the radio dating method's assumptions. The fact that your question even has the interrogative word "when" presents a major problem. The method in question is a method of dating something. However, according to you, and I don't necessarily think your wrong in asking, you need to know "when" a part of the process which is used by the method occurs. If your question for him is when did the rock become molten, I think the obvious question for the radio dating method would then be, when was the carbon(or whatever is being measured) added to the rocks? And how much? And how could you be sure?

The coal didn't form over a very long. It was dumped there rapidly by the Flood and was then covered rapidly by Flood born sediments and the process continued. Your belief that coal formed by old forests dying amd being covered slowly is seen nowhere in the world and is physically impossible. Think it through. And keep watching these kind of videos. Read some books. Contentious Bones by Rupe and Sandford is great. Genetic Entropy by Sandford. Enjoy.

@@mattl3023 prove your theory, with physical evidence.

@@oshiforb7445 There are broken tree trunks that run many meters through coal seams from top to bottom. No roots, no branches and no soil. They didn't grow in that location because the roots are missing. Logically, they were broken off violently from where they grew leaving their roots behind and ended up floating uoright in water. When they were too water-logged, they pencil dropped to the bottom heavy end first where they came to rest on plant matter. As water-boune material sank on the surface above, it accumulated around these tree trunks and eventually they were buried. This process continued for some time as seen by multiple polystrate fossils in the same coal seam. They are also found in cliff faces where they are surrounded by rock rather than coal. How would it work from your current perspective? Upright tree trunks with no roots or branches growing in plant matter that eventually turns into coal. No roots? No soil? How did they grow? And how do you get such trees to stand there for tens of thousands of years without rotting away while they are buried? Any idea?

? what discussion? This is just childish propaganda by a couple of people who have such an agenda they have no clue about critical thinking.

Yes amazing…amazingly stupid and in fact quite childish!! 6,000 years old?? Hahahahaha You do know that is absurd right??!!

Agreed. It was amazing how much Mark Harwood, who has a Ph.D in antenna design/computers suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect believing that he alone knows more about all the different methods of radiometric dating and sedimentation rates, tree rings, ice cores, geologic strata etc than every single expert in the field of geology, biology, and basically every single field of science that uses this technique. He must think that the oil/gas industry that uses evolutionary theory to prospect for new hydrocarbon deposits must be all pure luck and/or Satanic magic. Or perhaps he should be out protesting NASA's Mars rovers (and helicopter) whose missions depend on millions of years worth of erosion and mineral deposits in an ancient lake? And he didn't even provide a source to his either his own research paper or even his peer review of the existing papers! Oh he didn't write anything? I wonder why. Absolutely amazing discussion that perfectly demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect.

@@boxofstars5491 There are at least 5 levels of extreme complexities, that the first cell would have to cross, in order, but without a creator, some of those levels would have to take several millions of years for the next step, without the benefit of life !

Are you a plant to away from the truth? 😂

Right but it still tells you how it was made ..and when

Genesis' creation myth is a relatively young myth that copied from other much older myths from Mesopotamia that were two to three thousand years older. Written probably around the time attributed to Moses around 1500 BCE, it's a newer version of lore that passed around that region for millenia. The Jews just packaged their own version of it.

@@jimralston4789 no that’s just error.. basically everyone believed in young earth until Darwin era

@@ryanesau8147 I never said anything contrary to that. Yes people in the west believed it because Christianity was pretty much universal. What I'm saying is that the Bible is not even close to being the original source of these ideas about creation. There were similar versions of the creation story from the Sumerians, Egyptians, and other previous civilizations since almost 4000 BC. The Bible is ancient so it gets some kind of stature in the minds of Christians for being the first religion to create this unique story of creation, but it's not unique in any way. It's a simple creation myth that copied from other religions much more ancient. The Sumerians wrote that "the heavens and earth were separated" in their creation story a thousand years before the Bible. In the Bible before the heavens and earth were separated God existed, and in the Sumerian version, their gods existed too. Finally the Flood story of Genesis is a total copy of the Eridu Genesis of Sumeria written a millenia before the Bible. In that myth, the gods are angered and flood the earth but instruct Ziusudra to build an ark for his family to survive. After the flood, the gods are regretful and reward Ziusudra with immortality. In the Bible, God is regretful and makes a covenant with Noah promising never to do that again. The Jews added their own twists to previous myths, the main one being that theirs was a monotheistic religion.

@@jimralston4789 bottom line the bible is the truth on creation and flood account. It is backed not only by the most manuscripts thsn any other version, its older and Jesus the Son of God completely verifies its accuracy..in fact He was the Creator that built it. Thats right the God man who walked the earth 2000 some years ago, is the builder creator of the entire universe...not anyone else, not gilgamesh stories , islamic or indian stories etc

Jesus said to the apostles "I will make you fishers of men". Great for the fisherman, not so great for the fish. Stop being the fish! The church is milking you for money, and making you revile people you normally would get along with, about things that NOBODY CAN KNOW! Stop taking the bait. Read a science book instead of a book written +2000 years ago by goat herders. They though lightning was created by god because he was angry, people got sick because god was angry with them, people died because of god's will, etc..your god appears to be an angry a$$, if you truly believe the authors.

You became a Catholic Christian? Sorry, but I think you chose the wrong one.

The false teachings come from Creation Universities and Christian apologists. They lie about many things and spread misinformation about evolution. What truth have you learned from the bible? The earth is not flat and stationary! The biblical flood is illogical folklore. Animals do not talk, nor can they magically warp from one continent to another without any trace of evidence. Stars do not fall to earth. A man can not survive inside of a fish for 3 days. All this, and much more! The gospel accounts contradict each other in many cases. So, what truth does the Bible hold? And what is wrong with living an ethically good, secular life?

What in the bible made you say, yes this is true?

@pokerman9108 it wasn't the Bible. If they actually READ the Bible they might see how ridiculous it is. But they (most) are just indoctrinated from a young age.

Which Doctor was that? Season/episode please.

@thetravelerformallyknowasw7912 Tom Baker. I'm not a big enough fan to remember episode. The brig was involved.

@@pedalandpop783 Sorry, I don't do drugs😉

@@Torby4096 Makes more sense than this video.

Hey, can light be quantum?