"All are called, few are chosen" I've probably got the wording wrong, but you know what I mean. Some people will refuse to see the evidence no matter how it is presented, they reject Christ no matter what.

@ItsFinished

7 ай бұрын

"Many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14

@Vernon-Chitlen

7 ай бұрын

Checkout Blue Letter Bible or Bible Gateway for word an scripture locations. And much more, they are awesome aids.

@johnmonk9297

7 ай бұрын

The chosen are revealed in revelation 14:12. Totally excludes all Sabbath breakers. For a start. And Sunday is not the Sabbath

@hmry7615

7 ай бұрын

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

@IronSharpensIron127

7 ай бұрын

​@@johnmonk9297Romans 14

I live a pretty busy and somewhat distracted life, having small kids. But visiting this amazing subject, occasionally seeing what you guys are doing in this realm just lifts my heart and fills me with wonder in this cynical and jaded culture we endure.

My son graduated from Cedarville in '22. What a great institution, top to bottom. Thank you for coming. 😊

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

I notice that their biology courses include study of evolution!

@johnbrown6189

4 ай бұрын

There entire school is a sham. @@stevepierce6467

@ichernichenko

Ай бұрын

@stevepierce6467 well you need to understand the material, evolution is not completely incorrect. There is things such as mutations, which is why we have different dogs and horses. It's just their major thesis is incorrect. Also how would you talk to atheists if you are not knowledgeable in the subject they believe?

@tomvalpo9361

Ай бұрын

@@ichernichenko Mutations are within "kinds." They do not create an entirely new "species." Natural selection is also true, within kinds. Very obvious in humans, dogs, and other mammal kinds. Regarding atheists, Cedarville absolutely teaches the theories and presumptions behind evolution for exactly the reason you mentioned.

The glory of God shines throughout His creation!

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Glory be to Quetzalcoatl, Lord of all.....or wait, is it Thor? or maybe Astarte? Or Ra?

@karanchoudhary7171

5 ай бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 its clearly me the lord of all of the creation (I am fine with not being worshipped)

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

@@karanchoudhary7171 Verily, I say unto thee, lo, it is the lordliest of lords, lord Karan! You are fine by me, with as much a claim as any of the other thousands of deities. Now, if you could just work a small miracle on my bank account....!!!

This is exactly why science, theoretically, is supposed to allow all viewpoints. It allows for a broader range of considerations and has more people looking for more kinds of evidence in more places.

@graphguy

7 ай бұрын

But reality is virtually all science is closed minded.

@msmd3295

7 ай бұрын

Science does not have to allow “all viewpoints”. What science is supposed to do is draw conclusions about the preponderance of “empirical” evidence. Not any mundane worldview. Scientists have to present evidence and the evidence interpreted has to conform to known basic scientific principles.

@anthonypolonkay2681

7 ай бұрын

​@@msmd3295 and unfirtunatly that isn't what's going on. A great deal of people engaged in science are taking part in a no true scottsman fallacy in which when someone showed evidence counter to a particular conclusion, or simply Inteprets evidence differently as to not support that conclusion, they apriori reject any of that as actual science soley in the fact that it does not agree with what they believe. And this is done irrespective of the actual data, or arguments in question.

@fohrum4757

7 ай бұрын

​@@anthonypolonkay2681So very wrong

@CustomWeldingandFab

7 ай бұрын

@@anthonypolonkay2681 spot on! We all have the same evidence, but where we start from makes the difference in our conclusion. Most science dating methods prove young earth but we don’t hear that in the mainstream huh?

Guys , im ready for a two hour video on this stuff please. 🙏

It seems a bit ironic for him to say other scientists are 'stuck in their paradigm'. Here they start with the understanding that world is only thousands of years old and are looking for evidence of that. But even as a non geologist, I can understand that sandstone was formed at the bottom of bodies of water, so finding it's made up of water worn granules seems completely expected. How does this lead to the conclusion the grand canyon is only 6000 years old?

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

This isn't supposed to lead (directly) to the conclusion that the GC is only 6k years old. It's supposed to remove one of the long standing evolutionary objections to a rapid formation of the GC. There is no scientific test that can tell you the age of the earth.

@markoshun

6 ай бұрын

Radiometric dating

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

@@markoshun No, radiometric dating cannot tell you the age of the earth. It can tell you what the ratio of parent to daughter isotope is, but that's about it.

@markoshun

6 ай бұрын

@@mmaimmortals Ah, you mean scientific tests that you can accept. Sorry, can't help there.

@Tom-lm2tc

5 ай бұрын

​@mmaimmortals yes, which is an indication of time! Hence the parent to daughter ratio :) it's quite simple math

2:24 - And he just said, "Nope, those can’t be ooids. 'Those aren’t ooids." And wanted to drop the subject almost immediately. I pressed him on it a little bit, but he didn’t want to go any further on it. That’s what happens when someone is captive in a paradigm. "They don’t want to see any evidence that’s contrary to that paradigm" Exactly. When there's anything that proves wrong their belief that their brains are a product of random evolution of stardust by chance over millions of years, they don't want to accept them. 😂😂 Amazing how stubbornly they'll remain in their belief in order to stick to their Atheism because they hate God..

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

From my point of view I find your comment self serving to comport with the young earth theory. But what the quote points out is exactly what creation science does itself! The scientists who believe in the young earth theory interpret the evidence to fit their young earth theory. So they get some of science correct about ooid formation for example, but the explanation for why that points to a young earth is lacking. His interpretation is essentially like magic to make the evidence fit the young earth theory. His explanation for the connection was vague and general.

@marcusmuse4787

3 ай бұрын

like the paradigm of there not being a global flood. They refuse to believe in any other information that contradicts their settled beliefs even if presented with evidence. So, creationists and evolutionists have something in common.

Genesis IS history, Genesis IS HIS STORY and Genesis is revelation.

@nschlaak

7 ай бұрын

Very good.

@truthgiver8286

6 ай бұрын

Genesis is copied from the Sumerians Epic of Creation 😀there were advanced civilisation long before the Hebrew's invented their god. The one thing Genesis does show is that like the Sumerians the bible had multiple gods.

@josephnebeker7976

6 ай бұрын

@@truthgiver8286 😅😂🤣 No. There are thousands of global flood traditions from nation-to-nation throughout the world. The Sumerians had one, but there are many others who wrote down what they knew, and many who no longer have it written continue to pass it on by Word of Mouth through song and story. And while there are similarities, they all are somewhat different. That alone suggest the Hebrews would have their own story of it. The Sumerians did not invent it.

@truthgiver8286

6 ай бұрын

@@josephnebeker7976 so every few years or so god wiped out everything ? because a lot of the flood stories are thousands of years apart the china and Indian cultures were more advanced and it appears they lived through Noah's flood and never even noticed it . Every science can show that a global flood never happened. A lot of the bible is copied from the Sumerians Ninh Hursag made the first humans from clay long before Adam and Eve were a twinkle in their gods eye.

@bnolsen

6 ай бұрын

Genesis is the history of the Jewish people. It's not there to explain creation in detail. Job probably has more science in it than any other book. Regardless observational science is a very different animal from forensic science. Nice to see these forensic discoveries.

Evo's keep calling their theories "settled science". And then every decade or two, they revise their theories and once again insist that NOW it is settled science.

@mirandahotspring4019

7 ай бұрын

Science changes when new evidence is discovered but you can never change your view because an old book won't let you!

@LumbridgeTeleport

7 ай бұрын

@@mirandahotspring4019 the old book is Darwin’s book, you. Are correct we need to throw out rhat old book and remove the religion of evolution with it

@greatbriton8425

6 ай бұрын

Yes! Reminds me of the time we discovered that 80% (iirc) of our DNA does not code for any protein at all. Evolutionists triumphantly proclaimed how the random accumulation of DNA predicted exactly this outcome - only a little is useful, the rest they called "junk DNA". And then we discovered that the 80% controls the 20%. Ha ha ha! Even harder to accept for evolution, many of our genes OVERLAP. Like putting two recipes together, our genes conserve space by re-using some of the code for the next gene. The fact that so many genes are next to each other and overlap really indicates God made us.

@greatbriton8425

6 ай бұрын

@@mirandahotspring4019 I'm a scientist and open to new ideas all the time. You on the other can will never change your view because you're scared of an old book being true. But it won;t help you. When you stand before God on Judgement Day, it won't be an excuse to say you didn't know. You knew.

@mirandahotspring4019

6 ай бұрын

@@LumbridgeTeleport Darwin's book was published 164 years ago, throw it out if you want, I don't believe its in current use as an evolutionary biology textbook. Science has come a long way since Darwin's time and continually supports the principle of evolution that Darwin first proposed. The bible however is an anonymous collection of iron age and Roman era texts full of myths, errors, absurdities, and contradictions written by people who didn't know where the sun went at nighttime, and is well past its way to the trash bin.

I'm very grateful, gentlemen. He is a Mighty God who speaks to His children.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Quetzalcoatl is indeed mighty.....or is it Thor.....or Zeus?

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

@@FortescueGimlet I have often been partial to Astarte, Canaanite goddess of love, fertility and...........WAR! Her holy book was written by Tom Robbins, called "Skinny Legs and All. But I also own the Pastafarian Bible so......?!?!

Here in South Africa we also have similar rock formation. There is a whole driveway going thru this place called Meiringspoort. If you ever have the opportunity this will be well worth the trip.

Amen 🙌🙌🙌 God's word always proves true

@johnbrown6189

4 ай бұрын

Is it though?

Fascinating stuff. I look forward to seeing the whole film.

It nice that you put the meaning of a word up everyone may not be familiar with.

Thank you but am a little lost there...i may hv missed the main point...... how does the presence of ooids prove a young earth?

@DrumDisciple1

7 ай бұрын

It supposedly challenges the conventional theory that the coconino formation was wind-deposited hundreds of millions of years ago by observing the presence of ooids in the formation that presumably were formed in the turbulence of, and were mass-deposited in, a much more recent catastrophic flood

@anthonypolonkay2681

7 ай бұрын

The presence of ooids in itself does not prove a young earth. But a big point those opposed to YEC have touted on repeat for a long time is that a global flood couldn't have occured because the Coconino sandstone is smack dab in the middle of all these layers that were supposedly formed by the flood waters/processes. And said sandstone was always interpreted by secular geologists to have formed from a desert environment. Completely lacking any larg scale water. Well the presence of ooids in said sandstone proves for certian that the sandstone layer HAD to have formed under water. So while it does not definitively prove a young earth by any means. It defeats a large point that's been raised against young earth models for a long time.

@timothyallen6411

6 ай бұрын

The thinking goes like this: the thin slices reveal grains of sand that have coatings of contrasting material (this is the definition of an ooid); these coatings are typically acquired when a grain is loose rolling around on the bottom of a body of water, rolling also implies turbulent currents (that is, conditions more seashore like than still small lake or pond like); but then later the grains piled up into a thick mass, got compressed, were lifted to high altitude, drained of water, and formed into rock in a Canadian mountain range where they were discovered and cut into thin slides. In a young earth framework, a year long flood would provide a mechanism for the ooid coating and the subsequent drainage and uplift for the high-altitude lithification (rock forming) of the slides. In an old earth framework, this has to occur over millions of years. Whether the slides formed over a few years or over millions of years is a matter of history, which requires compilation of eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence as well as forensic evidence (the slides); however, forensic science is limited in what it can prove. Generally forensics can be inconsistent with testimony/documentation casting doubt on its veracity or neutral or supportive. For the young earth side, the account of Noah's flood provides documentation of eyewitness testimony to conditions that could have produced the slides around 4,500 years ago. For the old earth side, eyewitness is an impossibilty: one can speculate a wide variety of times and conditions, but these speculative narratives are impossible to verify or falsify. In short, matters of history cannot be proved the way theorems of geometry are: history is constructed through interlocking and mutually supporting meshes of testimony, documentation, and forensics. One closing thought: Kang and Nelson wrote a book (in English) about ancient Chinese characters. In it, they describe how the character for "boat" (or ship) is built from three sub-characters that are "eight", "mouth", and "container" -- suggesting that they used as an exemplar for all boats the world's first boat that carried eight people: Noah, his three sons, and their four wives.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

​@@timothyallen6411 The premise of ooids forming on sea floor bottom is one thing, but these ooids are supposed to be from the Coconino Sandstone which was aeolian in formation in other words wind blown and NOT on formed on a sea bed. This video is nonsense!

@steveOCalley

2 ай бұрын

@@timothyallen6411The “eyewitness” argument is an exasperating dodge. There are no unified levels of proof in law. Instead, each matter proposed is weighed using the best available evidence that can be established for that field. It is foolish to demand proof which is not within the evidentiary capacity of that circumstance. For example, Jesus can demonstrate no vital statistics consonant with existence; no lawful birth nor death certificate. Nobody has found the marriage certificate for his parents, and nobody has testified to their existence. The accounts of his death vary widely, and show evidence of the collusion of witnesses. Obviously, the measure of existence in Roman Jerusalem is different than that of the present, and the objections can be brushed off.

The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open. And, when you think you know it all is when you stop learning.

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

And that is the perfect description of science; always open to new evidence which may confirm or deny present conclusions. Even as we sit here, people are studying the latest images from 3 space telescopes and seeing that Big Bang has several challengers. Can you believe, it has barely been 400 years, a mere eye twitch in human history, since the very first telescope was used? Only in 1610 did Galileo first observe Jupiter and its moons, for the first time challenging the long-held notion that everything in the universe revolved around the earth. The church has been fighting science ever since!☺

@marcusmuse4787

3 ай бұрын

much like atheist.

Great work in geology.

@johnbrown6189

4 ай бұрын

Sorry it's not. All the other geologists are laughing at these guys.

@Hydroverse

2 ай бұрын

​@@johnbrown6189Just out of curiosity, then what's your explanation for the ooids?

Given the considerable number Christian theologians and scientists who believe in evolution etc, I am curious to see how they would engage with Whitmore and Snelling in learning about and discussing implications of this ooid research. I'd love to see podcast-style conversations between Bible-believing scientists on both sides of this in which they discuss scientific findings.

@Ranstone

6 ай бұрын

As one of those Christians who is very compelled to think evolution is very likely, I would love to engage in something like that. It's shocking how both sides blind themselves to reason, to support a narrative that neither God, nor science dictates.

@madierose

6 ай бұрын

You could submit a letter to the editor of Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith and suggest this. There have been debates, for example the Johnson/Lamoureux debate, but I’m not aware what dialogues might be more current.

@TheRastacabbage

6 ай бұрын

You're not a Christian if you believe in evolution

@BhikPersonal

6 ай бұрын

​@@Ranstone As a Christian myself, I hope you are reasonable enough to understand that if Deep time evolution is true, you can kiss your Christian faith goodbye. Exodus 20:8-11 should convince that God created everything in literal 6 24 hour days and took rest on 1 literal 24 hour day. So when you say that deep time evolution is most likely true, you are implying that Christianity is most likely false.

@godloves9163

6 ай бұрын

@@BhikPersonalAmen! That’s why the Sabbath was created in Eden and to be kept since then and even now. It proves who believes God.

There's none so blind as those who don't want to see. Maranatha

@stegokitty

6 ай бұрын

I agree with you that the unregenerate don't want to see, because seeing would, in their minds, verify that they must indeed give an answer to their Creator, which of course they know a the core of their being to be true, and they have no excuse. However, be careful that you're not thinking that you came to faith by simply willing yourself to see. The new birth is a miracle wrought by God alone.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

I agree with you. Darwin

Excellent video, thank you. 😊

They don't want to except it because if they did that would immediately make them guilty of sin and therefore in need of forgiveness. That's scary to old earthers because there's only one way for forgiveness of sin.

@administratorlynch6223

7 ай бұрын

what sin would that be?

@vladtheemailer3223

7 ай бұрын

YECism is nonsense.

@davegaskell7680

6 ай бұрын

Old earthers don't want to accept it because it's nonsense. The overwhelming evidence is against you I'm afraid. Doesn't mean that you need to reject your God or Christian beliefs, but it does mean that if you push the young earth argument then you look very silly.

@UmamiPapi

6 ай бұрын

Have you lived a perfect life? Has anyone? You've never done anything wrong?@@administratorlynch6223

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

All you need to do to make your declaration true is to preface each part with the words "I believe that....." Otherwise you are obliged to show evidence that there is something called "sin" that a person can be guilty of and for which he needs forgiveness.

Yet another fascinating SCIENTIFIC example supporting God's Word.

@wrisky

7 ай бұрын

Science reqiures no GOD.

@davegaskell7680

6 ай бұрын

It is absolutely NOT scientific. It is falsehood presented as science in order to persuade people like you that it is scientific. If you want the scientific explanation then simply read science books. They will show you that the earth is old, that life evolves, etc .and will explain how this is known. That these things are true doesn't mean you need to reject your Christianity, but it is silly to believe that the earth is young or that life did not evolve as the evidence for both those things is overwhelming.

@jankopandza1072

6 ай бұрын

@@wrisky just the opposite. without the law maker you cant do science because there would be no laws hence no science could ever be done . this was well known to the ancient philosophers and scientist . If by your theory there would be no law maker then by default all the science you ever did has no meaning since there are no laws to follow it or to repeat it. Inevitable catch my friend .. Inevitable fact..

This is great I love this channel!

Very good observation!

I love it! Ooids… word of the month. 😂 Thank you guys. I love your stuff so very much

@wrisky

7 ай бұрын

All sorts of places on Planet Earth were previously submerged. It is called Plate Tectonics and it accounts for the physical history of our Planet.

@marcusmuse4787

3 ай бұрын

"The great fountains of the deep burst forth'. sounds like plate tectonics would be affected@@wrisky

Well, I can not find anything about the peer reviewed published papers about this in the description. I would have certainly thought that IF this is SUCH amazing evidence with no other explanation than that of a young earth, it would CERTAINLY pass peer review in a reputable journal. Does anyone know where I read the paper and subsequent peer review from legitimate geologists?

@IsGenesisHistory

5 ай бұрын

@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Please see the following reference for the research presented in this video: Cheung, S., Strom, R., Whitmore, J. H., & Garner, P. A. (2009). Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone, Northern, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Portland, OR, 41 (7), 119. gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010AM/webprogram/Paper180774.html

This is what really gets me, they are so absolutely sure they are right, but won't do the research and wont accept the evidence when someone else does the rsearch and can prove them wrong. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation, because there is so much physical evidence of creation.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

"So much physical evidence of creation." What might that be? Science will investigate any presentation of evidence. We are not absolutely sure we are right, just reasonably sure based on how well our research results correspond with real-life phenomena. We are now reasonably sure that clouds, wind, rain, snow, lightning, thunder, storms etc. all come from pressure and humidity and temperature gradients and not from the hands of gods (Thor, Zeus, Tlaloc, or any god). Climatology scientists will look at and possibly accept any verifiable evidence of divine intervention in the weather or any other natural object or process if someone, you for instance, brings it to our notice. So give us an example of where a creationist has proven wrong any scientific conclusion.

Publish your evidence in a peer reviewed journal.. They are actually desperate for new hypotheses. If the evidence is good many researchers will jump on the bandwagon because they want to find a new area to research. Let us know which journals you have submitted to so we can follow during the review process.

@IsGenesisHistory

6 ай бұрын

@markb3786 Please see the following reference for more of the research presented in this video: Cheung, S., Strom, R., Whitmore, J. H., & Garner, P. A. (2009). Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone, Northern, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Portland, OR, 41 (7), 119. gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010AM/webprogram/Paper180774.html

@kariossyr6018

6 ай бұрын

@@IsGenesisHistory Good work, keep it up please.

@Tom-lm2tc

5 ай бұрын

@IsGenesisHistory okay? What does this have to do with young earth beliefs? There's no reference to it in the paper? How is it therefore irrefutable?

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

@@IsGenesisHistory For us non-scientists, what is the gist of this report?

At 2:40 they seem to complain about having a paradigm, like it's a bad thing, and then immediately start talking about how they are "creation scientists," not merely "scientists," and how they "have a different way of looking at things" and they "think the layers were laid down during the flood." Isn't that a paradigm?

@scottl361

7 ай бұрын

Yes of course, however, the evidence suggests their paradigm is true and they're not hiding from the evidence.

@Globeguy1337

7 ай бұрын

Yes, you are right that they do have a paradigm - everyone does. They were not complaining about ‘having’ a paradigm, but ‘being captive in’ a paradigm such that one is unwilling to even consider contrary evidence.

@jaypie0864

7 ай бұрын

Imagine an entire paradigm based on the meaning of a single ancient word for “day”.

@deguilhemcorinne418

7 ай бұрын

​@@Globeguy1337I thought they were describing themselves.

@scottl361

7 ай бұрын

@@jaypie0864 No, the paradigm is based on the evidence.

Actually the most important part of “doing good science “ is to publish your findings and allow the scientific community to respond and critique your findings. Everyone should suspend final judgement and ridiculous conclusions like saying this is clear evidence for anything.

The only explanation for the ooids shown in this video is Flood Geology?

Sad to say, acceptance is governed solely by the grantor's agendas. That is most of the educational directives nowadays. Pertaining to myself I believe that it is a young earth.

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

I am glad that you prefaced the phrase with "I believe that..." because with it, you have an absolutely incontrovertible true statement.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Science generally follows the course of proven practical data. We have discovered that germs cause diseases, so we have tended to do very little research into the effects of satanic curses or miasma or sin or evil eye on our health.

If only 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn were on the reading list of every science student .... Fewer of them would be blinded by the dominant paradigm of their peer group if they read it.

Thanks!

Hence why I am so skeptical of most sciences. People say I’m a denier, a religious kook because I think science is often wrong but that particular geologist is an example of the exact reason why I am so skeptical.

Thanks

Epic❤❤❤❤

I was today years old when I first heard the term "ooids"

when you have kids playing with dinosaurs i and everyone should laugh

Has this been peer reviewed? Can it be disproved? If not it’s not evidence?

@dave1370

6 ай бұрын

That's not really true though. Just because something hasn't been peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's not evidentially correct. It also assumes that the peers wouldn't discard this right off the bat because of a priori views.

The truth will be known

There is no blindness as the blindness that refuses to see.

I'm curious what it is that makes you think that this 04:26-minute video of you guys shooting-the-breeze deserves the title "Clear evidence for Young Earth Creation: can scientists accept it?" I have a theory of my own, I call it "HsD." I collect evidence for it on a daily basis. Still, I DO discuss how I wish that I was wrong about it - because of what it means for our species?!? Do THOSE thoughts sometimes DEEPLY occur to you? Are you allowed to answer this questions? Professor-Marty.

How does ooids in coconino sandstone prove there is a young Earth?

In science, it is very hard to prove a phenomenon. Dozens of evidence may not be enough to prove a phenomenon. Most of the time, you actually have to find counter evidence in order to rule out other potential phenomenons until only one is left.

And just how does the existence of ooids prove the Earth is only 6000 years old? The Chinese have written records going back farther than that.

A flood in the middle east about 6000 years ago does not prove that the world was created shortly before that. It does give an explanation of several cultures having legends about a great flood.

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

The video is describing a flood in the US. The Grand Canyon. The rim of which is several thousand feet above sea level. If it was underwater, then everything around it was under water.

Why wait all of those years and deal with the problems associated with getting samples from within a national park when you could have sampled other folds at a number of different places? Why did it have to be that fold?

amazing talent of the gentleman who created the slide for analysis. more credit should be given to him . without his high skill and talent you wouldnt have your evidence.

@IsGenesisHistory

6 ай бұрын

@thomasbolton8373 You're absolutely right! The skill and expertise required to create these thin sections are invaluable. If you're interested in learning more about this remarkable person and his contribution, we actually have a dedicated video highlighting his work and the critical role he played in our research. You can check it out at the following link, where we delve deeper into the skills and talent that make all this possible: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ep57sLFyoM-pqc4.htmlfeature=shared

BTW: Coconino sandstone is Aeolian (wind deposited). Look it up.

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

Look it up? Why? Because if someone opined in the literature that it was wind blown, then it must be so?

@turbobrain1342

6 ай бұрын

@@mmaimmortals "opined". Of course, the people that have been there, studied it and know what the difference in appearance in wind deposited and water deposited sediments certainly have a right to post scientific information. Is it opinion that there are footprints of lizards and insects, burrows and stuff? Eh? The reason you don't want to look at real evidence is because it contradicts your "Worldview".

We are all beings of light. Spirits having a human experience. When we are done with our bodies, we shed them. Then we go through a life review and literally relive our life from our perspective and that of those we came in contact with. This way we feel what others felt and are given a perfect understanding so we may judge ourselves regarding how we did in physical form. All of this happens in the presence of God while immersed in unconditional love.

they're too heavily invested to stop now. They would rather live a lie than tell the truth.

From the video thumbnail I thought Trey Goudy was working in a lab now.

John Baumgaterner from the Creation society says the Grand Canyon sand is very young.

@factorvracing

6 ай бұрын

Dr. Baumgarterner has 4 PHD's. And you have how many? The Creation Society in El Cajon California will vouch for the doctor, he works for them.

This is easy peasy nature created the earth !

What do young earthers say about continental drift with the sea floor spreading and the map of magnetic pole reversals that is apparently tens of millions of years old. Also the ice core samples that is apparently eight hundred thousand years old? I've heard some back and forth arguments about radiometric dating.

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

Continental drift started out as continental sprint and then slowed over time. Because that is what crashing does. It decelerates bodies in motion. You can't get tens of millions of years old by any other means than radiometric dating and guessing. Both are decidedly unreliable. Ice core samples are alleged to be very old, but it is a string of bad guessing and faulty assumptions that arrives at that conclusion. You can't count that many layers because they blur together too much. You can attempt some sort of oxygen isotope guessing, but that is all it is. Temperature and atmosphere changes also cause isotope ratios to change. Many ice cores are tied to the Melanchovic cycles, but those are steeped in faulty assumptions and circular reasoning. Finally, you might ask how does one calculate an age and then actually verify it directly when it goes well beyond the existence of any civilization?

@azscab

6 ай бұрын

@@mmaimmortals If your near the event horizon of a black hole it's only been six thousand years since the creation of earth.

@azscab

6 ай бұрын

@@mmaimmortals When I was a biology major and geology minor it only reinforced my belief in an intelligent designer. One big difference in belief is creationist see species as fixed and evolutionist see species as fluid. The fossil record, ring species, sterile hybrids, vestigial limbs, the universality of genetics, flower chromosome double and more suggest species are fluid and change over time. Plus I don't see why the Bible has to be interpreted as having the earth young and species fixed. Is there not a single metaphor in the Bible?

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

@@azscab Quite perplexing, some of your reply. One big difference in belief is creationist see species as fixed... -- I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it is absolutely incorrect. None of the major creationist organizations (CMI, ICR, AiG), nor any of the informed creationists like myself believe this. Kinds are fixed, species are not. Creationists have been selective breeding, grafting, cross pollinating, etcetera for thousands of years. Biblical authors included. The (KJV) Bible uses the word "sort" instead of species, but generally indicating the same thing, special modern definitions of species notwithstanding. This is exactly the type of activity that leads to conclusions about speciation in main stream thinking when the origin of a particular species is not actually known. The fossil record, ring species, sterile hybrids, vestigial limbs, the universality of genetics, flower chromosome double and more suggest species are fluid and change over time. -- Every bit of this fits very well in normal creationist thinking. The fossil record is a record of death and disaster, like the Flood. Ring species and sterile hybrids are both simply the result of chromosome reversal or damage that happens in a single generation, such as was the case in marbled crayfish. This doesn't take thousands of years, let alone millions. And again, (informed) creationists don't believe in fixity of species. Vestigial structures are the result of degradation, not evolution. And it doesn't take thousands of years (or generations) for this to happen. Biology is a special type of chemistry, and it happens very, very fast relative to deep time. The universality of genetics is due to the fact that we rely on a common food source. If genomes were radically different, then how would we survive on the same food that the deer and the monkeys eat? In other words, we ALL have to be chemically compatible with our food for it to work. Plus I don't see why the Bible has to be interpreted as having the earth young and species fixed. Is there not a single metaphor in the Bible? -- It's not "an interpretation", it's a plain reading of the text in its given context. And species aren't fixed... Of course there are metaphors in the BIble, and there are straight forward historical facts as well. Surely you wouldn't make the same mistake many have made that either the Bible has to be 100% taken with hyper wooden literalism, or it's all allegorical. Each passage has its own local context to tell whether non-literal meanings are in order. If someone says "roses are red, violets are blue..." does that imply that roses aren't really red, nor violets blue because the writing has a poetic tone to it? Of course not. Writing can be both poetic and literally true at the same time. Adam lived to be 930 years old. That's not poetic or metaphor. It's just written history. Almost all of the passages in Genesis 1-11 have almost purely historical context to them.

@azscab

6 ай бұрын

@@mmaimmortals not much to see on my wall. I went to check out a guys wall one time. I was curious because he threatened me with violence.

The concept of Time on both sides of this discussion is gonna be a problem….

Now I am finally convinced.

@karpabla

5 ай бұрын

@@FortescueGimlet LOL 😬😜

As a born again disciple I certainly didn't believe in evolution but thought the proof of an old Earth was solid, mainly considering plate tectonics which fascinated me since reading the theory in mid 70's. I thought Young Earth Christians were ignorant, simple minded and an embarrassment to the faith. So, I dove into studying the issue. It was ICR's website that first caught me and I devoured the technical articles night after night after night. It absolutely blew me away, and of course has been a real faith booster. This is a believer seeking a greater understanding, but I still can't comprehend a non believer, with a passion for scientific discovery, having no interest in looking into this subject.

@blusheep2

6 ай бұрын

Did you devour the secular papers as passionately as you devoured ICR's? ICR has no peer review process. I don't think peer review is the end all that be all but it does at least protect against poor methodology. If you were heavily lopsided toward ICRs papers then that was a self fulfilling prophecy.

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

There is nothing we non-believers can look into, since no empirical evidence for YEC has ever been shown. There is lots of religious propaganda, but no reliable verifiable evidence. People espousing an old-earth view bring tons of concrete evidence to the table, evidence which is scrutinized, reviewed, and often criticized and revised. No such mechanism is in operation for the YEC community, for whom the answer is final.

2:20 that is called cognitve disidence !

I think you guys should go to TV stations to try to get more people involved, come up with a tv program or so that may invite possible atheistic views willing to at least consider these great evidences that you guys are presenting us with. Thanks so much, great job guys!

@hernandez-yanezboldvoyager2623

5 ай бұрын

@@AnonYmous-yj9ib I'd love to see that, but the atheist side would end up embarrased 😄👍

@hernandez-yanezboldvoyager2623

5 ай бұрын

@@StudentDad-mc3pu or maybe not because today's creational evidence is getting quite compelling and difficult to deny.

@fzr1000981

4 ай бұрын

​@AnonYmous-yj9ib any origins research is not purely scientific, were you there? No, you just drink the "millions of years" koolaid. There is evidence the fossils were deposited and encapsulated recently, including collagen and blood vessel discoveries in dinosaur bone

Genesis is actually not that far off if you don’t take the translation of “Day” from an ancient language to mean exactly 24 hours. If you read it as a “Period of time”, see what it looks like then.

When scientists who teach close their minds to investigation, they become nothing more than Influencers.

Welll, right yo some extent, light in vacuum is fastest but through solids and plasma it becomes slower, nuclear reactors use this property, i learnt this on veritasium

If you can prove it then science will accept it the problem is you can't actually prove it and pseudo science just wont crack it

@jin1205

2 ай бұрын

Expound on what you mean.

@truthgiver8286

2 ай бұрын

@@jin1205 The statement speaks for itself. Science is not against religion it does not take sides it is simply a way to search for the truth. If you can disprove any of the scientific theories and provide enough evidence for your own then science will go that way. A scientific theory is the answer that the majority of the available evidence points to. With enough evidence any scientific theory can be changed.

@jin1205

2 ай бұрын

@@truthgiver8286 Thank you for your explanation. Although I agree with you that science is intended as the search for truth, it is not, however, how many use it. This is especially problematic when you start with the notion that truth can be changed with more evidence. Truth is truth despite new evidence. Hence, one can only know truth through ultimate knowledge, which is why Jesus said He is the truth, and why Christians hold the Bible as God's revealed truth. I also think that there is often a shortsight on the part of many non-believers. Evidence by itself can be interpreted different ways depending on a person's worldview, and when conflicting evidence arises, one is quick to invoke an explanation (rescuing device) as to why new evidence does not conflict their beliefs. To name a few examples: Blood vessels found in millions of years old fossils. When it was discovered, if a person was honest to science leading to truth, they would conclude that these fossils couldn't possibly be milliins of years old because those blood vessels would not have lasted that long. But what actually happens is that the scientific community will first discredit the finding, then they will eventually make an explanation as to how they could last that long without proving it can on a lab. That is because both believers and non-believers have a precommitment to certain beliefs. But, what biblical Christians are advocating is that a single young evidence is enough to discredit an old evidence. But also that, the plethora of evidence points to a young Earth. Example: Carbon 14 in fossils, Carbon 14 in diamonds, topsy turvy fossils, radio pollonium halos, missing deltas, low sediment deltas, comets, Earth's magnetic field, Earth's rotation, distance of the moon, salt of the ocean, living fossils, spiral galaxies, saturn rings, human DNA mutation quantity, and many, many more. You can view a huge list on the creation[dot]com/age website for a giant list. Instead of scientists accepting the evidence, they instead will make extraordinary explanations as to why it isn't evidence instead of letting the evidence lead their beliefs. So I challenge you. If you truly believe that science leads one to truth, then go to that website and read the list with references to the findings.

@jin1205

Ай бұрын

@@truthgiver8286 Thank you for your explanation. Although I agree with you that science is intended as the search for truth, it is not, however, how many scientists use it. This is especially problematic when they start with the notion that truth can be changed with more evidence. Truth is truth despite new evidence. Hence, one can only know truth through absolute knowledge, which is why Jesus said He is the truth, and why Christians hold the Bible as God's revealed truth. I also think that there is often a shortsight on the part of many non-believers. Evidence by itself can be interpreted different ways depending on a person's worldview, and when conflicting evidence arises, one is quick to invoke an explanation (rescuing device) as to why new evidence does not conflict their beliefs. In other words, only those things that comfirms their beliefs are accepted at face value, and any that conflicts it are discarded until a plausible explanation can be given. That is not how science is supposed to work. To name an example: Blood vessels were found in millions of years old fossils. When it was discovered, if a person was honest to science leading to truth, they would conclude that these fossils couldn't possibly be millions of years old because blood vessels can't last that long. But what actually happens is that the scientific community will first discredit the finding by claiming all sorts of things like contamination, or bacteria, or bad scientific practices. And when they can't discredit any longer, then they will eventually make an extraordinary explanation as to how they could last that long without actually providing proof. In other words, their convictions trumps over their claim of science as the source of truth. In other words, both believers and non-believers have a precommitment to certain beliefs. But, what biblical Christians are advocating is that a single young evidence is enough to discredit an old evidence. The famous youngest coin in an sunken ship example is often given. But also that, the plethora of of evidence points to an young Earth. Examples: Carbon 14 in fossils, Carbon 14 in diamonds, topsy turvy fossils, radio pollonium halos, missing deltas, low sediment deltas, comets' life span, Earth's magnetic field decreasing, Earth's rotation slowing, distance of the moon, salinity the ocean, living fossils, spiral galaxies, saturn rings, human DNA mutation quantity, and many, many more. You can view a huge list on the Creation web,site, in the age section for a giant list. So, instead of scientists accepting the evidence, they instead will make extraordinary explanations as to why it isn't instead of letting the evidence lead their beliefs. So I challenge you. If you truly believe that science leads one to truth, then go to that site and read the list with references to the findings.

@jin1205

Ай бұрын

@@truthgiver8286 Thank you for your explanation. Although I agree with you that science is intended as the search for truth, it is not, however, how many scientists use it. This is especially problematic when they start with the notion that truth can be changed with more evidence. Truth is truth despite new evidence. Hence, one can only know truth through absolute knowledge, which is why Jesus said He is the truth, and why Christians hold the Bible as God's revealed truth. I also think that there is often a shortsight on the part of many non-believers. Evidence by itself can be interpreted different ways depending on a person's worldview, and when conflicting evidence arises, one is quick to invoke an explanation (rescuing device) as to why new evidence does not conflict their beliefs. In other words, only those things that comfirms their beliefs are accepted at face value, and any that conflicts it are discarded until a plausible explanation can be given. That is not how science is supposed to work. To name an example: Blood vessels were found in millions of years old fossils. When it was discovered, if a person was honest to science leading to truth, they would conclude that these fossils couldn't possibly be millions of years old because blood vessels can't last that long. But what actually happens is that the scientific community will first discredit the finding by claiming all sorts of things like contamination, or bacteria, or bad scientific practices. And when they can't discredit any longer, then they will eventually make an extraordinary explanation as to how they could last that long without actually providing proof. In other words, their convictions trumps over their claim of science as the source of truth. In other words, both believers and non-believers have a precommitment to certain beliefs. But, what biblical Christians are advocating is that a single young evidence is enough to discredit an old evidence. The famous youngest coin in an sunken ship example is often given. But also that, the plethora of of evidence points to an young Earth. Examples: Carbon 14 in fossils, Carbon 14 in diamonds, topsy turvy fossils, radio pollonium halos, missing deltas, low sediment deltas, comets' life span, Earth's magnetic field decreasing, Earth's rotation slowing, distance of the moon, salinity the ocean, living fossils, spiral galaxies, saturn rings, human DNA mutation quantity, and many, many more. You can view a huge list on the Creation site, in the age section for a giant list. So, instead of scientists accepting the evidence, they instead will make extraordinary explanations as to why it isn't instead of letting the evidence lead their beliefs. So I challenge you. If you truly believe that science leads one to truth, then go to that site and read the list with references to the findings.

Scientists have no response for this. The speed of light C isn’t constant since the measures of time and distance aren’t constant over larger distances. It’s like changing from 60 kilometers an hour to 60 miles an hour increases your speed. Then if you go from 60 miles an hour to 60 miles a minute it increases your speed even more. This what is happening in general relativity when less gravity increases the measure of distance and speeds up the rate of time over large distances. It also means that the earth is younger than what they claim. The universe doesn’t care about how young the earth is. Actually the changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light. Do a thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is.

I always thought that radio carbon dating could be off by millions if the condition are right. Like sun activity or volcanoes maybe

@Tom-lm2tc

5 ай бұрын

You don't use carbon dating for rocks... it's only for non fossilised remains, mostly cause there's no carbon in most rocks/mineral layers :)

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Which is why scientists use several different radiometric methods to calibrate their estimates.

The esrth was liquid at one time.

Good Science be Damned!!!

Those who choose to be caught up in a false paradigm also choose to be blind to what is real and true. People often make bad choices like this, because they feel they must in order to advance in their career field. It's a choice. We see this in compromised politicians, which is one reason why our governmental system is so corrupt.

I tell people stuck in false doctrines; we must not keep believing a lie simply because we have a lot of time invested in it. When it’s not the truth it profits us nothing! Seek GOD’S TRUTHS!

@vladtheemailer3223

7 ай бұрын

One of them is that the earth is billions of years old.

Amazing all this time and these guys still don't known about the *ductility* of rock, its ability to deform without breaking under heat and pressure i.e when it is subducted far below the Earth's surface. Geologists and Earth scientists have studied this for close to as century and there are any number of good college level textbooks about the phenomenon.

@OldPapaBear

6 ай бұрын

But how do you explain the Ooids?

@kevinhank17

6 ай бұрын

@@OldPapaBear a lot of the land on earth used to be ocean floor in the distant past.

So in the Genesis YEC timeline, I need to understand the timing of the asteroid impact events. We have the Theia impact event and Moon, and then we all know about Chicxulub. Less well known are the Vredefort impact crater and so many others. These would have created R11 earthquakes plus supersonic tsunamis of ash and dust that then obliterated the sun for many years, leading to collapse of Photosynthesis and vegetation food stocks. Yes, the Flood is well covered in the Bible, but not these more devastating impact craters. Then add in the older Deniliquin impact structure, highly weathered and in an older continent. Please I am a believer, but can someone place these events into the YEC timeline and put my mind at rest.

@ziggyzigggfreed4604

7 ай бұрын

I love your questions and have had them myself. I have not heard any experts speak to them but these occur to me as possible answers. Whatever caused Chicxulub had to have occurred sometime during or right after the Flood because that's when the layer it is in was laid down. Accordingly scientists might have got the scale of it wrong as well. Look how wrong they are about the Grand Canyon. Once you see all the evidence for YEC, it is hard to unsee. Chicxulub would have occurred after the Flood and before God split apart Pangeia. The amount of material to create the K-T layer would have would been much less if it only had to cover Pangeia and not the continents and the oceans separating them. Also it would have also taken much less force to blast a large crater in mud as opposed to rock. Maybe the K-T layer is related to vulcanism and has nothing to do with Chicxulub: volcanic eruptions can release iridium. As for Theia my understanding is that there is no "real" evidence for the Theia impact as the theory itself admits: no crater and no direct analysis of the sub-surface structures. It is pure theoretical speculation to explain deep structures in the Earth's layers that could also have some other explanation. Hope that helps and I am looking forward to a geologist actually tackling the question!

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

@@ziggyzigggfreed4604 Theia impact remnants look to have been discovered near our core - There would have been oceans of molten rock, blazing incandescently over the surface of the Earth. Then the Flood is well described in the Bible, Chicxulub was a far more devastating event with supersonic blasts of superheated gas and debris circling the Erath. Only those animals in burrows survived. People could not live through the impact of winter years of darkness. I've real problems here, but am heartened by talking to my friend, an OEC pastor with a Geology Ph.D.

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

@user-vn8so9rf3d It looks like you have a little too much speculation in your assertions. I think M Oard has written about Vredefort, but you can almost certainly find articles about it on the creation (CMI) website, as well as articles about Chicxulub. The Chicx impact, if that is what it actually was, was likely sometime during the Flood. Don't assume that it was a direct impact on land, as it may have impacted water first, which would reduce the energy imparted into the continent. Personally, I think at least some of the impacts may have been very early Flood and a part of what caused the fountains of the deep to break up.

@user-vn8so9rf3d

6 ай бұрын

@@mmaimmortals Interesting discussion. After many questions, yours is the first response in a long time, and thank you. I remain unconvinced on YEC, especially since the discovery of the much larger Deniliquin impact crater - Very much older than Vredefort and Chicxulub as evidenced by its presence on Gondwana (now Australia) and its heavily weathered state. As well, it does not appear to have the sedimentary layers on top that the Flood would have piled on. On M. Oard, I've read some work, plus the articles from others in rebuttal. Seems like he proposes that all asteroid impacts occurred during the Flood. Strange then, that no ancient accounts mention the massive tsunamis, decades long impact winters and ice ages that would have followed these impacts. Oard also publishes before the discovery of the Deniliquin impact crater and it would be interesting to see his opinion here. I doubt his proposals would be accepted by secular scientists or OEC scientists. Again, the heavy weathering of Deniliquin and its location on an old and tectonically inactive continent seems to imply a very ancient event in the creation timeline - This also camouflaged the appearance of this crater and its discovery was inadvertent, seemingly discovered during other explorations. Current estimates place this impact between 443 to 500 million years ago and it is much larger and older than Vredefort and Chicxulub. Not a problem for secular scientists or OE creationists, but still a big timeline problem for YEC people. Also not a problem for God's timeline either.

@mmaimmortals

6 ай бұрын

​@@user-vn8so9rf3d Most informed creationists consider that the secular relative dating scheme is reasonably accurate. If that is the case with the Deniliquin structure, that would put it very early Flood. I don't think it is altogether possible to determine how much sediment you should expect to find there. Oard and others have done numerous calculations on erosion (complete removal) of Flood deposits during the recessive stage of the Flood. The volumes are staggering. So what you see today may not represent all that was on top of it at its peak. At least one Dr Glikson remained unconvinced that this was an impact. He thinks it could possibly be an impact zone from continental plate collision. The authors of the paper called for deeper core drills as well as "exact" radiometric dating of the impact center to help make their case. In any event, a meteor impact or a continental plate impact both fit in the YEC model. But deep time explanations never make sense in the light of standard physics. The continents shouldn't even exist today due to erosion if deep time were real. Not to mention that even if the earth were billions of years old, there would be absolutely now way to confirm it as the evidence that could confirm it would become more and more blurry and distorted with the passage of time. Using radiometric dating as a confirmation doesn't even make sense in purely naturalistic thinking. The very same zircon crystals that are supposed to give the ages by reason of how uranium and lead are trapped in them also contain non-radiogenic elements that are supposed to be expelled during the crystal formation process. So Deniliquin may provide some challenges for YEC, but deep time makes many more hurdles for standard physics.

It's amusing hearing this guy talk to the others about the ooids being "evidence" for the their young earth theory, but makes no explanation as to why is this true. As usual too a creation scientist will get some part of the science correct such as the formation of ooids in this case, but it is their interpretation to make it fit the young science model that they hypocrites as illustrated below. Then there was the classic statement of projection by one man when he said the following: "That's what happens when someone is captive in a paradigm they don't want to see the evidence that's contrary to that paradigm". But that's the whole point of the creation theory crowd. They already believe in the so called young earth theory and then interpret evidence that fits that young earth theory. This video presented 0 evidence of any young earth.. everything that was said was based on THEIR misinterpretation of the evidence. Hypocrisy is strong in the creation theory crowd!!

Didn't get where the young earth theory comes in.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

That's cause there wasn't any! This video provided no evidence of any young earth theory, but instead just made unsubstantiated claims.

you might want to change your strategy about to determine the age of mountains. think about, how long it would take for the rocky mountains to decay to the Appalachian range. It will take millions of years. in fact you will not see see the traces of the ice age in the south, but if the ridges of the north will show you clear traces of the glaciers melted at the end of the last ice age some 15.000 year ago, which is much older than young earth believers have in mind,

So much time and energy to demonstrate the obvious…and this is obvious only once one has accepted the obvious.

What physical evidence establishes the age of the Earth as 6000 years +/- error ranges? Not "the Bible says". Not "the Earth isn't old." There should be lots of physical evidence establishing the numerical date. What physical evidence establishes the date of the Noah's Flood as 4400 years ago +/- error ranges? Not "the Bible says". There should be lots of physical evidence establishing that date. Don't just claim science is wrong. Please show us what is *right.* Anyone?

@kyloooooo

6 ай бұрын

God is true and not a liar. That’s what it comes down to and will shape how you view everything. Science doesn’t tell us anything. It’s scientist that tell us their theories.

@settledown444

6 ай бұрын

@@kyloooooo OK that's one evasive non-answer. Anyone else?

@kyloooooo

6 ай бұрын

@@settledown444 ah the scoffing and mocking. The atheist default. Can’t take you seriously when you don’t yourself.

@settledown444

6 ай бұрын

@@kyloooooo OK that's two evasive non-answers. Anyone else?

@kyloooooo

6 ай бұрын

@@settledown444 two scoffs and mocks? You sure are committed to your religion.

DONT CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, I ALREADY MADE UP MY MIND!

When time ceases to be this earth won't reach that many years that the theory and lie of evolution tells us.

None of these “creationists” are able to explain Go Bekli Tepi. The overturning of our planet during magnetic flips that we know have happened over millennia and the mini novas can make things look”new” again.

The Earth is very old. This Earth age is young. "And the earth was without form" should read "And the earth became without form" according to the original Hebrew found in the Strong's Concordance. The Katabole.

Its so sad there's people out there promoting ignorance

Finding dinosaur bones that only partially fossilized containing real blood cells really was amazing. They just went quiet and hoped the discovery will not be picked up by MSM.

@blusheep2

6 ай бұрын

There were many articles and studies on such find.

@georgemccreadyprice8195

6 ай бұрын

Completely false. They were fully fossilised but had soft tissue once rehydrated. Much more study was done and it’s found iron residue most probably lead to their preservation. This is well documented in the scientific community but clearly NOT the creationist propaganda which has fed you lies.

@ManiacMayhem7256

5 ай бұрын

​@@georgemccreadyprice8195 Funny how he never responded to you

Willful blindness. They will be held accountable.

Very interesting, And btw, a paradigm isn't just a model, way or example of looking at things.... You left out the attributive adjective "working". 2:50 "We have a different way of looking at things". So...."we" doesn't represent all of us, just creationists. "have a different way" doesn't replace " a working way". The formation rate of peat bogs is 1cm in 10 years, or in other words, 1mtre in a thousand years....that's a fact, a working paradigm if you like.. In the UK lowlands,(East Anglia and Lincolnshire) peat has been measured(evidenced) at around 10 metres deep. Think about that however you like, and you will, but that equates....it doesn't speculate.

@MineStrongth

6 ай бұрын

A paradigm is a model. If you want to add working as an adjective, then you would say working paradigm. His different way involves remaining open to the possibility that past events have the potential to have temporarily changed variables we assume or measure to be constant today. Your working peat bog paradigm, for example. You assume that a peat bog can only ever deposit at the rate you currently measure. However, rapid peat deposition after mnt st helens suggests this may not be true.

@rickallen9167

6 ай бұрын

@@MineStrongth a paradigm > paràdeigma(greek) is not just a model, it is "to show" an example, a pattern, a standard and a framework for understanding reality. A work that is always in progress, so yes, either a paradigm works and is widely accepted, or it does not work and is not accepted. Not, "we have a different view" "possibly" "potentially" "changed variables we assume or measure". Who is the "we" in "we assume"? And what precisely is it that's been measured to showcase the argument in your favour? Marine calcitic ooids were typically formed during calcite sea intervals, especially during the Ordovician and the Jurassic Periods, a widely understood real time period. Moldic ooids (or molds later filled in by calcite cement) occur in both young and ancient rocks, indicating the removal of a soluble polymorph (usually aragonite). In the rock-cycle, young rocks(mya) form from ancient rocks(bya) and again, widely understood how and why. we know the rate of decay is constant based on both physics and mathematics, because we can use mathematical proof models to demonstrate constant rates of decay). argument that we do not know that decay rates are constant demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of empirical data and mathematical relations that describe the natural world around us. And that is the basis for which we (Atheism) stand, the natural world and its paradigm(working model), not Theism, the supernatural world and its personal interpretation model.

@MineStrongth

6 ай бұрын

@rickallen9167 ​model, framework, etc. Whichever word you use, "working" is not part of the definition or concept of a paradigm. This is precisely why you're here arguing that your paradigm is better than his while he is suggesting that yours is too limited. Whether a paradigm is widely accepted also has no bearing on its being a paradigm. What you seem to be arguing is becomming more clear, that his paradigm is not sufficiently proven to convince you nor widely accepted. Not a surprise to him I'd expect.

@rickallen9167

6 ай бұрын

@@MineStrongth but a surprise to me that I'm debating conceptualisation with somebody who doesnt want to provide evidence, but can provide plenty of literal argument for mine. It's the overused circular....back to the beginning without proof. My argument has premise and conclusion, yours sits alone on self-validation. Footnote: "becomming" I'm debating a mind that thinks "becomming" is a word. Thanks for the evidence of what you think versus what is known. (Mic drop).

@MineStrongth

6 ай бұрын

​@@rickallen9167 Ad hominem is never a mic drop. Ad hominem relying on an obvious typo is even worse. Also, I think you might be confused about what it is we're debating, you and I.

What if the mountains didn’t grow? What if, when the great reservoirs burst forth their waters, they caved in? Could that be what created the great valleys, Grand Canyon?… Erosion would have done the rest…✌🏻(If not, there must be HUGE caverns down there.)

@davegaskell7680

6 ай бұрын

Great questions. That's what science is all about.....have an hypothesis, test it to gather evidence to see whether the evidence supports or falsifies it, then publish your findings and methods and see if others get the same results and draw the same conclusions so that it becomes accepted. Guess what.......your "What if"s have been falsified. The mountains are still growing.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Good method of scientific inquiry......"What if...?"

Based.

I as a Christian accept the Genesis account of creation whether it took 7 days as young earthers contend or 2 billion years.

@SverigeiSverige

7 ай бұрын

Not possible if you look in to it.

@davegaskell7680

7 ай бұрын

@@SverigeiSverige It's not possible even if you don't look into it!

@phillipmullins1643

6 ай бұрын

@@SverigeiSverige What in your opinion is not possible? The ability to slice stone samples so thin that they become opaque, or God's ability to create the earth and all life in 7 days? Which is it or are you just trolling?

@SverigeiSverige

6 ай бұрын

@@phillipmullins1643 Not possible to believe in the Bible and 2 billion years. "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Before the fall of sin there was no death. Millions of years of suffering and death create a cold-blooded cruel God. It makes Jesus a lier - "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6)

@phillipmullins1643

6 ай бұрын

@@SverigeiSverige It's quite possible but it less possible for creation to only take 7 days which is a misunderstanding of the Hebraic work for time. What then is your reason that it was 7 days only? Think of how the Genesis was written and to whom? Those it is written to didn't have as much of a scientific understanding as we do today. How long it took doesn't change my believe in the authenticity of scripture nor the power of God and my faith in general.

Evidence no matter how good can be systematically suppressed. For decades since Darwin true science has suffered disastrously.

Good scientists accept all angles of where it leads, so one way leads long measurements of ages, and the other leads short measurements of ages, but which way is truth, so that is where religion of faith comes from, so both Evolution and Creation have to do with religion. In reality, it is inside us all, because we humans are the likeness of the Creator God making creation by designing thing and making it work that no other creature could do, so we have dominion over the earth of all living things. It took a mind to create, not by random processes out of nothingness, so there as too be a Creator that created all things.

Of course some will deny the implications of the evidence pointing to the notion Of the Biblical account of creation being true, doing so will make them accountable to Gods edicts

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

". . . doing so will make them accountable to God's edicts". That has a threatening tone to it. So what do you mean by God's edicts? It would be refreshing if Christian advocates could learn to speak in clear terms instead of vague terms that sound like coded language within the Christian community.

@VisshanVis

5 ай бұрын

I don't have to deny anything the real scientists of the world have already proven that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

Some unprovable assumptions: there is a god. He makes edicts. Apart from that, there is no evidence pointing to the notion of the biblical account of creation, only wishful thinking.

I don't understand what the significance is 🤔

@Hydroverse

2 ай бұрын

I think the idea is that the stone they're looking at is thought to have formed above water, but ooids would suggest it was underwater. It's what they'd expect in their flood model.

Scientists already agree that these rock formations are due to water, but not just due to a flood. Since the continents are constantly changing, that region was once submerged under an ocean. So we could say that there was a flood that lasted hundreds of millions of years. Genesis is not far fetched as the events described actually occurred, however, genesis only got the timestamps wrong.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

So what you are saying is that one flood lasting millions of years could explain the varied geology on earth?! Except that the vague "millions of years of flood" doesn't cut it either because the earth is 4.6 billion years old and countless floods at various places around the globe are interspersed with numerous other physical actions including wind, volcanic activity, earthquakes, tectonic plate movement, etc. etc. This is why geology has become so specialized and extensive education is necessary to begin to understand it.

@hellohennessy3462

6 ай бұрын

​@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I am not pro creation science. I am atheist. My comment was just to say that some sort of great flood happened, but it isn't something supernatural that occurred because of god's will. It is just a normal geological phenomenon among countless others like you said. So to answer your question, no. It took many bodies of water that submerged the region over periods of hundreds of millions of years, taking into account tectonic plate activities and other phenomenons that you have listed.

@hellohennessy3462

6 ай бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096I also just wanted to build a link with the video instead of attacking the idea of Genesis. Genesis happened, but without God's hand, and it lasted way more than a week.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

@@hellohennessy3462 More than a week indeed, like four and half billion years more.

Ballpark...how young do you consider the Earth to be?

@troy5659

7 ай бұрын

6 to 10k years

ooids formed in the Pleistocene era. The Pleistocene is the geological epoch that lasted from c. 2.58 million to 11,700 years ago. are you saying the bible is inaccurate? The earth is not several thousand but several million years old? Thanks for being honest.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

Ooids also formed in the Precambrian Era and back then the ooids we're much larger, about 18 mm compared to the more recent ooid size of 2 mm. The earth is not just millions, but billions of years old. 4.6 to be more exact.

You think this “proves” creation simply because the small particulate was arguably formed under water? Not following.. you guys are also choosing to follow a very particular paradigm.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

6 ай бұрын

And THAT is the hypocrisy of creation science!!

Let's test the crust of the.... The crust of the earth recycles itself... Humans we sure are smart