Comparing the Two Paradigms: Old Earth & Young Earth - Dr. Danny Faulkner (Conf Lecture)
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 10. 2017
- If you like this technical lecture from the 2017 IGH Conference, you can get it and over 70 more at: isgenesishistory.com/conference/ In this lecture, Danny Faulkner examines the evidences for both a young and old earth.
Dr. Faulkner received his PhD in astronomy from Indiana University.
He is distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of South Carolina-Lancaster, where he taught astronomy and physics for over 26 years.
Since January, 2013, he has been the staff astronomer at Answers in Genesis in northern Kentucky.
Evidence did have something to do with it! The geology pointed to an old earth.
I enjoyed that lecture, thank you for posting it.
Human civilization is older than young earth creation.
There are dendrocronolgy records longer, and over a dozen methods of dating things and cross checking those methods.
What are your sources?
@@MadebyKourmoulis
You could easily follow that up yourself.
Start with wikipedia and then go to the referenced links and papers.
There aren't a couple of sources for this, there are literally thousands of them.
These aren't even there to try and prove this. They are just research on, say what the Pottery People were doing, or what ancient Cypriot tribes left behind or comparison research on flood and drought impacts on rings in compared trees both fossilised and extant across species and locales.
Then it should be easy for you to provide one example.
Then it should be easy for you to provide one example.
Then it should be easy for you to provide one example.
Awesome!
13:57 the world is made miraculously.
Danny spoke at a Calvin University symposium at Grand Rapids, MI standing for the word of God some years ago. He was a fine defender of the faith then and still is now. Not only that but is extremely interesting to us followers of Christ. Lord bless and keep you. Danny.
and laughs at moon landing conspiracy but defends young earth conspiracy haha
Great lecturer/lesson. This is one to come back and listen to again.
Studies around mutation rates are the death knell for Darwinian evolution
I've watched yours and Kent's analysis on his debate with Ross on JA several times now. The more I watched the more I picked up on Hugh's deceptiveness. He seems quite deliberate about it.
Someone is deceptive;
And the same person is not deceptive?
Great comprehension.
Really? You have decided what you believe and now you are making stuff up to support it. So common and so sad.
phizzelout Ross is tricky and slick
Discernment will separate the wheat from the chaff .... Ross in not wheat though he may look like it
The quote at 51 min. 9 sec. ; “ yet there is not yet a shred of direct evidence for its existence” referring to the Oort Cloud, left out an important word. It should say “ direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence”, meaning those comets were not seen with a telescope. Obviously misleading misquote.
Very interesting.
They aren't measuring the distance to the moon. They are measuring the distance to the reflector. That also assumes the reflector doesn't move. Not necessarily the case. The moon gets hit by meteors on a daily basis some of which produce substantial vibrations. How well did they nail that thing down? It wouldn't have to move very far to disrupt the measurements.
there are several seismometers on the moon..they take into consideration these disturbances
No way man went 237,000 miles away with 1960's technology when we can't go beyond 400 miles up today.
About 100 ping pong ball size rocks hit the moon everyday, not meteor size rocks. 2.5m rocks hit the moon about every 4 years. So no the moons surface is not being drastically changed everyday. If a meteor hit close enough to alter the elevation where the reflectors are it would destroy the reflectors. So your theory just went down like the titanic
@@tmo4330echnological advancements the government has is light years beyond what we see in the civilian world. NASA has no interest in going back. It has nothing to do with can’t. Elon has proven that. How do you think the reflectors got there and the moon rovers?
@@tmo4330 Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Casini, Mars probes. Please do some Googling.
Also unexplained - From Genesis, we have firm references to the Flood, but no one writes about fitting in the Theia impact (evidenced by the Moon and by large unmelted chunks down near the core) plus the ancient Deniliquin impact crater ( highly weathered), Vredefort impact crater, and then the better known Chixculub impact crater. Each of these events is clearly seen in God's natural record and all of these events dwarf the Flood, so why do no ancient texts mention these catastrophes, especially as each would have caused an impact winter decades long.
How do we fit all of these events, into the YE timeline? Yes we have God's unerring scripture, but we also have God's timeline written in God's unerring geological record.
We must be honest and include everything - The many asteroid impacts (especially the huge ones) plus vulcanisms, plus plate tectonics, plus where does the heat from plate tectonics and radioactive decay go?
Possibly since this video was posted, we have detected gravitational wave disruptions from a pair of colliding neutron stars, which coincided with Gamma rays arriving from this event. After a journey of 130 million years, there was a discrepancy of 1.7 seconds in arrival time, indicating that the 'speed of gravity' is also C.
It seems like every few months, there is a new problem for YEC advocates to explain.
57:25 and all this talk comes down to "the Bible says!"
There is a third possiblilty for EO. What if EO fomed by a huge metor hitting Jupiter becoming a remnant of that impact. . That would explain why it still has a lot of heat because we don't know how long ago that it was formed. Earth's moon could have been formed that way. When you look at al the craters on the moon, you know that they represent more than 6000 years worth.
I came across some videos recently (old from maybe the 1970s?). Where scientists are baffled at how fast rock/stone formations actually happen. Within three hours in some cases via observation. For example; a volcano after it cools.
Samples were sent for testing (not stating from where) from the top of one volcano to the bottom (sea floor) hours after it cooled... results; tens of thousands of years old to billions of years old.
These scientists even explained the layers of stone actually being recent via observation. The one said this changes everything.
They are even able to made real granite, real gold, real dimonds, etc... first it took them weeks, then days, then hours. I cannot recall if they got down to minutes.
This explains how boots from the 1920s with the foot still inside (with flesh), pickaxes, a modern wrist watch, etc. are found in granite that are dated millions and billions of years old.
Some people say this is proof of ancient tech... but the boot example, with the tag of the manufacturer tells all.
But what is baffling, not discussed in these videos... what major event took place to bury these items in stone, with no record or news reports!? There may be an explanation; however, too out there for most.
Anthony R. Maradin hey! I’d love to see that source on the boot and equipment found in rock. Thanks dude!!!!!!!
@@js83kaxhf - It's on the internet dude, photos and all.
@bcstractor - You are an example of someone wanting to be heard with nothing to say. Feel free to have the last word. Peace be with you.
Anthony R. Maradin - well that must make it true
@@js83kaxhf - To verify, use related / unrelated, direct / indirect sources to vett information. I've had decades behind this, and have yet come across contradictory evidence - other then mainstream theories.
A prime example on how you can misapply mathematical formulas to things you don't really understand and still sound like you're an expert
example?
@metaldude, you’re a prime example of a troll, asswipe !!!
Which formulas were misapplied?
Being white and over the age of 50 really helps.
@@hereintranzit oh, the christian love :)
I love the strawmanning right at the start.
Elaborate?
You find what you're looking for
Stephen Fowler True. And you don’t find what you’re not looking for.
@@hscollier Each man looks down the well of history and sees his own reflection.
Good reference to the existing biases in the so called scientific circles !
and since when does science include biblical drivel?
@@ozowen5961 Science is only legit if it proves the Bible then?
@@ozowen5961 I was being sarcastic man, I agree with you
And the part about evidence having nothing at all to do with people's objections to the the word of God.
@@ozowen5961 What science has the bible been wrong about? And don't even try to tell me it says the earth is flat.
If we can calculate the rate that the Earth is spinning & the rate at which the speed of its spinning is decreasing, then wouldn't we be able to calculate the amount of time that will elapse until the Earth stops spinning? If so, what would happen if the world stopped spinning? What effect would that have on the magnetic field, our ability to grow crops, & many other things? Sounds like an apocalypse.
Sounds like nonsense to me.
yes, in about 480 million years we will be in big trouble.
@@eniszita7353 🤣🤣🤣👍
As long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest time. God Himself will destroy the earth with fire
"the planets would have cooled by now". - space is like a vacuum thermos. It is difficult for things to cool in space because there is virtually nowhere for the heat to dissipate to. That is why planets stay hot for a very long time. Does this guy even know that the earth is still mostly liquid hot rock under the relatively thin crust?
Of course he do, but he work for AiG and they need contributions from the public to stay alive
1 -- dark side in space becomig cold wery speedy
2 -- atmosfer is not void und even an interstellr space is not void und it can make problem for space probe at > 1000 kilometer per second
@@peugeny "dark side in space becomig cold wery speedy" no. space is like a very very good thermos bottle, very good insulation because radiation is the only heat transfer method. Objects in space change temperatures very very slowly.
@@peugeny "it can make problem for space probe at > 1000 kilometer per second" the density of atoms in space is very low but measurable with specialized equipment mounted in probes. it does not cause any problems for space probes or trips to the moon.
@@eniszita7353 in space suit -- dark side speedy becomes very cold (you can in it feelin cold of space)
I got distracted by seeing a cartoon dog in actual Pluto
gammafighter what are the chances huh 🤔
Well done...makes alot of sense....compared to nonsense and simulations.
@@ozowen5961 what is partial about it?
@@ozowen5961 ah another rationally minded God hater blinded from the truth that comes from God.... Why not be a rationally minded God lover?
@@ozowen5961 do you don't believe a world flood occurred?
@@ozowen5961 no I think I scared you for denying the flood
@@ozowen5961 oz......interesting name..you a wizard?.....go read 2 Peter 3:5-10.....you realize your belief is in direct contradiction to the words of God....if you even care....probably not....I will leave you with this I would be very careful about what you believe because what you believe determines your destiny here and in eternity...
13:27 This only proves how solid the evidence for evolution was already so far back in time, that it trumped over weak creationist arguments for "younger Earth". It does not show the failure of science or scientists, on the contrary it shows how desperate the creationist arguments have been already for almost 200 years!
Interesting, now someone only need to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being, otherwise the video's conclusion is useless.
test God with prayer!!!
There's tons of evidence . Your laziness to search and lack of wanting to know the truth is not a trait that wears well on anybody
Most creationist think the sun did not exist before the first or the fourth day. I disagree, I believe the face of the deep and the face of the waters are different things. Therefore in this context the face of the deep is the ocean floor not the ocean surface, so the darkness was due to the depth not from the sun not existing. So when God said "let there be light" I contend that that started a process that gathered the water in one place making the water over the continents shallow enough for the sun which was created before the first day to break through. So therefore the universe was not created in six days but individual planets were made (transformed for service) in six days. So therefore the heaven and earth can be made in six days but created much longer ago.
Isaiah 58:9, NKJ: Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ “If you take away the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger, [AND] speaking wickedness, Proverbs 6:13: He winks with his eyes, He shuffles his feet, He points with his fingers; (Stop pointing, it will not do you good.)
Here's another verse most Christians ignore: Isa. 57:10 NKJ: You are wearied in the length of your way; Yet you did not say, ‘There is no hope.’ You have found the life of your hand; Therefore you were not grieved.
Q: what does .20 cents have to do with creation... I know...it's bad, really bad.
Even a satellite is pulled apart by tidal forces us there any reason to believe it will make a circular ring all around the planet? It seems to me that it should make a semi circular line of bebris in accordance with the amount of debris available not a complete ring. I could be wrong but will anyone do a modeling program to investigate this fully.
2 Timothy 4:3; For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
49:00 Oh, it's only the solar system that could be 6000 years young, not the Galaxy or Universe? Could that be because of the speed of light proves the age of them. LOL
It wasn't until the 4th day/age/eon that the sun, moon and stars were created. God made us, Satan uses the church to divide us and science vs the chuch to destroy faith by dissecting every detail to rip it apart. Oh but it was exactly a 24hr day because yom can only be 24 hours. Really?
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8
Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Just think if we had copies of the original Egyptian Hieratic writings of Moshe who couldn't write in Hebrew script because it didn't exist yet. Hebrew Script and others were developed from the Egyptian Hieratic alphabet, everybody knows that, right. We had it in history class in school. And remember the rosetta stone deciphering in 1822 AD that finally allowed the ancient languages like Hieratic to be read.
Mankind has for centuries tried to mold and shape God and or gods to fit their wants, needs, desires. Same has been done to science.
And the earth was without form, and void; Does that mean the 4 states of matter(including earth matter; soil, rock, water. air, etc) were in chaos awaiting instruction from God? Could "let there be light" mean photons were created? Would people of Moshes time understood Matter, Photons, Plasma, Atoms, etc? Think about it, a simple instruction that patterned our week with a day of rest 4th commandment. A sign of God's people. Ex. 31;17.
They didn't have Google back then, LOL
Many people today are to lazy to look something up on google and will argue based on opinion of what they assume.
I've got theories, but I wont know if I'm right until the next life when I am with God. Only time will tell, LOL
Times nearly up for us. God bless.
The speed of light has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Until science can measure the size of the universe they can't determine its age using a rate of expansion or the speed of light. They've come nowhere near determining its boundaries.
Thank you Dr. Faulkner, for showing the various scientific opinions. Scripture shows us that our own (arrogant) opinion is one of the “idols” held up in God’s face,. If only all scientists realized that knowledge instills pride in the human heart, which sets up blindness. God hates pride because he can’t get past it to teach his truth. He is “allergic” to pride and the proud are allergic to him. Praise God for this wisdom!
If you believe in a god then you can fool yourself into anything.
PS
Thanks for your comment. Yes, you are right. It is easy to want the promises to be true, so that it is just wishful thinking. However, persistence pays off. The Bible says do this and that will happen. It begins with humility, approaching with all due respect. If he is indeed the true God, reverence is due. Perhaps the most messed up, the poorest, most disgusting, least likely to succeed are in the best position to scream for his help. He hangs on to us even if only by a thread. But eventually the metamorphosis happens, and I am now in good mental health, I have peace in spite of crazy circumstances, I am informed about what he is going to do, I participate in his special projects with the guidance of his Holy Spirit. The old me would just leave everyone else to their own devices. But he has given me a new spirit of love, and the command to extend his hand to all who will take it, even in the face of ridicule, or stoning in the marketplace. The execution on the tree was his demonstration of love, “for the joy set before him” and that joy is me and you, no matter what we have done. If this is true we should leave no stone unturned to check it out. Life is getting shorter, not longer.
so God did it because we believe in what is written in the bible
@@ozowen5961 well once you assume biblical inerrancy then it just follows that anything based upon scripture must be true.
qed.
the universe is only about 6000 years old.
God created adam and eve.
and must have created wives for seth and cain when no one was looking.
The difference between a new heaven and new earth means no more sins that all things have become New old things have passed away all things have become New amen
I have 1 question that I would like old earth’ers to answer. Could God speak into existence today...right now...a universe that is exactly like the universe we see today with everything and everybody at the same state we see it now? Yes he could...or...no he couldn’t.
ozowen ..ok...you convinced me.
@@ozowen5961 The Earth as it is now has evidence of being young, all live not evolving, merely simple mutation within kind, and LOADS of evidence for global flood of Noah.
@@ozowen5961 A lot of opinion. The scientific documentary, Is Genesis History (2017) puts your science on the rubbish heap.
At the end of the day... you're actually the one believing in fairy tales.
There's literally only 2 scientific models. Comparing the data shows that the common view of old earth is riddled with holes... basically a desperate attempt to create a system for the unbelieving masses.
You and MANY other atheist/anti-christian(non catholic)/evolutionist have simply spat daft opinions and never hang around to compare data.
Bring some valid opposing science that has some remote logical explanation.
@@ozowen5961 Not Actual Science you say… Let me fill your science's holes with some examples...
Topic: Age of the earth.
(Note: I haven't even touched: Volcanic activity, recession of the moon, planetary magnetic fields, tectonic movement or human population growth)
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly harmful mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago.
Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work.
The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
Observed examples of rapid canyon formation
Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth.
Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most)
Living fossils-jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing.
The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column.
The Arches National Park (USA) has over 2,000 rock arches. If 43 have collapsed since 1970 and the linked article was written in 2015, that’s 45 years, giving a rate of collapse of ~1 per year, which means that all would be gone in ~2,000 years.
Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form.
Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call ‘discordant drainage systems’. They are ‘discordant’ because they don’t fit the deep time belief system.
Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz
Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20-60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time.
Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
@@ozowen5961 That's not an answer. Just as if the tables were turned, you wouldn't have found support for your belief among creationist reviews.
It's a known fact that creationists have been blocked from even submitting papers for as long as there has been a 'scientific community'... regardless of the findings. They even have a list.
There is a clear bias forcing you and others to simply believe like sheep.
I bet you have never ever even looked at the data from creationist studies. You do realise that the data is gathered from qualified scientists?
So now, instead of looking at ANY data, you simply brush off as not true... even if the evidence that your science LIES to you.
You're evading the data just as everyone else does.
No mater how much evidence you give a non believers they still don’t want to believe as they have been cut off. We must pray and hope to god to loosen their mines, then they will want what you offer.
Howdy Dr. Faulkner! We met in FL. My recent video ... just search "Young Earth Today 2024"
Good lord god almighty. The world is so small to so many.
Lol no. Pluto is a planet.
You can still argue the model of earth being a globe using physics. you can still use physics to explain inverted model of some other model. That’s all they did was they inverted the flat disc into a globe which is a lie and someone who claims to understand the Bible should understand this because the Bible is talking about physics. But it also claims that there is a flat disc inside of a toroidal field which is a spinning vortex with “four corners”/four directions creating a donut shape. Dome above us is an impenetrable barrier because it’s a plasma field. The Vatican rules the world and the Jesuit rule the Vatican. They are the ones that came in and started this lie that we live on a ball in a vacuum. Gases have to be contained. Water is flat and level forthousands and thousands of miles because it’s contained. The globe model defies physics so I have no respect for someone who doesn’t understand that or even refuses to acknowledge it. The abyssal plains make it 50 to 60% of the earths surface and they are perfectly flat. If water is flat and the abyssal plains are flat please draw me a picture of a sphere that is 50% to 75% flat. please show me a working model of a spinning ball that holds water to its surface. If you can’t do these things then you cannot claim they are facts.
Huh?
Both views are incorrect.
Most of his arguments still imply that our solar system could be up to 100 million years old, so still doesn't support his model conpletely.
He also does not mention anything outside our solar system. I'd be interested to see him argue the universe being 6,000 years old using our understanding of light travelling and distract galaxies. Perhaps he could link the James Webb telescope and how we have to admjust for redshift due to distance (and therefore time). How can an astrophysicist understand the speed of light and believe that the galaxies we see are all really close to us. The majority of our observational technology would be massively incorrect- how come he doesn't point this out if it's clearly wrong to him? It reckon that he's aware of this issue and is purposefully ignoring it as it doesn't match his biased world view.
I'd also love to see a professional response to these issues that he has. I wonder if many of his statements aren't as much of an issue as he implies?
There are other videos in this series, he also has published papers and books that goes into all this. I don't pretend to fully understand everything, but I know enough to know that he is not going to fit everything into a 1 hour seminar.
In all his videos , he clearly states how vast the universe is. He explains the distant star light issue in them.
The Bible isn’t the only creation story.
Yes it is. Other than big bang bedtime stories, the Bible is in fact the only creation story of any religion on earth. That's why you didn't provide an example of another. I dare you to.
@@ronaldsmall8847 Are you serious?
@@elainehiggins713 Obviously you don't have another example. Yes I am serious. Do you think that asking if I am serious is supposed to lend yourself an air of superiority or something? You have no idea who you are attempting to start a debate with. You go right ahead and give me you very best example of another religion's ORIGIN story. Make it your very best example. You need your A game here, Toots.
@@ronaldsmall8847 Just one question: if you are a reasonable person asking a reasonable question, I will answer you fully. If you are a religious fundamentalist and an ideologue, I won’t bother.
@@elainehiggins713 You don't get questions. You made a claim that you can't back up. Back up your claim or admit you can't. It's that simple. Also, why is it that you hate God so much. Don't lie to me and claim that you don't believe in God. What is it that you hate about Him so much? So, if I am religious, you won't bother talking to me. That is religious ideologue behavior, Toots. You don't want to admit it, but the atheism you profess (and know is not true) is religious. VERY fundamentalist. The problem is, you have nothing to base it on. You cannot even justify reason. You want me to be a a reasonable person, yet in your worldview, you can't validate that your own reason functions properly. If you want to skip your burden of proof on providing a non-biblical origin story, then how about you give me a justification for reason from within an atheistic/naturalistic worldview. This will be a hoot! Or you can run away. I actually recommend that.
Or 'Simply': Hebrews11:1 The Evidence of the things;'One' does Not See!(=Faith)❤❤❤ A Righteous men, lives by Faith, and NOT by Sight!A...!❤
Remember - Evolution is an observed result. You have to explain what within an actual chain of descent happened if you want to have evolution. If you want to have "processes of evolution" you have to explain how. The problem with Darwin is that accretion model doesn't quite work. It might explain how a flock of birds blown across an ocean could end up with different characteristic than their cousins back in the old country. But still birds. You have to account for the bridge from kind to kind if you want to have evolution. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But you have to account for it.
Kind?
Not only still birds, but still exactly the same birds, with slightly longer beaks.
Nate D. In the case of the Galapagos finches, yes. I was thinking of a case where a flock got blown from the Old World to the New World. If separated for enoung time, under the neo-Darwinist model, they would become separate species. But the point is, still birds. If you want to conclude that life exists in a single chain of descent for an origin to the present, you have to account also for how you get from kind to kind. How new phyla, classes, orders arise.
@@ozowen5961 The classifications are not arbitrary. Not generally, although they have been at timea been arbitrarily broken off in order to create useful units of study. For example, all land vertabrates are descented from a suborder, tetrapoda, with the class osteoichthyes (bony fishes). Yet, in traditional systems of taxonomy, mammals, amphibians and reptiles are designated at class. But this is entirely for convenience.
What you are advocating for is neo-Darwinsm of gradualism. Sometimes the term "chronospecies", meaning two ends of an ages-long chain of descent which no longer would be able to breed and produce viable offspring. A possible term you could apply to the process is "chronospeciation". I just came up with and I have never heard it anywhere, but I am someone has used it.
Claddifications are not arbitrary. For example, there the entire order or superfamily Carnivora is descended from a single ancestral group call the Miacoids. So it is not arbitrary.
You could be correct, maybe every species that exists on Earth developed through a gradual process. I think, probably not. But to prove something in natural history, you have to do more than argue that something is possible or a good idea. You have to be able to explain what happened within an actual chain of descent. I don't claim to be able to. You're not either.
@@ozowen5961 You don't understand what argument I am making. My argument has nothing to do with creationism. My thinking is along the lines of Richard Goldschmidt and has been for decades. And closer also to the arguments of Stephen Jay Gould and the other advocates of punctuated equilibrium. I have borrowed the terminology of the creationists, particularly the term "kind", because it is useful and also because they raise questions that do have to be answered. Your argument is the neo-Darwinist argument or the argument in favor of chronospecies. Chronospecies exist but it is quite uncertain whether this process accounts for the development of fundamental new body plans or morphology. My thought is that new kinds arise through macromutation, a change in the development programs, not through a gradual change in gene frequency.
According to the molecular clock theory, gene frequency changes at a consistent rate whereas phyletic changes occur suddenly, So the conclusion is a change in gene frequency is not the force that drives phyletic evolution.
If you're in graduate school right now or a junior facuty member seeking tenure and you need to go along to get along, don't publicly start talking these ideas. I worked them out on my own in the early 1980's and only later heard of Goldschmidt and the theory of puncuated equilibrum. I was not a graduate student or in academics
See John Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World. This hard nosed teaching makes it difficult for people to believe in Jesus. Lets please make more stumbling blocks for them!
Actually I have witnessed the formation of a couple of mountains in my lifetime.
I've never seen a mountain form, but we do see some increase in height. I think the most famous would be Mount Everest that grows at a rate of about 2 inches per year. I'm not saying they formed over billions of years or that they didn't form over billions of years, just saying they grow :)
Stepehen Fowler What the Dutch would call mountains? Or the Nepalese?
@@alanthompson8515 what national geographic would call mountains.
@@stephenfowler4115 Ah! American Mountains. I'm from the UK. Our piddling little mountains start at 2000 feet (610m) asl. And we don't have any new ones, just worn down stumps. The highest Dutch "mountain" is about 600ft tall, poor souls, whereas Wiki lists the lowest Nepalese peak as Gokyo Peak at 5,357 m (17,575 ft) :) Which were you lucky enough to see form?
@@alanthompson8515 just a few volcanoes like Surtsi and Parucatin
12:06 this guy’s getting deliberately deceptive in presenting Kelvin’s work on thermal age. I hope he clarifies. He’s using the discrepancy in hypothesis to prove bias.. He should know better. If he actually taught physics then he is using opinion to claim facts. That’s not honest.
24:20 please check out A Funny thing Happened on the way to the Moon. NASA has admitted several times of late that we can't get past low earth orbit. Odd thing to say by them, no? God bless :)
Please check in to an asylum.
Look at the clips in context and it's clear that they're not saying that.
Ronald Small nasa gets a billon dollars a second the only technology that doesn’t get better or upgraded. The shuttles were 80s technology nasa had to buy parts off of ebay Is that even logical i cant have a phone for a year with out it being obsolete ???
I haven't seen those clips however, in today's context they would be correct. We no longer operate equipment to get humans to the moon. Of course we are working on that now. And the shuttles theoretically could have gone above LEO but that extends pretty far and they were never outfitted for that mission.
@@jokerproduction5135 a billion dollars a second? Lol nasa get point five percent of the US national budget. Nasa gets like 60 billion a year compared to 700 million the military gets. The entire budget is around 4.7 trillion. Nasa barely gets funded. Have you researched how much space crafts cost to reserch and build?
He sends forth his spirit they are created and he renews the surface of the earth. Psalms 104:30. They do not consider this verse with Genesis 1:2 so they run in circles. The Bible interprets itself. Isaiah 28:10. It is a young surface of the earth, the earth is old it is just the surface of the earth that God renewed for man.
Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.[3][4] The geology or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place. Different spans of time on the GTS are usually marked by corresponding changes in the composition of strata which indicate major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, which marked the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and many other groups of life.
Gary -All radiometric dating has assumptions that cannot be proven accurate but the preponderance of data suggest it to be highly INaccurate. Google it - videos and papers explaining it are easy to find. Start with www.icr.org, Dr Grady McMurtrie's videos and Answers in Genesis, as well as Is Genesis History. You will no longer rely on radiometric dating once you study it thoroughly (with an unbiased eye! - if you start with a decision that you'll never believe it could be wrong, you'll end up ignoring the evidence that shows it's inaccurate).
Evidence from God and from recent testing shows that radiometric dating is misleading. And, sedimentation layers are equivocal evidences.
Radiometric dating is about as scientific as 13th century alchemy!
ozowen Indeed, the "unbiased eyes" seem to belong to biblical presuppositionists.
There is a lot of theory being flung around, and it’s like the parable of ten blind men describing their portion of the elephant. I can’t feel convinced, but only hang onto to the info for future enlightenment. Lots of disagreement. What is so important that I just have to know it? Right now I am wondering about people’s salvation. I don’t want to play the fiddle while Rome burns.
Debate is essential to further understanding. Science is confirming your salvation. If evolution is a viable theory then salvation is meaningless. Look at the other conference from the animated guy.
Evolution removes Adams sin and negates the need for salvation because pain and suffering were around before man meaning we need no savior. The pope has told his followers that evolution is the dominant theory in his religion(sun worshippers).
This guy is confirming(in theory) the Bible and in turn confirming salvation.
Why would YHWH include the 7 day creation sequence?
Very disappointing overall. He made some interesting points, but completely ignored the rest of the universe. How can he reconcile the universe with the young-Earth/universe theory. Light wouldn't have enough time to travel to us. Can he explain this?
Calling an OEC believer an evolutionist is not correct (theistic evolutionists). Unless you get this right don’t talk about it. It’s basically the classic straw man argument.
i agree that the bible is history but it's not a complete history, you'll hear nothing of the history of china, india or the americas in it,likewise it's geography is limited. it gives us the history of the near east from the perspective of one of the peoples of the near east. the people who first came to know god. by the time we get to to cain and abel you see the conflict between a pastoralist and a horticulturalist. no description of cave dwellers or hunter-gatherers, but we know they lived, in fact they exist to this day in some parts of the world.completely unnecessary to insist on christians believing in a 6 thousand year old world. it could be any age, more or less than the 4 billion years that is the present orthodoxy.
This all seems so silly. Why mix religion and science? If you want to believe God created everything that's fine.
Why spend your time twisting science? It will only convince the naive. In fact it's deceitful.
Silly people don't know their own silly business.
Yep, if you have to twist the truth, be misleading, and lie, to make reality fit into your narrative, then your narrative is false and you know that. And that is exactly what this guy is doing.
Enjoy hell dummy
@@xfilesseasonteneponeandsix8346 A comment that shows the same level of intelligence as the video does, very little.
@@xfilesseasonteneponeandsix8346 Shame....is this your way of being a representative of Christ?
you have baited the hook, so i'll bite. would you mind elaborating on what he got wrong, or how he was being dishonest? i'm just interested in the truth.
Ask ChatGPT if there is a center of the universe. It says "yes". Is the center the oldest part? ChatGpt says " no ". Then why isn`t the center the oldest part of the universe if it was first? ChatGPT says, that is because it is closer and the light from there does not looks as old ( I a paraphrased )
Non-sensical at best
You can only use a laser to determine if the moon is moving away from the earth if the speed of light is constant. We already know that the speed of light is not constant. It only appeared to become constant when we started using atomic clocks, so in essence we are measuring the speed of light with a clock that is based on the speed of light. That's asinine.
Also, it is only possible to measure the speed of light making a round trip. In other words, we can only measure the speed of light going from point A back to point A after bouncing off of point B. It is impossible to measure the speed of light going from point A to point B. You would need an observer at both point A and point B who could communicate with one another instantly in order to measure the speed of light going one way. The fastest that two such observers can communicate though, is the speed of light. You might say, "But so what? You just divide the time it takes to make the round trip by 2!" Yeah, well, that's what we do. But that isn't observable science. We can't possibly know if the light goes faster in one direction than it does in the other. An educated guess is all we can make. But it's still nothing more than a guess.
At any rate, we know for a fact that light has been slowing down since we began measuring it. This could easily account for the illusion that the moon is receding. I am not saying that the moon isn't receding. I am merely stating that no one can say it is for certain. Science. When you really stick to the scientific method rigorously, you may not be as smart as you think you are. And almost every bit of cosmology is guess work, without any scientific method applied in any way.
I've made a similar argument. Also, who's to say light isn't faster or slower in other parts of the universe that may not follow the laws of physics as we know them.
No the speed of light was first accurately calculated based on James Clerk Maxwell equations in the 1870’s. Well before atomic clocks (1950’s)
@@ianb9028 Not true. The speed of light has been measurable since the 1700s. Also, that is only the TWO-WAY speed of light. Measuring the one-way speed of light is impossible and it is 100% unknown if light travels the same speed in both directions. There is nothing in the laws of physics that suggests that it should or should not.
@@ronaldsmall8847 yes but not accurately. I am aware of the efforts prior to Maxwell but these involved measurements of things like the moons of Jupiter etc which were reasonable. It wasn’t until Maxwell that the electromagnetic field was defined and the speed of light is calculated as a function of its viscocity.
@@ianb9028 Your point is completely irrelevant to my point. The speed of light as measured as constantly slowed down before and after Maxwell, so it doesn't matter who you attribute to making the first accurate calculation. If you attribute accuracy to Maxwell, then you have two choices: You either dismiss any notion of accuracy for every measurement that came after his or you accept that light is slowing down. That is until they started using an atomic clock in the 50s or 60s, which is absolute blithering idiocy for measuring the speed of light. Also, you do not and will never know the speed of light in one direction.
The 6000 years begin starting at day one. This day began when the water which covered the entire earth became shallow enough over the continents for the preexisting sun to break through. The celestial bodies were created in the beginning but the earth was made (transformed for service) in six days. The fourth day is when the purpose and authorship of the celestial bodies was announced not the day they were placed. Since the Bible does not give the time between the beginning and the first day, it will not necessary to even prove the age of the materials in the earth or the age of the universe deduced from the speed of light.
If you believe the Earth is a spinning ball billions of years old and in evolution you are commiting the sin of believing a lie. Not wanting to be an outcast is no excuse for not seeking the truth. We all sin and will be held accountable for them. BTW believing a lie is the first sin
Dating our past and the age of strata is built on assumptions only. We have no reliable dating method besides the C-14 method. Geologists are history forgers. Their theory and timeline of Earth's history is nothing more than a consensus that emerged over 150 years ago. This is based on asteroid impacts and volcano eruptions and a constant erosion and growth of the soil, which would have resulted in the clearly visible horizontal earth layers. At the same time, an older theory, the catastrophe theory, was radically rejected. The combination of this geological timeline and the rejection of the catastrophe theory creates a false picture of the real events on our planet. One asteroid impact every 66 million years really isn't the worst thing to happen to Earth. Because of this, we cannot understand anything about older civilizations. So this false timeline and denial has repercussions in other fields. The catastrophe theory is based on a recurring natural disaster, characterized by a huge tidal wave, in which many living things perish and even become extinct. The evidence for this is the finding of fossils of land and marine animals in the same stratum, but also in the stratum below and on top of it. The French naturalist Georges Cuvier established this as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Ancient books such as the Zend Avesta and the Visuddhimagga tell that our planet faces a cycle of seven natural disasters. A cycle never ends. The only possible cause for an infinite cycle of disasters is a celestial body coming close to the sun and its planets at long intervals. The American geologist Ignatius Donnelly came to this conclusion in 1883. According to NASA, it is 99% certain that there is a ninth planet in our solar system. Called invisible, the planet is surrounded by a gigantic cloud of dust and asteroids and is therefore not recognized as a planet by astronomers. That ninth planet has a well-known symbol and was seen and depicted from Earth shortly before the start of our era. Abundant and convincing evidence is shown in the e-book "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It is beautiful to read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
If this guy only sees stasis when he observes the universe around him, he's either not looking or he's blind.
Where do you see one species turning into another? Where do you see life arising from deatth? Where are the stars and the planets forming?
believers in the evolution myth 'despite the best evidence' rather says it all about the narrow mindedness, doesn't it?
Marcia McGrail The theory does cause narrow mindedness which is a sickness.
Marcia Evolution is science taught in every university in the world, and most definitely not a myth. Maybe you have been living under a bridge.
Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.[3][4] The geology or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place. Different spans of time on the GTS are usually marked by corresponding changes in the composition of strata which indicate major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, which marked the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and many other groups of life.
People are still blinded because the paradigm shift does not happen so quickly and people do not understand neo darwinism and the data. The data is going to kill neo darwinism or people stop being intelligent. A critical thinker should not longer accept neo darwinism. We should know better.... science dies as long we keep believing that the data supports neo darwinism. Know the data, know the Philosophy, know the implications.... There is a gigant fingerprint of Some kind of designer/ intelligence. Deny it or not. I do not care. People will one day shake their heads because of this modern ‘ seem to be intelligent’ concept I think. The modern myth was and is that E=cd+ns+m. The origin of the first cell (amoeba) should let us overthink everything we assume to know about neo darwinism and the data.
Gary Williams Lol radio metric dating is so inaccurate. You people date the rock by the fossils and the fossils by the rock. And don’t say there are other methods because those other methods are off track also. You surely are blind.
@@K1ngs4NDWR3TCH3S Actually radiometric dating is very accurate. The half lives of elements are well known from work in physics. We can test the rates in lab settings and compare with theoretical expected values from the standard model. We use about a dozen different methods and they cross confirm each other. This allows us to date the rock layers and determine which strata hold which fossils, so when we check new areas we can use both the fossil data and the radiometrically dated geologic column data to date the rock and the fossils. For more recent dates, say the last million years, we have erosion rate data, sea floor expansion data, ice core data etc etc.
It would be nice to see Creationists pull our heads out of the bucket of our false dichotomy, the idea that the universe has to be young because the earth and sun and moon were created in six days. Let's be honest with the evidence. Light has a finite speed. What do we do with that? We can't be evidence-based on one issue, and anti-intellectual on another. At least we shouldn't. I'd like to see more honest research, more "compensating for our biases" on the issue of an old universe.
Coburn - watch Dr. Grady McMurtrie's videos, some from ICR.org and some from Answers in Genesis; evidence we just are beginning to study and barely understand suggests that even the speed of light may have been vastly different when God first spoke the universe into being. Likely His huge breath-blast of beginning-speech sent (new, JUST-created) material in all directions in space at a VERY fast pace, then it slowed as gravity pulled on it - and is still slowing today. The BEST, most obvious proof is our own magnetosphere. It is VERY well measured and understood compared to most things throughout space. Most every scientist knows it is the ONLY reason we (and all life on earth) are not instantly destroyed by our sun's radiation / solar wind. The half-life of the magnetosphere is VERY well known and agreed upon; most all scientists that study these things (old and young universe subscribers alike) agree it is almost exactly a 1400-year half life. This means the protection we have today, from damage to all life forms by the sun's rays, was TWICE as much just 1400 years ago and FOUR TIMES as much protection 2800 yrs ago; nearly 8 times as much just before and after the flood - which can easily explain why people lived 400, 500 and up to 969 years back then. It also allows us to look forward, knowing the protection from the sun's rays will be HALF what it is now just in the near future about year-3400. And then, as we approach year 4800 we will have so little protection it will be essentially as if we have none. Were it not for the return of Jesus and resurrection of or bodies plus remaking the universe described in the book of Revelation & elsewhere in the Bible, PRIOR to the year 4800, we would be wiped out completely. These facts ALSO indicate that, IF THE EARTH WERE MORE THAN 11,000 YEARS OLD, THE MAGNETOSPHERE WOULD ALREADY BE NO PROTECTION AND WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD RIGHT NOW!! - killed by our own sun.
NEXT, simply look at the SOFT TISSUE and RED BLOOD CELLS we now have several labs FROM DINOSAURS, including TRex. Yep, no kidding - found first by a VERY intelligent woman paleontologist who believes in an old earth. She believes the LAST of the dinosaurs died 67 MILLION yrs ago... yet she has STRETCHY connective tissue (not yet hardened!!??) attached to their bones and STRETCHY blood vessels containing recognizable blood cells (found as she was slicing fossilized bones into paper-thin wafers to study them more closely) - from which we CAN probably make clones!! - and have a "real" Jurassic Park situation. And she will be the first to tell you, it is absolutely impossible for these tissues & cells to last beyond 90,000 years MAX, much less 67 million. Now she has a problem she cannot explain yet (because she won't accept the actual young-earth, real explanation!). These are simple FACTS young man! :)
Sharinne Sears Amen.
@@sharinnesears3637 nicely stated. Unless the old Earth crowd would like to posit that the half life of the magnetosphere has dramatically shortened or lengthened for some reason. Then they'd have to explain why that wouldn't be true radioactive isotopes as well.
Coburn Ingram - Even the most fundamental assumptions about the interior composition and characteristics of the Earth are completely incorrect. The lie about a magma-filled, super-hot interior is taught as though it is proven fact. *IT IS NOT..!* The true composition, temperatures, etc.., actually support a world created "in and of water", and easily allow for a global flood---which are ideas that are made to sound like ridiculous propositions by the fallacious dogmas of accretion and magma.
We live in a time where experiment and observation have been replaced by inference and consensus. *We desperately need a return to the Scientific Method!!*
Coburn Ingram - I should also mention that it was NOT 6 literal days and therefore a 6,000 year old Earth. It was six 1,000 year days, and to argue otherwise will set one up for ridicule.. and here's why..:
Radiometric dating is a joke.. but Dendrochronology is the most accurate dating technique we have outside of accurate historical records, and it gives confirmation to the year (and sometimes even season of that year). The tree rings must be overlapped and cross-matched, and we have unbroken, verified chronologies going back over 10,000 years. This is beyond debate, and it's an obvious problem for those claiming a 6,000 year old Earth.. but there is no contradiction with the "each day is as a thousand years" creation paradigm.
historical science is dogma
I wouldn't let Danny Faulkener teach me how to tie shoelaces. The Bible is a Flat Earth book from cover to cover. If the earth isn't flat, the bible is wrong. The Bible isn't wrong, Danny Faulkener is.
all models of earth in all shapes/sizes is in the bible. so relax. test God with prayer!
@@lenjivko3227 Show me one scripture that describes the earth as anything other than fixed, immovable, circular, stretched out like a tent etc.
@@lenjivko3227 Thought so.
@@b14ksy17 hmmm... i tried to tell you but higher force is badlucking me in typeing now so, since you are unworthy to know the Truth coz you have some sin as obstacle --> repent honestly with tears from all your hearth from deepest part of your soul! personal effort is MANDATORY for salvation! saints go to heaven on force - holy bullyies/thugs/enforcers...Christs soldiers!
@@lenjivko3227 Sure lol...higher forces....bad luck...you sure have one twisted melon. Please post those scriptures you mentioned wont you?! *"all models of earth in all shapes/sizes is in the bible. so relax. test God with prayer!"* SHOW THE WORLD (AND GOD LOL) WHERE IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS SO!
To start off, "remove the plank from your own eye before you see fit to remove the spec in your brothers."
*"since you are unworthy to know the Truth coz you have some sin as obstacle --> repent honestly with tears from all your hearth from deepest part of your soul!"* secondly, I'm saved by Grace, not by my works, while I was Gods enemy he died for me, and forgave my sins. My sin no longer condemn me, I am a new creation in Christ Jesus. To deny this is to deny scripture.
*"personal effort is MANDATORY for salvation! "* NO it isn't! Works is a product of salvation, not a means of it. You do the "Works" and good deeds because you are born again, not because you have to!
"8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-
9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
You can't even get the basic's right let alone Biblical Cosmology. Now show me those bible verse that Danny Faulkener and you think are there.
00:01:37
"...the point is, evolution, that's hard unless you really understand what it's doing, what they're trying to do with it is they're trying to explain the world totally apart from a creator..."
Not even ten seconds in and here we go with the silly conspiracy theories. "They" are trying to explain the world without a creator..? THEY? WHO ARE THEY?!
And even if we grant that the speaker might be a bit tongue-tied, his claim is still wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution does ONE thing: it offers a tentative explanation for biologcial diversity. That's it. That's ALL it does. It does not say anything about a creator, or a god, it does not mention religion or any sacred texts, not once, not anywhere. No scientific theory does, and for good reasons.
If your faith is threatened by Darwin's theory, then you're doing your faith wrong, and you don't understand science either. Wise up!
00:03:18
"...we don't see new forms (sic) of creatures coming into existence before our eyes...we see some changes within those...kinds, but we don't see one type (sic) forming into another totally different new type..."
Evolution as described by Darwin would be falsified if some new "kind" were to be born from an entirely different "kind". The speaker clearly does not understand what Darwin's theory actually calls for.
As an aside: I have asked maybe two dozen creationists over the past ten or fifteen years to define the word "kind" as used in the context of creationism. Not a single one was able to, and I suspect (I don't know) that nobody ever will be able to, because it's useful to the creationists for this word to remain almost meaninglessly vague.
00:03:45
"...So if evolution is the true explanation of how the world came to be..."
And I'm done. This guy does not even understand that biological evolution deals exclusively with biological diversity, and is not involved in any way with "how the world came to be". That is a question best dealt with in the disciplines of astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics. I'm not going to bother watching the rest of this nonsense.
Art Maven oh, I thought it was Evolution that states that life begin as single-celled organisms a billion or so years ago.
Hmmm... if it wasn't Evolution that taught me that, where did... I get... that from?
@Art Maven, we’ve known that the darwinian theory of evolution is complete and utter horse 💩 since the seventies when we started to understand the inner workings of the cell and how genes work.
All that gobbledygook you wrote only trying to defend a pile of horse 💩
What you and other evolutionists ignore is that the creation of the universe and biological evolution as defined by modern science are intrinsically related. Biological evolution requires millions and billions of years. Meaning......the universe HAS to be that old or older. Can't have on without the other.
@@SandShark350 no more related than being 50 years old and acknowledging that the earth has to be at least 50 years old since you've been here for 50 years lmao
Major name dropping, a lot of BS with assertions galore.
Mr Faulkner. At 2:18 you state that the person who is responsible for creating the Earth and the universe is not any god or any supernatural entity, but is your " God of the bible". But you provide no evidence as to why this would have to be. Please provide some evidence that your god ( or any god ) actually exists. If you cannot do that, then it is a waste of time you posting this video. .
David Anewman Even I know about proving a negative.
David Anewman I think those making the assertion must provide the evidence.
David Anewman So my answer can be the same nonargument?Just open your eyes?
@David Anewman Well, that's certainly persuasive. Any god that creates Dicrocoelium dendriticum has a sick sense of humor.
Dude, humans have been around at least 300,000 years
Never went to the moon 🌙 earths flat covered by an ice type dome there are 2 suns maybe. And Pluto is on pluto Change my mind
G Train hahaha 😂 i said two suns maybe
And its questions asked
Ive seen nasa stuff that looks exactly like penn and teller stuff
Ditrh channel is fantastic. Watch it for a week and get back to me
If there were 6 literal days how did Adam have time to name the millions of animals on earth, tend to the garden, go to sleep and wake up, meet eve, eat the fruit, and get kicked out in the span of 24hrs
The account does not describe Adam naming millions of animals. The book of Genesis implies that Adam named each animal kind (this would equate roughly to the term "family" in modern taxonomy), which would have carried the genetic diversity to become the various species of animals we say today. This would be analogous to a wolf containing the genetic potential to become all of the breeds of dogs we see today. He need not name every single canine, just the wolf representative of the animal kind. Also, a careful reading of the text reveals that fish and water dwelling creatures were left out of this process.
Ryan Alderfer this would still take an extremely long time given there around 6,000 different animals which I’m assuming he gave original names to. Are microscopic animals included in this as well? How do we know the category of animals Adam named is the same way we categorize animals today. This still is leaving out the other events that supposedly happened within 24hrs.
6,000 years is still too short a time for descendants of, let’s say wolves, to become what we know as modern dogs.
@@isaiahthomas6744 if you actually do the math, it's plenty of time. Also, I don't believe it states Adam and Eve were immediately kicked out of Eden at the end of the 6 day creation process. It doesn't actually state how long they lived in Eden. Also, they were perfect beings. Did they even require sleep? Also, on the 6 day God declared all things to be good. The seventh day is sacred, the day of rest. The fall of Satan happened between Genesis 2 and 3. Probably a relatively short amount of time elapsed.
Elijah Laub in regards to animals changing significantly from animal common ancestor to modern animals this would take a long time. Adam and Eve were perfect in the sense that they had not yet sinned, not that they were the epitome of perfection in every way. Given that A&E ate food they likely had other normal functions like sleep. I’m of the belief the days in genesis are more symbolic of eras in time rather that 6 24hr days. Hence when god says you’ll die the day you eat of the fruit, they didn’t die until centuries later.
There are a number of things wrong with things happening so quickly that would put God in a bad light. Two being:
1) Satan rebelling and fighting against god in the same day would imply god created Satan and the angels that followed him to be evil from the beginning, in which case they aren’t actually evil, just acting in the way God created them to be.
2) this would apply to eve as well in that she was created rebellious to what Adam told her given that she (if we’re going by a literal 24hrs) disobeyed him within hours of coming into existence
Adam had a hell of a day - named a bunch of animals, had his rib torn out, ate a piece of fruit just to get punished...yeah, that's paradise!
Interesting, but to say that we’ve landed a man on the moon is impossible.
Due to the Van Allen belt radiation? Traveling at 25k miles per hour the astronauts would have encountered radiation at a rate of 13 rads per hour in the belt. Radiation is considered lethal at 300 rads/hour. Total transit time through the belts as 52 minutes. That's worst case assuming there is no shielding. By the way, the astronauts wore dosimeters that showed they received no more than 2 rads over 6 days. Amazing how the non scientists who say humans could never get through the VA belt never deal with the actual durations and speeds.
it's not impossible, you just said it.
It’s both. God created Adam instantly as a man not an infant. Adam was a man the second he came into existence. It’s reasonable to believe that perhaps God created the universe the same way.
Evolution is a religion. It takes faith or belief that can't be seen, observed or repeated.
DNA is really huge and Science can't say evolution is responsible
I find it funny people argue that it is limiting God to say why couldn't HE take billion of years. God could have created the universe in less time too 6 Hours, 6 Minutes, 6 Seconds, 6 Nano seconds. But HIS WORD said he took 6 Days.
On the other hand he said he was tired the seventh day, so I guys he have some internal combustion systems that is affected by time, now despite he apparently is outside time and space.
He is confused
Who is?
@@rocketsurgeon1746 the lecturer
@@danielschwegler5220 in what way?examples?
@@rocketsurgeon1746 claims to disprove evolution by talking about evolution of the universe and what he says about the age of the earth. As a cosmologist, he must be very confused.
@@danielschwegler5220 many cosmologists agree with him, they just can't get published by secular journals. Have you heard the arguments?
No need for time to build creation? God has never operated out of physics. Creating the universe in 6 actual days is totally against His methods.
So Jesus and Peter didn't walk on water?
So there are no wonders? And you have no soul? Because that is not part of this physical world.
So this yo-yo sees the falsified profile of Disney Pluto on Pluto, and he also thinks we went to the moon! Lost all credibility for me.
What the bible says is irrelevant. Science is not a faith based religious belief system. The earth is not 6k years old lol