"A single thumbs-down!" Should teach you how much your temporary existence means. Even in a 6 thousand year old universe.

@@paulgarduno2867 But we live in a universe which is billions of years old. Why would I want to live in a fantasy world? You're putting God into a little box.

@@hansweichselbaum2534 Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created...implies that God is the eternally self existing deity, OUTSIDE of time, whether you regard the earth 60, 600, 6000, 60 Billion years old, has no relevance dear Hans. No one can put God into a box regarding time, matter or space, of which He is self existent outside of that space. And He is the self existing cause thereof. Thus your, my and the next person's finite view is irrelevant and mere opinion. However, God's Word is eternal, as He is. Question is, do you take Him at His Word, and if so, how do you interpret His Word? That is the premise of this video. Wonderful food for thought and learning within the body of Christ for each of us to do our due diligence, 2 Tim 2:15, study the whole counsel of God and rightly divide His Word.

Dear Phillip. All is stated clearly in the beginning of the video for your consideration.

I don’t think they covered Steno’s laws of superposition in grade school. 😉

@lemmyhead8578 Last I checked, geology and paleontology aren’t typically taught in any great detail in elementary school. 😉

Thank you!

So what's the difference between personal incredulity and proper scepticism?

@DanielStephenson-l8x proper skepticism is not predisposing the conclusion. It is following the evidence presented. Personal incredulity is ignoring and dismissing anything that may contradict your world view

I’m not sure what “arguments” you’re referring to, since in this presentation I’m not focused on apologetics but rather laying out a framework for a positive account of scientific data. This presentation is aimed at those who hold or who are open towards a YEC position, but would like to understand their options in explaining scientific data within that paradigm. I could give a similar presentation from within an Old Earth paradigm, and of course the options would be very different. But I don’t think the evidence I discussed here is necessarily determinative for choosing between a YE or OE paradigm - ultimately that is a philosophical and theological question, not a scientific one. The Floating Forest theory is indeed an interesting one! However, it’s not as fanciful as it may sound. We have floating forest ecosystems in the modern world, in fact there’s a locally famous one in central Wisconsin, which to this day has to periodically be pushed out into the lake to avoid colliding with a highway bridge. The Carboniferous fossil plants appear to have many features conducive to growing upon a water surface, and the fact that they are buried in marine (ocean) sediments is further evidence that they are part of a “super”-marine ecosystem. The FF theory actually explains more of the data than the conventional “swamp” explanation does, which is a good thing in a scientific model!

@@ZacharyKlein You say "I could give a similar presentation from within an Old Earth paradigm" ?? Are you giving a lecture on philosophical ideas, or on history of creationism? That would be ok, but then, please, leave the word "science" out. Your audience certainly interprets your talk as the scientific interpretation of data. The earth is either thousands of years old, or it is billions of years old. It can't be both, so at least one 'interpretation' must be wrong. Do we agree on that? Are you not interested in what is actually really TRUE? The fact that the earth is at least millions of years old, that fact has been established two and a half centuries ago. Do you really want to lie to your audience by telling them something which is blatantly untrue? I encourage you to visit BioLogos (and there are plenty of other organisations like that) and see for yourself how many people lose their Christian faith because they are told that they cannot "believe in millions of years" and be Christians.