How Oil Points to a Young Earth

[@wondery6693]

Sounds like oil can be a renewable resource.

[@gs1100ed]

Heaven forbid that information gets out there! What would we do with all those climate change initiatives?

[@panoslymperidis6748]

@@wondery6693 best comment in all of those videos I've seen from this channel. You sir get my upvote

[@rizdekd3912]

@@gs1100ed Consider the likelihood that oil companies know how to make crude oil in a lab facility but refuse to and instead spend billions searching for and finding natural deposits under miles of rock through which they have to drill to extract it.

[@leonkellerhuis3642]

@@wondery6693 I be been saying this for years it’s renewable and I believe it’s from the oils of plants that have mixed and brewed for it become oil

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

@@wondery6693 Nature takes millions of years to form oil. The oldest oil, found in Western Australia, is 3.2 billion years old. For oil to form, organic material - usually dead algae or bacteria - must be exposed to much higher pressure and temperature than at the Earth's surface. Usually this happens 1 to 5 kilometers underground, where temperatures range from 40 to 90 °C. If it gets even hotter, natural gas will not be produced, but oil.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

We had an old red rider wagon for our son and it sat outside when he got too big for it. It sat under the Maple tree that summer and in the fall it collected leaves that fell off the old maple tree out front. I walked by it and noticed it had lots of leaves soaking in water and didn't think twice about it because it was just an old metal toy wagon that the kids never used anymore. That winter it snowed and packed the leaves down to a thin layer. The next spring I walked by it again and all the snow had melted and evaporated leaving behind a thick sludge of black oil at the bottom where there was once leaves. Just one winter, no heat, not much pressure just water, ice and snow and then evaporation created the sludge of black oil in the bottom of the wagon. It didn't take millions of years to turn the leaves into oil. It took less than 6 months, from fall to spring.

[@JosephRusso-z7i]

@@ronaldkemp3952 YES I HAVE WITNESSED WHAT YOU JUST, BUT I DIDN'T PUT 2 + 2 TOGETHER NOT REALIZING IT'S WAS TURNING INTO OIL , THANKS FOR MAKING AWARE , AND OTHERS.

[@wizardsongs5409]

Try collecting it and perform a test. Oil and water do not mix because oil is hydrophobic. Try mixing it with water and see what happens. Also oil is lipophilic, which means it mixes with oils. Try mixing some of the black substance with some oil and see if it does mix. That would be a simple test to see whether or not if the material is actually oil. Try simply leaving it out in the sun to see how it dries. Does it become sticky or solidify or does it become dry and easily disintegrate? Does it have a strong oily aroma? Place a wick into a small amount of it and attempt to test it's flammability.

[@loafoffloof3420]

@@wizardsongs5409 snow does trap substances and what is inside snow has its temperature higher than the outside acting as a catalyst. So the hydrocarbons of the decomposing leaves, the corroding metal, and the heat shined onto the metal container (wagon) combined could have all the time it needed to mix and make hydrocarbons for oil. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is what this process is called to make oil. The reason why it isn't in common practice in industry is because it is corrosive to equipment and thus, may be more than it is worth

[@commanderthorkilj.amundsen3426]

@@wizardsongs5409 It’s interesting when folks try to give others a seventh grade level science lesson in their comments. Good job Wizard!

[@wizardsongs5409]

@@loafoffloof3420 It takes temperatures of several hundred degrees and pressures many times the earth's atmosphere to produce oil. You are trying to tell us that snow and sunshine can do it. 🤣 I wasn't born yesterday pal.

[@garrygraham]

God in His grace, used the evolution-creation debate to being me to saving faith. It was only after I ran out of excuses to reject arguments from design that I was able to say, "if creation is true, there must be a creator, so I want to know who or what it is." And of course, with the seed sown, I was led to Christ. Praise the Lord.

[@ben-str]

A level-headed conclusion.

[@howdydoodey3872]

@@ben-str Sarcasm ?

[@ben-str]

@@howdydoodey3872 I thought he had an open mind. Evaluated the evidence and concluded > Yes there was an Intelligent Creator.

[@garrygraham]

@ I looked into most, including Hinduism. Christianity was at the bottom of my list. I had been atheist and into the New Age for years. But my search for the Truth was sincere and all other religions, especially the New Age, failed the test very quickly. I wasn't even looking to Christianity, but circumstances led me to the point where the Lord of lords intervened and opened my eyes to the Truth, which is not a thing, or a system, but a person, Jesus of Nazareth, Immanuel (God with us). It was truly a miracle that cannot be manufactured or imagined. It was horrifying at first - the Gospel is an offence to the world. But I knew it to be true, and still do 28 years later. And my study and teaching of science is far more compelling and intellectually fulfilling from a Biblical Creation worldview than it ever was as a godless, ignorant and self-righteous atheist.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@garrygraham So you think the most likely explanation is that God created the world 6000 years ago and placed two people on it along side Satan...his most hated nemesis who he had cast out of heaven for rebelling...who then tempted Eve to eat some forbidden fruit that God carelessly placed in the center of an idyllic garden? And after Satan lied to Eve, she yielded to his temptation and ate of the fruit as did Adam? And because of sin, the world became corrupted and God's good creation fell until now disease, deprivation and disaster abound? And then the world became so corrupt due to sin and because the sons of God mated with the daughters of men, God had to flood the earth to drown every breathing thing except those preserved on the ark? And then millennia later, God,, realizing his first plan didn't work had to come to earth as himself so he could be a sacrifice to himself so he could forgive sins against himself and redeem the creation that is only fallen because he introduced sin into the world to begin with? THAT is your best explanation?

[@oldtimerlee8820]

As a former theistic evolutionist, Thank you. Lack of evidence of the need for millions of years to form fossil fuels, is one of the reasons that changed my mind about the book of Genesis.

[@Kel-d7v]

Why do you call yourself iam ? Because I doubt you are. ​@@iam7712

[@radfordsmith2773]

@@oldtimerlee8820 Extinction....What God would create knowing thousands of its creations would die off ? Rather odd 🤔...

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Praise God! So glad that God rescued you from that

[@radfordsmith2773]

@newcreationinchrist1423 The book of Genesis neglects to mention Angels or Hell (Sheol). "In the beginning God created the Heavens and earth". (.)

[@AHSears]

For me it was the geology and sediment formation of the Grand Canyon layers. It was recently shown in experiments that fast-moving silt filled water can lay down layers quickly.

[@tnowandthen-t8t]

When I was majoring in geology in a state college, we learned about an oil seep in the Gulf of California. A natural hot spring under the ocean floor (coming up from the San Andreas subduction zone) is seeping up through a bed of dead seaweed, and turning it into light sweet crude oil, which then rises to the surface. It's a small amount, not commercially useful, but it's there.

[@jeffburton1326]

How old was it?

[@tnowandthen-t8t]

@@jeffburton1326 I don't recall, but it was discovered in the 20th century. I don't think there is any way to date when it first started. However, the point is, oil can be produced quickly. In fact, about 10 or 15 years ago a company was claiming they could recycle trash and turn it into oil. Their process was to push hot water through the trash and collect the oil that formed, then burn the oil to produce the hot water. The process worked as advertised. The only question was whether or not it could produce enough oil to keep the process going and create an excess of oil that could be sold. In other words, was it economically viable? But they proved it did work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates both invested. Nothing came of it and it just faded away. I suspect that's because it wasn't economically viable. But the process works. Petroleum can be produced in MINUTES. It does not take millions of years. Coal can be produced in MONTHS.

[@davidh.7138]

There are oil seeps in many places in the oceans. It is a way of potentially discovering new crude oil reserves. When oil is pumped directly from such oil reservoirs, it has zero C14. This shows that it is at least 50,000 years old.

[@tnowandthen-t8t]

@@davidh.7138 I'm not describing a seep from an underground reservoir. I'm describing a well-investigated, well documented case of new crude oil being formed continuously by the means of hot water flowing through a bed of dead vegetation. It can be done in the lab in hours, it's being done in nature in hours.

[@davidh.7138]

@@tnowandthen-t8t and this proves? The earth was created 6,000 years ago?

[@dougcolthar5244]

It’s amazing to me the hoops people will jump through to deny the majesty and brilliance of God and his creation, even in a fallen state due to sin there is still such wonder in it. So happy to see people such as this channel and others in the comments who take God at his word versus the thinly veiled attempts from secular scientists to disprove God due to them not wanting to turn to Jesus as their Savior and turn from sin. God bless and may you keep doing work to bring Jesus the Son of God to as many people as possible!

[@rizdekd3912]

Why would believing in an ancient earth be denying the majesty and brilliance of God? Tell me about this fallen state...who sinned first in the world God created?

[@VisshanVis]

It’s amazing to me the hoops people will jump through to deny the majesty and brilliance of God and his creation, Just as amazing as the hoops that people jump through to convince everybody that an invisible magical mystery man created everything in 6 days and only 6000 years ago and all that without a shred of evidence to back it up.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

That's it! It is the stubbornness and rebellion of mankind. Amen 🙏🙏🙏

[@williamgreenfield9991]

You also have to jump through some hoops to believe in your imaginary "God". No one is trying to disprove "God". That is impossible. I also can't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. If I ask you if you believe in them, would you say, "Yes, because you can't disprove their existence"? If you said "No" should I ask you why you hate the Easter Bunny? Not believing in your version of "God" has nothing to do "not wanting to turn to Jesus" or not wanting to "turn from sin". It has to do with the complete lack of evidence to support the "God" hypothesis. Besides that, it is obvious that very few followers of the Jesus cult actually "turn from sin". They keep on doing sinful things since they figure that no matter how badly they behave, they have a "Get out of hell free" card in the form of forgiveness, so hey, why NOT sin? This is especially true of the church leaders. It seems that almost every day one reads a new story of some preacher being arrested for some sexual abuse scandal or financial crimes. One of the other reasons people are shunning your religion is that there is no hate like Christian love.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@williamgreenfield9991 The whole, 'atheists are atheists to avoid doing what God wants done' is nonsense. First, the atheist already doesn't think ANY gods exist, so among the things that they don't believe they can know is what God expects of humans, if anything. So IF, per chance, some atheist...someone who really had concluded that there wasn't evidence for the existence of God, comes to think that God does exist, it still doesn't tell them what that God expects of humans. So they would build their God belief anew essentially creating God in their own image and...inevitably they would find their God agrees with them on what is right/wrong, so they wouldn't change their morality at all. They COULD start to try to do better...NOT because their morality changes, but because they might now think God is or offers an incentive for them to do better, but that's not actually changing their morality, just their behavior. And anyone can choose to change their behavior to 'do better' if they think they should do better...no God needed.

[@JohnnyRedpilled]

I saw a video of someone making fossils in a lab in 24 hours. The Smithsonian even wrote an article about it. They said you can’t distinguish them from natural fossils.

[@mattk6719]

Same with diamonds.

[@rajivekuki8265]

Thank God! Now everything is becoming more and more clear. Thank God.

[@TickedOffPriest]

If oil can be formed artifiially in a short time, there is no reason to believe that it takes millions of years to form.

[@alansegger6199]

Believe me all the oil in your car is man made and has been for many years you can still buy old oil it labelled 20 50 but it for older cars modern car use synthetics.

[@rizdekd3912]

It's not the time it takes to form so much as the volume/mass of vegetation that would be required to make the amt of fossil fuel material found in the earth that requires the millions of years. How much vegetation is required to make a barrel of oil?

[@rizdekd3912]

@@alansegger6199 How much synthetic lubricant is made that doesn't start as crude oil?

[@TranscendentLion]

If a person can die at 20, there is no reason to believe that they normally live to 70. Something happening one way is not proof of that way's necessity.

[@AustinCDavis]

3:45 that’s my favorite part of ANY challenge to an old earth timeframe: “well, maybe …” No, just coming up with a narrative is not science. The scientific method begins with observation, not excuses for why your original theory doesn’t work in real life

[@HalfMoonHunter]

​@@KrisMaertens, no, it cannot inside of an already formed hard material like diamonds, just think it through!

[@globalcoupledances]

@@KrisMaertens Thanks! Just watched Greeneto

[@Mark-h2s]

Oil points to a young Earth?? Oil companies utilize radiometric dating techniques to locate potential drilling sites. This technology is based on the fact that Earth is billions of years old and would not work if Earth were merely thousands of years old. We would not be able to find the resources we all rely upon because again, the models they use and the technology is based on the fact that Earth is very old. Others have pointed out this fact in other relevant comments sections; young Earth people always saying radiometric dating is unreliable. It's reliable enough for the world's energy industry.

[@LastFirst-rr9cj]

Actual history has been suppressed for decades if not centuries.

[@wendymacdougall3471]

That is my number one phrase all the time to people who believe in evolution, “ l do not have enough faith to believe that all that we see around us it’s just random chance. It’s much easier to have faith to believe an incredible Designer did all of this!”

[@ludwigmises]

What makes you believe that those who subscribe to evolution think it’s actuated by chance? Quite the opposite, the mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is not based on random chance; it’s causal. Even if evolution were to be disproven, those who propound it aren’t arguing that it’s based on randomness.

[@bighairyviking387]

Who designed the designer then?

[@williamgreenfield9991]

Science has nothing to do with "belief". No scientist says, "I believe in gravity" or "I believe in the Pythagorean theorem". Science is based on evidence, logic, reason, and facts. "Belief" is not involved.

[@Belmondo_RH]

"“ l do not have enough faith to believe that all that we see around us it’s just random chance." You also seem not to have faced an education that allows you to understand evolution.....natural selection is everything but "randomness"

[@tonyclack5901]

The fact is that we do not have the brain developement to understand what life is about, so most people fall for the religious explanation. One thing is for sure, it is a cruel and destructive world that if created, could only have been created by something that does not understand pain and suffering.

[@myaccount13579]

They're making diamonds at EMRTC in New Mexico with coal and explosives down a drilled hole. They are 100% real.

[@mattk6719]

I love the "yeah, but it's not natural" comeback. Turn it back on them, and say "More real than your 'proto-cells' made in a lab."

[@zerosteel0123]

Thanks, CMI. Love your ministry!

[@thedude232]

Oil is not old, but lead is.

[@TheDriller571]

This should be a lesson for youtube and all of the doubters.

[@Bustafunny]

This is legitimate science

[@tims5268]

I missed the part where oil was evidence for young earth.

[@ericbochardt2989]

@tims5268 I guess you watched another video then, he is very clear in his explanation.

[@tims5268]

@ just because oil CAN form presently, doesn’t mean the universe is 6,000 years old. I’m surprised you needed that explained to you 😂

[@ericbochardt2989]

@tims5268 ok you missed a major point here, within the layers of oil deposits that are supposed to be millions of years old, are amounts of carbon 14, which only last thousands of year before completely disappearing. Raise you hand if you commented without watching the full video 😅🤣🤣🤣😅

[@tims5268]

@ a few possibilities. Samples contaminated, mistakes made, or lies told. You can get positive readings for C14 from anything because of background radiation. Even if the oil was completely misdated and is much younger than originally thought, it still isn’t evidence for young earth, that would be like pointing at a baby and saying that baby is 6 months old so is evidence that the universe is only 6 months old. Completely ludicrous.

[@graphicmaths7677]

@@ericbochardt2989 The atmosphere isn't the only source of C14. It can also be created in minute quantities by radiation deep in the ground. The amounts detected in oil and diamonds are absolutely tiny compared to the amount found in materials that are less than a few thousand years old. They are easily be explained by other sources.

[@CJBradley]

We have been lied to, we are being lied to.!

[@GeorgeVanderkuur]

You are correct, you are being lied to, think! How can the vegetation that was buried by the flood produce trillions of barrels of oil and coal seams that are hundreds of feet thick? Just because an argument agrees with your beliefs, doesn’t make it true.

[@noelfrankland9060]

YES GOD DOES EXIST BUT PEOPLE JUST LISTEN TO EVOLUTION SCIENTISTS AND DONT DO THIER OWN RESEARCH

[@rizdekd3912]

What does one have to do with the other? One need not be an atheist to be convinced evolution occurs. If evolution disproves the existence of God, then God must not exist because evolution...descent with genetic modification...occurs.

[@VisshanVis]

If there had ever been any evidence that a god had created everything, then it wouldn't have been possible for Darwin and Wallace to see evolution has and continues to occur.

[@mattk6719]

@rizdekd3912 😂😂😂 You are equivocating on the definition of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution, nor is "decent with genetic modification." Neither of those is disputed by Creationism. And neither is "natural selection." But none of the above processes has any creative power to spontaneously make something new which was not already present. Not to mention their utter impotence to overcome the first hurdle: abiogenesis.

[@mattk6719]

​@@VisshanVis So your claim is that if evidence exists for something, there can be no possibility of that evidence being ignored or misinterpreted by people who don't want it to be true? Shoot... if that's the case, let's all go get all the vaccines! We'll never get sick with anything ever again! 😂

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Thank you CMI 🙏🙏🙏 God bless you

[@gadget348]

In terms of shear quantity, how long would it take the planet too grow enough plant life to account for all of the world's oil reserves. If the answer is much longer than six thousand years then this hypothesis is dead in the water.

[@rizdekd3912]

I agree...it's not the process but the volume of vegetation. Plus, just because some process CAN do it faster, doesn't mean it actually did happen in a short time naturally.

[@oldtimerlee8820]

(1) How do you know how much fertile land was available before fossil fuel deposits were formed? Far more than there is today. Don't forget that the central US and Antarctica has tropical rain forest fossils. There a sea shells on mountain tops. Was all of Pangea fertile, before it broke apart into the continents? (2) How do you know how much carbon based life was produced on that fertile land? Remember there are fossils of ferns that are over 100' tall. And don't forget plants that grow in the sea. How much organic matter is in the world's oceans. Don't forget the Sargasso Sea or that the largest plant, in the world, is of the coast of Australia. (3) Also consider the forces that it took to accumulate sufficient organic matter to lay down thick beds of what would become coal. Using what you can see of the natural processes, happening today, with dead plants and animals, how millions of years could have accumulated the layers in coal seams, for example. Can you point to where, in the world, it can be observed to be happening today? BTW, I already know about peat bogs.

[@hollyholfeld]

So you're saying oil is a renewable resource?

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

When you take the secular narrative out of the equation and ad populum, there really is no evidence of an old earth. We can trust the bible in all things it declares. God bless, CMI

[@georg7120]

The bible contains contradictions, so you can't trust it.

[@zerosteel0123]

​@@georg7120 atheists lol

[@billlebrave8539]

@@georg7120 Oh, Does it?

[@truthgiver8286]

Yes I trust the sun orbits the earth as well just like the bible says ooop's

[@georg7120]

@@billlebrave8539 Yes, it does. Read it, and you will find them.

[@tuliolopez9749]

Reading the bible does not count as “research”

[@Benje-Donderd]

The fact that oil contains a scientific code that is not found in very old sediments does not deny the existence of a very old earth. It is like water that could have been underground for millions of years, but is very drinkable if it is brought to the surface. It is because those two liquids do not age.

[@BrianKenyon]

Okay so what is the study that shows the specific co dictions to produce this and is it energy efficient enough to suddenly make oil a renewable resource?

[@ben-str]

That's a company kept secret. Come'on if the secret got out, someone can make millions off that idea.

[@ben-str]

I bet the profit margins are very thin. He said 'you need heat', heat costs money.

[@jonathanguyot624]

​@@ben-strsun is free, lenses are cheap...

[@ben-str]

@@jonathanguyot624 "sun is free, lenses are cheap..." Are we using the sun and lenses to create a fire? hahaha Maybe I can toast a marshmallow using this technique.

[@dwightWSmith73]

George Lyell, the "Founding Father of Geology" said his goal was "free the science from Moses"

[@luisdasilva3879]

I would like to know what other process besides carbon 14 is used to know the age of the Earth or whether the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago?

[@Kreistor]

Google is your friend. As are dozens of science channels on geologic history. You can start with tree rings. We can line up tree rings of preserved wood from around the world (in glaciers, in peat bogs, in sediment) to create a view of the environment for the last 13,000 years. (The Mary Rose was perfectly preserved in 0 oxygen sediment for centuries. Yes, the natural environment does store dead trees for a lot longer than you think..) We can line up the disasters those tree rings indicate with pollen stored in Antarctic ice core samples to extend back to 200,000 years ago with the oldest cores. Since those indicate 3 glacial advance periods in the last 200,000 years, we can line that up with the scratch marks of glaciers in rock (especially in northern Canada) to find older glacial advances to see there were at least 14 glacial advances in the last 2 million years, and so on. In short, there is no simple answer for you that a random person on the internet can provide: there are a lot of different methods involved. If you want to know how a particular date was obtained, you will find it if you look.

[@vikingskuld]

Lol those are freaking awesome questions. Other types of radiometric dating is used but they all start with the same problem. Assumptions. There was a Ukrainian lab that was doing experiments with fusion and were making radioactive elements. Some of the things they found in their data were very interesting. They showed that when they created the same isotopes used in dating methods the parent daughter atoms fell out like what we find today. Which indicates a young earth and that the dating methods are flawed. Soft tissue proteins in Dino bones are not supposed to be there. For a hundred years they taught those fossils were mostly all rock and minerals with the bone long devolved away. So they couldnt even get that correct lol. Then if you look into forensics data and all the experiments they have done its very easy to prove that soft tissue isn't millions of years old. Most likely it's just a few thousand years old. A tough protein called collagen is one of many they have found and under the best circumstances a secular scientists said that any fossil with soft tissue in it couldnt be more then 700,000 years old. As by that time there would only be .001% collagen left. Aside from that they have found several other proteins like actin and Elastin. Also they have found carbon 14 in those fossils which is more proof they are a few thousand years old. That should be a good starting place for you to look up a lot of info.

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

​@@vikingskuld amen

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

​@@vikingskuld just another thing to note, carbon isn't really used by secularists to date the age of the Earth because it only goes back to no more than 10,000 years. They use other forms like uranium dating to discover what they call "deep time" and creationists have plenty of articles on that as well. Again, even with other forms of dating they start with unprovable assumptions.

[@vikingskuld]

@RobertA-oi6hw hey no they don't use carbon 14 to date the earth's age. They do use it and tree rings to try and date archeology finds. The problem is they found known dated history didn't always match up

[@christianbohls9880]

The Word proclaims it is. The first earth age. Let no MAN deceive you.

[@randywoodruff9989]

God bless you, my friend and thank you for proving what Christians already know so let’s let the whole world know

[@ElectricBluJay]

Very interesting. Thank you

[@seanpol9863]

Yeah, but that's about all. In fact, the claims made here rely on misinterpreting science and rejecting broader, more reliable evidence. And it's not faith to accept the consensus; it's trusting the method that has consistently explained and predicted natural phenomena. In fact, if we all thought like young earthers, we wouldn't have things like modern medicine or space travel.

[@ElectricBluJay]

@ I would have to disagree with a few of your points.. 1. ‘Faith’ and ‘Trust’ are synonymous terms. So saying accepting ‘consensus’ is not faith, but simply trusting in a process makes no sense… one must have faith in the process in order to trust in it. Moreover, one must have faith in the scientists drawing the conclusions which make up the ‘consensus’ in order to trust those conclusions. 2. The process itself tells us nothing. ‘Science’ tells us nothing. It’s a means of gathering information. In the end, people interpret the data and infer conclusions. And those conclusions are always subject to debate and, quite often, change. 3. ‘Consensus’ is meaningless, and abandoning study simply because ‘scientific consensus’ backs a particular idea is anti-science and limits progress. If Nicolaus Copernicus would have rested on the scientific consensus of his day, our textbooks might still have the sun revolving around the Earth. Moreover, the notion of an ancient Earth was considered quite novel and revolutionary when the likes of James Hutton posited it in the late 1700s… Prior to the 1800s, just about every scientist who ever lived was a young-Earther. If Hutton would have rested on the ‘scientific consensus’ of his day, we would not even be debating this right now. Additionally, if it weren’t for those young-Earther scientists laying the foundations of human scientific study itself, including every major area of study that led us to where we are today, we would not have medicine at all, nor basic flight, let alone space travel. I have no problem with scientists questioning things we ‘think we know’. That’s their job. The James Webb space telescope is upending prior scientific consensus on what we ‘thought we knew’ regarding our cosmological models as we speak. That’s a good thing and should be welcomed by scientists. Those scientists who feel threatened by inquiry are not so much defending science, but rather appear entrenched in an ideological battle of competing worldviews. I say study on.

[@seanpol9863]

​@@ElectricBluJayWow, mate, that's quite the spin! Alright, let's go through this point by point. 1. Faith and trust are synonymous? Sure, in a dictionary-definition-only kind of way. But when we're talking science, trust is built on evidence, repeatable experiments, and peer review - not blind leaps of faith. Equating trusting a proven method to religious faith is like saying trusting a parachute is the same as believing in unicorns. One works because physics; the other, well, doesn't. 2. Science tells us nothing? You're right - just like a hammer doesn't build a house. Tools need users. But unlike the ideologues who cherry-pick their 'interpretations,' science demands rigorous testing and accountability. Sure, conclusions can change, but only when new evidence proves them wrong. That's progress, not a flaw. 3. Consensus is meaningless? Tell that to the vaccines that wiped out smallpox or the climate models predicting rising sea levels. And Copernicus didn't reject the method; he used better data to challenge bad consensus. Big difference. And while you're praising Hutton for questioning young Earth ideas, let's not forget he relied on evidence, not dogma. Funny how you left that bit out. Finally, crediting young-Earthers for modern medicine and space travel is like thanking flat-earthers for GPS. Sure, they existed, but progress came despite their worldview, not because of it. Also, newsflash: those 'scientists' laying the groundwork? Most of them were forced to conform to religious orthodoxy to avoid persecution, not because they genuinely believed the Earth was 6,000 years old. But hey, study on - just make sure you're studying reality, not rewriting history to suit an agenda.

[@richardschorel6578]

Nick name I liked as a kid was speedy Gonzales

[@Freedom52]

God is awesome

[@andrewgraham7659]

Except that people are more interested in pushing God out of the picture rather than including Him in the picture.

[@PatrickE-k6e]

@@andrewgraham7659 Thank you! That's the biggest problem with America- and the world right now.

[@phillipbingham487]

In my opinion petroleum is differant that coal...coal is compressed organic material..while petroleum is formed by the mantle of the earth...petroleum is a mineral..formed by hydrocarbon vapors..which condense under the continental plates and seeps out of the ground....carbon and hydrogen vapers combine to form the hydrocarbons we call petroleum

[@williamclemens4882]

My only concern to be considered is the shear volume throughout the world of trillions of bbl's of oil, trillions of tons of coal, trillions of cf of gas. Where did all the material come from in such a short period of time? The reduction time may be short but it's the production time of the material that concerns me.

[@ben-str]

Where did all the material come from in such a short period of time? There's a theory that Noah's flood caused this huge amount of material to be turned upside down and buried rapidly.

[@ianmonk6211]

@@williamclemens4882 the earth was vastly different before the flood. Plenty of vegetation for the dinosaurs and everything else to eat and produce the oil we have today after the flood

[@loafoffloof3420]

the earth was plentiful, then

[@ben-str]

@@loafoffloof3420 carbon dating of oil speaks against it being millions of years old

[@williamclemens4882]

@@ben-str So what you are saying is that in less than 1 year only the animals and vegetation available at that time was enough to produce the huge volumes of fossil fuel we have today. That hardly seems possible. Someone smarter than me should attempt an estimate of volume available in one year.

[@iamtheoffenderofall]

Imagine with this knowledge, all the oil they could make and bankrupt oil companies.....oh wait.....

[@crobinson2987]

@@iamtheoffenderofall as a Christian that works for in oil and gas I disagree. If O&G companies could produce oil in commercial quantities cheaper than they can extract with traditional methods they would. If production cost are cheaper then they can sell it for less and maintain their profit margins. I can assure you they are researching how to produce hydrocarbons in labs. They tried using algae to produce diesel for decades but it failed.

[@JamesComstockCages]

First time I heard this so not on board without backup.

[@rolandgo6744]

It's millions if not billions of years old but everything created 6000 years ago. Like Adam who could be 30 years when he was created.

[@Belmondo_RH]

Nonsense.

[@rolandgo6744]

@Belmondo_RH what makes sense to you?

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@rolandgo6744 The unambigous measures we take since the 60ies. The earth is 4.6 biullion years old and the Bible is utter irrelevant in regards to any questions about nature due to the severe limited world-view, the overboarding superstition and lack knowledge of the people who wrote it.

[@ronallen1610]

Good on you mate I stand united with you on this one, that's why I laugh when they say the earth is billions of years old, Der maby 10.000 or a bit more prays owe Lord Amen 🙏

[@DiscipleofJesusChrist-t2p]

❤

[@adrianmuir2026]

I'd like to know how abiogenesis fits into all of this?.... existing oil wells replenishing, in other words.

[@endofdaysprophet]

I believe in creation AND I believe in the Bible. Can you please reference ONE scripture that references the AGE of the EARTH???

[@GaryYates-pi9gy]

Good point! 😉😉

[@GeorgeVanderkuur]

Amazing that what appears to be a rational person, believes that the trillions of barrels of oil and trillions of tons of coal resulted from burial of the vegetation present just before the flood. 😂

[@mattk6719]

Don't peat bogs also indicate a shorter development span for "fossil" fuel?

[@seanpol9863]

Peat bogs are often brought up to suggest fossil fuels could form quickly, but they don't really support that idea when you look at the full picture. Peat is just the first stage in a long process of coal formation. To turn peat into actual coal or oil, you need millions of years of intense heat, pressure, and specific conditions deep underground-none of which you find in a bog. What we see in peat today matches the early stages of fossil fuel formation, but it doesn't replace the need for deep time to complete the process. The chemical and physical transformations required to make coal or oil just can't happen on a short timeline. It's not a shortcut; it's just the beginning of a much longer process. The presence of peat only reinforces the evidence for how fossil fuels form over millions of years, not the other way around.

[@SuperBoppy]

According to Evolutionists, vegetable oil you buy in the store takes millions of years to make. 🤣🤣🤣

[@paulmurray3671]

You are living in a fantasy world. Oil comes from cambrian era tropical forests.

[@LawofMoses]

So,let's pump the ingredients back down the empty wells and produce our own oil for free. The cities can supply it all.

[@edwardtelles1956]

I'm a Young Earth Recreationest.. the Gap Theory/ Fact... The Civilization that inhabited this Planet was of the Angelic Realm . Who knows how many Millions of years old this Planet and the Universe really is . The Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 explains it all . We would have run out of Fossil Fuels a long time ago if everything was Created just 6.000 years ago..

[@georgelugenalt200]

It's a theory, not a fact. It has a parallel in what is known as "apparent age", where we say things we make are new, but are made from things that are much older, like a table or bench made from wood that we make today, while the wood is decades or even centuries old. Silicon in new glass for example. Possible the earth could be made recently, from materials that are much older. But that is a theory, there is no hard evidence for it. We should not arbitrarily give credence to the evolutionists, who make things up out of whole cloth, like Lyell did, for their own purposes, and these something out of nothing theories go back to ancient times as well, when they did not even begin to rationalize a process for them. So evolution has no legs and we ought to say so. And Lyell made his thesis up, and we ought to say that too.

[@georgelugenalt200]

Also you're not paying attention, Fossil Fuels are not made from fossils. That is an early 20th century expression of junk science. Did you watch the video? The earth's crust makes oil, there were never enough dinosaurs or "prehistoric civilizations" lol yeah right, to make the oil we've already consumed, let alone will consume in the 21st century.

[@kgp4death]

Did we carbon date raw oil?

[@CSGATI]

Is there oil on any other planets?

[@Kraken4201]

Yes

[@mmaimmortals]

Maybe. Hydrocarbons form through geologic processes. But if oil were found on other planets it wouldn't be biogenic.

[@johnsmit5999]

The fountains of the great deep could have carried some of them into outer space onto other planets.

[@mmaimmortals]

@@johnsmit5999 "...could have carried some...onto other planets." Highly unlikely. The escape velocity from earth is way, way too high.

[@FrankSmith-x6j]

According to some Christian scholars, the earth is only around 6000 years old

[@aarong8457]

I woonna naaar how they found the cabon fordeen.

[@tuliolopez9749]

👍🏻

[@ExploringSitkaAlaskausin-wj4wu]

Question: Why is the original Hebrew word for "Day" in Genesis have three different meanings? It does. Research it.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

Just like how in English day has 3 different meanings. This article talks about the different meanings of YOM in Genesis 'In my father's day...' - creation.com/in-my-fathers-day

[@DX47-h3z]

So, Carbon-14 is more of a key indicator than other than other radio isotopes.

[@silverfire01]

My understanding carbon 14 dating is only useful for less than 50000 years though i could be wrong. I think there are a few processes like radiometric dating which are for longer periods for dating the age of the earth .

[@DX47-h3z]

@silverfire01 He was saying that if C14 were in coal and diamond deposits, they couldn't be very old because the isotope should be decayed already. There was a previous video which explained a historical record of Scandinavians arrival in England in 800's AD, but was contested by scientists analysis placing the graves of said Scandinavians 200 years earlier.

[@silverfire01]

@@DX47-h3zYes is an old creationist arguement as regards coal , oil and gas. There is still carbon 14 in objects greater than 50000 years but is miniscule or less than even background radiation so radiocarbon dating would lose its accuracy i think due to the interference of background radiation . However He should take it to scientists as i say who will examine the veracity of his statements and evidence . All i can see in the video is that he is from the energy sector but doesnt say anything more.

[@Kreistor]

Different radio isotopes are useful in different age groupings, but not all isotopes can be used for dating. C14 is useful because it is constantly created in the upper atmosphere by certain radiation from the sun, and since the sun is a very constant an reliable source the creation of C14 is relatively regular. That reliable creation makes it very useful, but only out to 10 half-lives, around 50,000 years. U235 has a half-life of 700 million years. Were that to be used for dating, the amount of U235 decay in the last 50,000 years is infinitesimal and unmeasurable. It can only be used for far older ages. (But it isn't constantly generated, so doesn't have the same reliability. It has other problems and sometimes cannot be used.) Many isotopes are unusable for dating, because you can't know the starting %age in the sample.

[@mmaimmortals]

Age cannot be measured by counting any objects, C14 isotopes included. Nevertheless, it does make a good indicator for these reasons: 1) if deep time were real, there should be zero C14 in coal, diamonds, fossil fuels, Dino soft tissue, or anything over about 80k to 100k years old due to its short half life. But it's literally everywhere it shouldn't be anymore. 2) if contamination were the source, then it would be a bigger issue for porous biological materials that are supposed to be less than 50k years old due to their affinity to absorb things. Yet scientists don't consider it an issue for those things. 3). If back ground radiation were an issue, it would be an issue for "young" samples as well. And it would simply be subtracted or calibrated out of the readings. But isn't an issue for "young" objects and it isn't calibrated out.

[@Youknowthetruthdontyou]

Process this. The earth is 24901 miles in circumference. If the earth was completely hollow and we used oil at the pace we claim to be using it, and the earth was making oil at the pace these scientists claim. The earth would have been empty long ago. Science as is being taught today is for political and financial gain.

[@timhaley3459]

Is it accurate in saying that the earth is "a young earth", "only about 6,000 years old" as some creationist teach ? No, for oil has NOTHING to with dating the age of the earth. Starting off, because many have an erroneous view of the Hebrew word for day (yohm) at Genesis 1, believing it to be just 24 hours, they feel that the six "creative" days were only six 24 hour days. However, the Bible does not agree with this assessment. Why ? Very simply, Genesis 2 says that after speaking of the "history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created", it then lumps the six "creative" days as one "day", saying that "in the day that Jehovah God (see Ex 6:3, KJV) made the earth and heaven".(Gen 2:4) Hence the word day is not limited to 24 hours, for we often say our "grandfather's day" that means perhaps 70 to 80 years.(Note: the words" in that day", or future time, means a length of time far greater than 24 hours is seen some 100 times in the Bible, as at 1 Sam 8:18; Isa 2:11, 17, 20; 3:7, 18; 11:10, 11) Hence, the six "creative" days were not 24 hours, but each "day" was several thousand years long. How can this be determined ? By considering Genesis 2:3 whereby it says that God "blessed the seventh day...." "for on it has been resting (resting", Hebrew shabath, H7673, meaning "to desist from exertion, cease, rest", from which comes the word "sabbath", Hebrew shabbath, H7676, as at Ex 16:26, that is closely connected with the word "seventh", Hebrew shbiy 'iy, bringing a goal or purpose to completion, being "a day of rest") from all the work that he has created (with regard to completion of the earth for human habitation)". And then comparing this with the apostle Paul's words some 4,000 years later. At Hebrews 4, he speaks of "a promise of entering into (God's) rest.....For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.....Therefore, since it remains for some to enter into IT......Let us therefore do our utmost to enter in that rest (of the "seventh day")".(Heb 4:1, 4, 6, 11), whereby God's rest day or seventh "creative" day was still ongoing in Paul's day (this expression of "Paul's day" shows that the word "day" means a period of time, not just 24 hours), allowing for obedient ones to "enter into God's rest" on the seventh "creative" day. This fact helps sincere individuals to grasp that the six "creative" days were each several thousand years long, and realizing that God's rest day or seventh day will not end for yet another 1,000 years (when Jesus 1,000 year rule is completed, Rev 20:4-6), so that by adding 4,000 years to Paul's time + 2,000 years till our time frame from Paul's day + 1,000 years of Jesus millennial reign, then each "creative" day is about 7,000 years long. Thus, the age of the earth as being estimated at billions of years old is not at odds with modern scientific thought. But when God had reached the point whereby the earth was ready for material life, Genesis 1:2 says that "the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God's active force (or spirit, Hebrew ruach, that also means "wind" at Gen 8:1) was moving about over the surface of the waters". The earth was completely covered with water at this time, but this changed on the second "creative" day", whereby the waters ON the earth were now placed ABOVE the earth.(Gen 1:6-8) Then through the course of the rest of the "creative" days, the earth was completed and all life that now exist was created.(Gen 1:9-31)

[@angusvarcoe2357]

How do you understand that after each day of creation, the bible states ‘and there was evening and there was morning, day one. and there was evening and there was morning, day two …. and so on.

[@joseph_1925]

Well, Jesus Christ clearly implied and quoted the creation account in Genesis as Littoral...so.. I still lean towards a young earth.

[@Belmondo_RH]

"No, for oil has NOTHING to with dating the age of the earth." Neither do any interpretations of some random middle eastern mythology.

[@btu64]

@@timhaley3459 the Bible is a literal book. 7 days is 7 days. God did not write the Bible in Mysteries and code. He made it understandable for us lay people

[@georgelugenalt200]

What a waste of space, you've got it backward. Yom is a day, just like everywhere else in the Bible. And the Earth was created in one day, there is no contradiction, but that was not the end of creation week. Lot of confusion here. Earth is 6000 years old, maybe a bit older, but never a million years old, never billions.

[@danielhanawalt4998]

Interesting. Seems science is proving the existence of God instead of the other way round.

[@maptinkler]

Any kid that played all day outside like we did growing up, knows where every mud puddle, or small creek can be found. We all saw as kids, that it only took less than a week for dead grass or weeds laying in a pool of still water in the hot Alabama summer sun, to turn into multi-colored streaks of gas or oil! Less than a week!

[@onecooldude1644]

Thank you for this. I'm so tired of the evolutionists rejecting facts.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Geologists use ole earth science to find oil.

[@tuliolopez9749]

🤦🏻‍♂️

[@nigel900]

Here we go….

[@nathanpender3353]

Everything that lives produces oil there is no climate change the more carbon in the atmosphere the faster the grass will grow and that is all statement made by🎉 Pendragon mystery School

[@tomesplin4130]

Yeah, I know the geography of the local area. First of all 1000m thickness of sandstone with marine fossils all the way through. Topped with thick 30m to 50m coal seams which would take an incredible amount of material. All topped with volcanic rock which is the remnant of significant volcanic activity when there was a hot spot underneath. All this plus tremendous erosion of the basalt happened in the space of a few years just a short time ago…? Such absolute nonsense.

[@mmaimmortals]

Marine fossils on land? Sounds like a flood.

[@tomesplin4130]

@ No it was a giant basin covered by seawater. The marine fossils don’t include any land animals.

[@mmaimmortals]

@@tomesplin4130 Marine fossils on land means sea water on land which means a flood. The fact that no land animal fossils were in that particular basin is completely irrelevant. The earth is huge and not entirely covered with animals.

[@tomesplin4130]

@ Interesting. So, without even investigating or understanding the different sandstone layers, cross-bedding, grain size, sorting, and the presence of different marine fossils throughout the strata, or understanding or analyzing the adjacent rock strata, you can confidently make your pronouncement? Did God divinely give you a word of knowledge perhaps? lol

[@mmaimmortals]

@@tomesplin4130 How would you know whether I investigated or understand the different sandstone layers, cross bedding, etcetera? I know what water transport sediment looks like. Marine organisms means it was a salt water environment. Yes, the Bible gives us an historic account for the major events that happened about 4,400 years ago. When we look at the strata, 2 things immediately stand out: The process that caused the sedimentation was not slow or gradual, and the event did not happen millions of years ago. We know this by the planation surfaces between the strata changes and the relative purity of many deposits. Deep time would not give this result. When we look at the fossils, we know that the burial was rapid. Slow burial does not lend itself to exquisite preservation, especially of soft tissue. Slow burial doesn't even lend itself to crude preservation of hard body fossils because erosion is too fast. The closer the coastline is, the faster the erosion tends to be.

[@marvenlunn6086]

Why would they bother to drill for oil if it is known how to make oil

[@jvlang16]

@marvenlunn6086 because once they start making oil, everyone will be making oil.

[@steffanjansenvanvuuren3257]

Thank God for carbon 14.

[@louisslaats452]

lol, so how does the creator put oil that is tens of thousands of years old into rocklayers that are miljons of year old.

[@yep2636]

It's 4.56 billion years old.

[@TheConscientiousView]

Interesting information but if this is an argument you want to pursue in favour of a 'younger Earth', you need to address other dating methods. The obvious one which springs to mind is stratigraphy - the sequence of rock layers. Offshore drilling reaches depths of 5 miles plus below the seabed and so you are going to have to argue that sedimentary strata is formed in a much shorter time frame than is observed. I understand this is possibly a short clip from a longer interview, but it would be helpful to know who your guest is and their background. Otherwise it’s just another talking head on another KZbin video. You need to establish credibility.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

Check the description of the video 👍

[@reubentompkins8041]

Carbonized, like coal?

[@doptagd]

No, like Han Solo.

[@georg7120]

How old is the earth according to carbon 14 in oil? Much older than about 6000 years?

[@billlebrave8539]

C14 is created by the sun's rays. If the world is 6000 years old, carbon objects created 6000 years ago would have no C14 and this would cause evolutionists to date these objects much older.

[@mmaimmortals]

Age cannot be measured by counting isotopes. So C14 cannot give you an age > 6k years because it can't give you an age at all.

[@leonardgibney2997]

There are at least four ways of proving the Earth is ancient. Radioactive decay of U92. The Colorado River. Continental drift. Yes and oil deposits. All point to an Earth about 4.5 billion years old. In England the BBC conducted an experiment to see whether the cosmos is bounded or unbounded in the four dimensions. Using the microwave background radiation they found the universe is indeed unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. It did not begin and has no edge they said.

[@Dwd-m1s]

Does the Bible teach round earth or flat earth????

[@georgelugenalt200]

Round, obviously.

[@Dwd-m1s]

@ proof please

[@georgelugenalt200]

@@Dwd-m1s What are you 5? Easy to find out yourself in 20 seconds. Grow up.

[@Dwd-m1s]

@ lol do you have proof from the bible? Only 2 scriptures speaks of the shape of the earth. And you come back with an in salute lol 😂. Have faith as a child. Another bible quote.

[@georgelugenalt200]

@@Dwd-m1s Blind leading the blind. I'll bet you can find the verse that indicate it is round, there are several that imply it and one that states it. Good luck.

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

CMI always with a great content, now about oil and gas formation.

[@stormryder9202]

Mankind will never be able to prove the word of God because his word is eternal and unfortunately, we are not

[@medicalmisinformation]

You're making a big mistake by using the word "faith" as a synonym for "credulity." You have fallen into a secular linguistic trap. Would the Jesus Who chastised, "O ye of little faith" be happy with your scientists for having "more faith" than you? See your mistake? What they have is not "faith" but foolishness. Rethink your rhetoric. Faith actually is actual evidence of things unseen when it is placed in the testimony something or someone true and trustworthy. When people go out on intellectually limbs into vortices of absurdity to avoid God, that isn't faith, but INFIDELITY.

[@Rumms-Bumms69]

This whole video is pure manure, completely bollocks.

[@wataboutya9310]

Genesis does not specifically tell us anywhere in it that each creation day equals twenty-four hours.

[@user-sj1hz9qw3e]

it sounds as if you do not take genesis 1.1-11 at face value or literally as Genesis is inderstood. if you believe in an old earth millions or the multi - billions of years thay 'scientists', cant date or explain that is blind fairh as other scoffers of the word of God on this post assert. the point: denying literal 24 hours per day means if you do believe you are a Christian then you end up denying the inerrancy of Gods written word - see 2 tim 5.16. adopting an old age theory which is what your mistatement of gen 1 1-11 seems to implt, then you can intetpret Gods word to make it fit with your beliefs not Gods stated truths outlined by moses in the first 5 books you pick and choose what to believe

[@antiloser-NFS]

True it does not. furthermore it even uses the word day with 2 meanings. First meaning is the whole creative day and the second is calling the light portion of a day, "day" as well. This shows clearly that each mention of the word day is not 24 hours. Lastly the bible describes the Heavens and Earth being formed before the first creative "day"

[@johnsmit5999]

Exodus 20 does qualify what kind of time lengths they were. Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

[@Andy-oe9rd]

Some Scientists, if God Jesus Christ appeared to them. They would still deny his existence.

[@Belmondo_RH]

Let us judge that one this happens...which it never did so far.

[@Andy-oe9rd]

@Belmondo_RH you make no sense.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@Andy-oe9rdBasic syntax puts you out of your depth? Sorry! Tell me...when was the last time Christ demonstrabvly apppeared? It was never....when this happens (which it never will) then will be the moment to judge what "Some Scientists" might do or not. Was that comprehensible or shall I further dial it down?

[@Andy-oe9rd]

​@@Belmondo_RHpeople have seen Jesus appeared in visions and dreams, after their death and came back to life. Your assumption that God Jesus Christ has not appeared when testimonies all over the Internet proves you wrong. I suggest check out their testimonies. Just because you have not does not make others have not. I alone have experienced it.

[@wahlao81]

Many scientists make faith based claims that is true!

[@Belmondo_RH]

Name one "faith based" claim n any given scientific paper....you literally have millions to choose from, just name "faith based" claim in one of them.

[@wahlao81]

@Belmondo_RH abiogenesis

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@wahlao81 Where is the "faith" in the idea that life arose by neturalistic. chemical means? Elements are real, molecules are real, their interactions are real....Every biological system is in essence chemicals interacting. Life is a process that matter does...not something that matter "has" There is nothing in this that requires "faith" at all.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@wahlao81 Whereas the belief, that Some ill-defined Intelligence/ God/ supernatural whatever, which is not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science...had a hand in lifes origin is purely faith based. Such a thing is simply a figment of the religous mind with no demonstrable correaltion with reality.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@wahlao81 As things are, abiogenesis is without a credible alternative. Imaginary Gods are not in competition with any given naturalistic explanation, GHods are, idf anything in competition with unicorns and goblins for the label "existent"

[@zzausel]

It is not about creationalism but about oil and money corrupted science.

[@johnreid1387]

Genesis 1:1,2 The earth is billions of years old. Study the Hebrew text.

[@Brood_Master]

What modern science is really saying is... We don't have an answer yet, but give us enough time, and we'll come up with a really good lie...

[@Belmondo_RH]

And here you are...reaping in the benefits os science....namely medicine and all of technology...whilst accusing them of deliberately lying to you. All whilst some fraud claims the earth is not billions of years old becase his interpretation of some random mythology sais so...

[@globalcoupledances]

Just found the answer: Tests of Nuclear Bombs

[@Brood_Master]

@@Belmondo_RH So it's easier to believe that somehow, life, as complex and varied as it is. Happened purely by accident? Talk about believing mythology... The fact is, the evidence for God is overwhelming. He is there and He wants to reveal himself to you. All you need to do is humble yourself and earnestly seek Him. He gave us all free will. Therefore, He will never seek to force anything upon you. What you do in this life is all up to you and in the end. It's your choice where you spend eternity. Yes, I said eternity... >You< were created as an eternal being and this body you occupy now, is very temporary... So the question is, will you choose the paradise He created for you, or eternal separation from Him in the fiery void intended to punish satin and his minions... < You will have to answer to him in the end. No matter what you choose to believe... On that day of reckoning, the only thing that will matter is whether or not you accepted His free offer of salvation through the blood of Jesus... Here are just a few example of the evidence... The evidence for the biblical flood alone is all around us and it's overwhelming. Yet, so called scientists grasp at any explanation. No matter how ridiculous, as long as it at least sounds like it contradicts the bible. Have you noticed that they keep changing their explanations? Did you know that every major civilization on the planet has a flood story? and every major civilization has accurate depictions of dinosaurs including several depictions of what could only be Brachiosaurs necking like jeraffs do. Dinosaurs that supposedly went extinct 65 million years before humans existed??? This could only have happened if these civilizations actually saw these creatures. The massive fossil record we have at our disposal today was virtually all laid down by the flood. Fossils can only form< when buried rapidly. Did you know that the vast majority of fossils exhumed are accompanied by fossils of marine life? Did you know that intact soft tissues in dinosaur bones have been found? How about the fossilized trees found standing vertically through what "science has deemed to be millions of years of sediment... Show me where that kind of thing is happening today... The oil and coal deposits that you were told take millions of years to form can be created in about a week? The same goes for virtually every precious gem including diamonds... As for your quip inferring I should be grateful for the miracles of science... Just because "science" has managed to come up with a few gadgets that make life easier {in some ways, but not so much if you consider the facts} This doesn't dictate that "science" has all the answers. In fact most of the progress of "science" has caused more harm than good. The silicone revolution, for example, has contaminated virtually every water source on the planet... Now we are rushing headlong to go electric with our transportation. Are you aware of how toxic some of the minerals and elements are required to manufacture lithium batteries? So called "Science" DOES NOT have all the answers...

[@XavierKatzone]

🤣🤣🤣

[@jaykraft9523]

lol

[@faceplantor5647]

👊🏽⚡️🇺🇸🇮🇱

[@Knightonagreyhorse]

🤑

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

Can be made to happen artificially is not proof that's how it happened in nature. You young Earth people are just making trouble with believers.

[@mmaimmortals]

Saying it takes 100's of thousands or millions of years isn't proof either. It's story telling.

[@johnsmit5999]

I have no desire to make trouble for other believers, but if we can't believe the Bible about the past, how can we believe the Bible about the future?

[@petechimney6755]

The statement of temperatures of 250C to 300C is not correct. These high temperatures are NOT found in sedimentary basins. This equates to 480-570 degrees Fahrenheit. At a temperature at this level there would not be any oil, it would have been carbonized. I do not believe this gentlemen has any direct knowledge of the conditions where oil is generated.

[@drdarren666]

@@petechimney6755 sorry but you are incorrect. Hydrothermal liquifaction of HTL of HTC all occur at 274degC and 200bar

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@drdarren666 Dont be sorry about other peoples ignorance. Its not your fault.

[@glennhollier7562]

The earth is only 6k

[@radfordsmith2773]

As a geologist I can say with certainty that our earth is billion of years old. But , your creationist ideas will be put to test with the new telescopes to be launched into lunar orbits.....

[@mmaimmortals]

As a student of physics and radio metric dating I can say with all certainty that it is not possible to tell the age of anything by counting objects or looking at stars. It is also not physically possible for the earth to be billions of years old and look like it does today.

[@radfordsmith2773]

@mmaimmortals Mr Student, Moses crossed the Red Sea around 3300 years ago. Leaving 2700 years prior to that for the "creation ". The continents of Africa and Arabia had once been together. We absolutely know that the Red Sea is 221 miles wide at its widest. We KNOW that the continental drift producing the Red Sea is 4" a year. This is a static measurement because any larger movement would cause problems . To extrapolate that most simple equation out it would take 13 million + years to form. The ocean basin of the area is considered "maturing" by geological standards... Hardly able to have been "created" 2700 years prior to Moses. By the way , Moses who took some 40k to 100k Jews out of Egypt to the Sinai has left behind NO archeological remains. The Sinai is app. 23 k sq. kilometers. Of which 12k are somewhat habitable (water). Yet , the Israeli Government Archeological investigations have produced nothing of this massive tribe. No remains , no domicile, no living utensils.....nothing. Rather odd. I can go on about a dozen continental divides the world over. Not to mention earth catering from asteroid and meteor hits. And so on. But , the most compelling evidence of the Earth's age is not geological but that of paleontology. More specific , extinction of species.Thousands came to pass by leaving a fossilized record. A species evolutionary pattern can be shown by the comparing of its fossilized remains. From origin to extinction. Again , Hardly a created factor. More the evolutionary pattern of adaptability.....(So much more).

[@rizdekd3912]

@@mmaimmortals Why would it look like if it was billions of years old?

[@mmaimmortals]

@@rizdekd3912 At a minimum all of the land would be completely eroded into the oceans so that there is no more land above sea level, and the magnetic field would be completely gone.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@mmaimmortals "At a minimum all of the land would be completely eroded into the oceans so that there is no more land above sea level, At a minimum all of the land would be completely eroded into the oceans so that there is no more land above sea level, " Except that it is shown that the earths plates move both through measurement of land moving in relation to other land and by gps technology. So when one plate pushes up against other plates, it forces the land to thrust up forming new mountains. That would mean some mountains are still forming and others are eroding. And that rising has also been measured using gps technology. Why would the field be completely gone by now? It's not like a magnet that was formed and then left to dissipate but rather it continues because of movement within the earth. Why would God create a world in which the magnetic field, so needed to protect life, would dissipate?

[@torreyintahoe]

Another religious kook. There’s no debate the earth is close to 5 billion years old.

[@johnsmit5999]

So why is there C14 in diamonds?

[@torreyintahoe]

@@johnsmit5999 I'm very familiar with your particular style of defending your religious dogma. You find some insignificant aspect of the science (that you got from some religiously motivated pseudo scientist) that you think disproves the consensus view and then hang your hat on it like a trump card. If you think that you can disprove the scientific consensus, which is overwhelming, then I suggest you write a research paper, get it peer reviewed and published and see if you can change the academic consensus. Until then, you're a religious kook who believes a fairy tale over the science.

[@jamgill9054]

So they use some type of process that isn't found in nature and turned 'vegetation into oil'. They leave it for 'weeks, months or years' to produce oil. There was a plant in Missouri that turned animal awful into forms of oil. What's your point Notice no papers presented so we have to take his word for it. Also, just because I can take some material turn it into fuel of some type is irrelevant to the age of the earth. One does not require the other. Carbon dating is not the only method used to date materials. There are plenty of other means by which material can be dated. No, this guy is either poorly educated, mistaken or lying. Either way, he is wrong. some simple reading from actual papers can demonstrate that.

[@mmaimmortals]

You've confused 2 different things he said. "Conditions not found in nature" was for 3 minutes. Conditions found in nature was for days, weeks, and years. If you need references, CMI is very good at providing references, so go visit their easy to use website and you can find plenty of them. Age cannot be measured by counting objects. You don't really understand science if you haven't realized that.

[@jamgill9054]

@@mmaimmortals Confused? I don't think so. CMI uses presupposed conditions and then looks to find ways to justify that presupposition through word salad and unsupported science while providing no evidence of their position. The young earth hypothesis is based on genealogy from the bible. Genealogy has NOTHING to do with the age of the earth! BTW, there is zero evidence to support the idea that humans had lived for hundreds of years or that a flood can change that. Can't even believe I even have to say that. The stories in the bible were written over 2000-years-ago by people that didn't know any better. We know better than that now. Personally, I think the young earth hypothesis is an afront to God. Real education in America is under attack by the type of 'teaching' presented in this video. The 'teaching' in this video amounts to nothing more than 'Trust me bro...'. If you have evidence that can be presented that isn't from a creationist site, I'm happy to look into it. Otherwise, I'll follow the evidence that God has given us.

[@alexiachimciuc3199]

So how old... don't tell me it's biblical old. And everything is the same age I mean the solar system comes and all. How about the universe? Maybe his pool of oil was young not the earth around.

[@jamesmason8944]

He said one thing correct. " It takes more faith to believe in an old creation" People with faith know the creation we read of is a re-creation of the earth that had suffered catastrophic upheaval.

[@TickedOffPriest]

Chapter and verse?

[@jamesmason8944]

@TickedOffPriest Think of all the chapters and verses in the bible that are interpreted differently. The truth comes from the holy spirit which dwells within the faithful and guides and instructs the remnant.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@jamesmason8944 Translation: I do not have a chapter and verse to leave here, but I am going to state this dogmatically without citing Scripture.

[@jamesmason8944]

@TickedOffPriest I thought you were that type.....Translation...give me a chapter and verse so I can have an argument.

[@loafoffloof3420]

@@TickedOffPriest Genesis6:6-8

[@mad0scientist]

Alchemy - carbon dating . . . same thing.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Alchemy doesnt lead to up to billions of unalives, evolution has unalived 1,261 billion innocents during 1990-2014 alone. The other one is actually evil, other one is just superstition.

[@elmercoblentz9432]

Unbelievable! How many people watch these videos to justify their disregard for all life and life forms. Where I live there are shell beds at seventy feet and at 120 feet. I don’t see how those could be placed in a matter of weeks. The Bible is our most reliable source for evidence that man can be a better person without faith in God. There’s not one person alive who believes in having faith enough to pick up rocks and stoning a close relative to death. Nor should anyone honor and praise those who did such in a bygone culture. But they do, and even view them as the moral standard of their times. Totally disgusting!

[@jeffburton1326]

If this hypothesis was correct then this planet would be producing more oil than it can burn up. Since this is not true then this hypothesis is also not true. Nice try though.

[@deputydillhole]

It takes a lot of faith to not see the design in everything.

[@mchooksis]

It takes a lot of faith to think that there is such a thing as an intelligent designer beyond space and time...........pure fantasy.

[@deputydillhole]

@mchooksis Yet it takes no faith to realize that time, space, and matter must come into existence simultaneously. In the beginning (time) God created the Heavens (space) and the Earth (matter). Atheists have no ability to explain this. So instead they choose to skip it hoping that nobody will notice.

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

They just found a wood in which the trees were 80000 years old. What is so important to try proving the earth is 6000 old? Really, no Idea.

[@ianmonk6211]

Lol. Who was around to record the germination of those trees? No dating process operates without assumptions So we can't accept the dates out forth by evolutionists. They have been wrong so many times dating things we know the ages off

[@i7Qp4rQ]

The dendrochronology of that wood wasnt 80000 years. The supposed "datings" "gave" "them" the number. The very substance of this issue is heaven or hell. Make a wild guess how many are going into the latter, because religion of evolution's idea that the Bible is untrustworthy.

[@annalivia1308]

Nowhere does he mention anything about 6,000 years. He is correct that oil etc is not what they teach you in school. It's constantly formed.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@annalivia1308 It _can_ be formed, but does it _constantly_ form in the nature? Not at all, and you need a completely different process for hundreds of cubic _kilometres_ of it. The flood is the only event that could of done that amount.

[@mmaimmortals]

Nobody found any wood that is 80k years old. Age cannot be measured by counting objects. The age of the earth matters because the real history of the earth and what it means to mankind is at stake and at odds with the secular narrative.

[@truthgiver8286]

Religion makes people stupid 😂🤣😂

[@i7Qp4rQ]

You are talking about this religion, are you? "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - ...and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. _Evolution is a religion_ . This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today." - Michael Ruse

[@truthgiver8286]

@@i7Qp4rQ Verbal Diarrhoea I have no idea what goes on in your head for this to run out but this is gish gallop at it's best lol

[@bass4996]

@@truthgiver8286 evolution is a religion,budhism,islam,Hinduism etc.are all religions,Man trying to reach God. Christianity is not a religion,it is G od reaching to mankind

[@truthgiver8286]

@@bass4996 If this is the sort of thing they are teaching in your church it is no wonder they are failing at such a rate. It is the longest game of hide and go seek in history and you think it is real?

[@johnsmit5999]

Robert Boyle, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Carl Gauss, Blaise Pascal and Charles Babbage are just a few who take exception to that assertion.