The Age of Things: Does it Matter? - Dr. Kurt Wise (Conf Lecture)

[@Sawedoff53]

I love listening to curt. Thanks for everyone's time and efforts.

[@aletheakelly1010]

Love these lectures! THANK YOU for making these available. I have found in recent weeks, after watching these videos (and the DVD series we bought), it has made a difference in my mind the age of the creation. It puts things into perspective: Earth is a mere stepping stone to the next life, a chance ro learn to love Jesus. I am less inclined to fear the unknown of what is next realizing that what I have been clinging too isnt that eternally (billions of years) old.

[@jerrymoore838]

Kurt always does excellent engaging presentations. Look forward to each and every one

[@shifflorence6628]

There is a book written about 1650’s that indeed affirms your theory. This is wonderful

[@glenparker234]

Another point to consider for the lack of human fossils preflood is that people who died pre flood didn’t die in conditions that would create fossils. As was explained in another of your lectures, it takes special conditions to make fossils and normal conditions result in rapid decay, not fossilization.

[@intoleranttexan5687]

I'm so grateful for intellectuals that help Christians put evidence into words to explain what we Christians already know

[@BilboBegginz]

I struggled through parts of this lecture, not because I disagree with the young earth, but my Spirit was troubled listening to the statements of argument for old earth.. Then you ended with such a wonderful testimony!! 🙏 I am so happy to have found this channel! I have always been very scientific minded and your enthusiasm for the wonder of creation shows. Thank you for creating such high quality content.

[@BilboBegginz]

@Noahs Ark I agree. The theories slowly slipped their way into the facts while we weren’t watching... now it’s just a matter of getting kids to repeat verbatim what the academia feed them.

[@ozowen]

@Noahs Ark The problem with the old earth is that it is evidence based and thus, after decades of challenges has shown not only to be correct, but that no other model is possible

[@ozowen]

@Noahs Ark "false......" Nope, I am correct. old earth science is the secular and accepted science" Correct. And it is far far more accurate than the disproven claims of YEC ."...there is no proof of the actual age of the earth." There is abundant evidence ranging from over 30 different dating methods. There are manual means as well, such as counting varve laminae, known accretion rates of things like limestone, coral, chalk etc. Then there are disproofs in abundance that leave the young earth impossible. "There is another explanation only you're blind to it....because you want to be." I chucked in being a creationist as I discovered how science works and how creationism is not only pseudo science, it is without any scientific capacity. "I accept the other explanation as the only explanation." Feel free, but you do so accepting it despite it being a lie.

[@ozowen]

@Noahs Ark "liars are always right.....until they're not. " And you are wrong already.

[@ozowen]

@Noahs Ark Note how you failed to address a single thing I said? I noticed.

[@mikemoore7614]

Thank you Dr. Wise for the excellent video , God bless you & yours .

[@gtw4546]

One of the best messages I've heard in a VERY long time. The ending was awesome!

[@viviant4777]

Thank you, Dr. Wise, for your detailed explanation of how Genesis 1-11 is foundational to Christian doctrine and for standing on the authority of the Word of God the Creator. My children love your enthusiasm in presenting, as do I. Keep up the good work.

[@petramitchell7162]

Wow! That was an inspiring presentation! Thank you so much for putting it together. Your love for God just oozes out of you. God bless

[@brichardson104]

I am provoked to jealousy by your excellent presentation, well done good and faithful servant, double his coins.

[@maartenwilmaboer1383]

A very very interesting subject. Thank you for this teaching. Debating about it this way, makes darwinists think again.

[@zacdredge3859]

This conference talk is directed at theists and most particularly Christians who are unsure where they fall in relationship to Biblical fallibility and historicity. I feel like that is obvious by the way it's framed but maybe some need clarification that Kurt Wises scientific lectures on paleontology and geology can be found elsewhere and this one is mostly theology. Go watch those instead if you're not here to hear about the reasoning behind their being contradictions between old earth interpretation of the fossil record and the Bible, or at least any Biblical interpretation that leaves a basis for the Christian gospel.

[@olmose]

I really enjoy Dr. Wise's presentations, thank you so much.

[@PJRayment]

@@timhallas4275 This is real science. And Kurt Wise is a real scientist.

[@PJRayment]

@@timhallas4275 You don't know that. That is your rationalisation. I could equally say that atheist who have a degree are compromised by their need to explain things without God. Further, your comment ignores all those who became creationists because the evidence convinced them.

[@PJRayment]

@@timhallas4275 So you resort to insult because you have no rational answer?

[@PJRayment]

@@ozowen5961 "And that drivel ignores all the creationists that lost their faith because they were lied to about science. You know, like you are doing now." And yet you haven't documented and provided evidence for any lies. So that is a vacuous and slanderous claim. But then evidence would require some research, and you might find that it doesn't show what you think is the case.

[@PJRayment]

@@ozowen5961 How are those things supposedly disproven? I haven't seen disproofs of them, and I've been following this issue-and debating with critics-for a long time now. What I often see are _claims_ that it's been disproven, but not the actual supposed disproofs. And what's your evidence that there is zero evidence for the things you mentioned? Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any. "Creationists have to misrepresent science and the evidence to make their case. This is a constant feature of their work." Then it shouldn't be hard to give examples of such misrepresentation. So why haven't you? "Open any creationist magazine, or whatever and you will find over 90% of their articles are about attacking evolution, science and the people behind it." Simply false. "Open scientific journals, magazines, papers and you will rarely find creationism even mentioned. Why? Because it is irrelevant." No, because they want to treat it as though it's irrelevant, because they can't actually fault it. "It is irrelevant because it has no place in science, because the whole thing is premised on the young Earth, the global flood and special creation. And science ditched them because they are wrong." No, people opposed to the biblical account ditched them because they didn't want to believe them. That is well documented. So many claims. So little evidence. I'm talking about you.

[@gamerxg7789]

I think God isn't not choosing us but we are choosing God and he only choosing the one that except him. Amen

[@karryphillips6411]

Awesome presentation.

[@Mr_J_Brown]

Incredible presentation

[@ozowen]

Yep, totally without credibility.

[@jakejones3453]

Regarding the issue of "Made in the image of God," My research has concluded that, in accordance with the Hebrew, it's better translated as "Image Bearer" meaning we were made to show the qualities of God, not a Painters self portrait. Thoughts?

[@taylor6618]

Your interpretation is how I understand it .

[@ishwarlxm6333]

these scientists are doing greatest job.....

[@Jeremiah6071]

Early church leaders and theologians long before Darwin or any evidence regarding the age of the Earth had differing views about the age of the universe and the meaning of the text in Genesis based solely on the text itself. That debate still exists today, not because of science, but solely on the text itself. I'm a creationist, but I don't adhere to a young or old universe. I just don't know. I find it interesting to hear both sides discuss it, but at the end of the day, if early church fathers, and people like Dr. Heiser who has a PHD in the Hebrew Bible and Semitic Studies with a masters in Ancient History say the text can be interpreted either way, I don't see why I would be dogmatic about it.

[@BibleResearchTools]

J B, you wrote, "I'm a creationist, but I don't adhere to a young or old universe. I just don't know. I find it interesting to hear both sides discuss it, but at the end of the day, if early church fathers, and people like Dr. Heiser who has a PHD in the Hebrew Bible and Semitic Studies with a masters in Ancient History say the text can be interpreted either way, I don't see why I would be dogmatic about it." Michael Heiser is a genius-level ANE language scholar. I have listened to hundreds of his lectures/podcasts, and I have most all of his books. The age of the earth is one of the few points on which we disagree. I was an old-earther for most of my life (until well into my 60's,) until I examined the geologic column for the first time. There is no way those thick, homogeneous sedimentary rock layers could have been deposited over long periods of time. That revelation turned me into a YEC. BTW, Heiser's work on the angels, in particular the Divine Council of Psalm 82 and the pre-flood "fallen" angels of Genesis 6, has completely changed my way of looking at them. His work cleared up many confusing New Testament passages, as well, such as: _"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." -- 1Cor 2:6-8 KJV_ I struggled with that passage for decades, until, with Heiser's help, I realized those princes may have been Satan's angels who ruled the nations. This passage, in which the Angel of the Lord is instructing Daniel, identifies angels as princes: _"Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." -- Dan __10:12__-13 KJV_ Notice there was a prince of the kingdom of Persia who was powerful enough to withstand the Angel of the Lord for 21 days, until Michael arrived to assist him. There were also kings of Persia. Michael is referenced in two other places in Daniel: _"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." -- Dan __10:21__ KJV_ _"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." -- Dan 12:1 KJV_ In the gospel of John, Jesus identified Satan as the "prince of this world." _"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." -- John __12:31__ KJV_ _"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." -- John __14:30__ KJV_ _"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." -- John 16:7-11 KJV_ So, what was Paul saying in 1 Cor 2:8? I believe he simply stated that Satan and his angels would not have killed the Lord if they had known that, once they did, and he was resurrected, they would lose all power. During his ministry, Satan had power over the nations: _"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." -- Luk 4:5-6 KJV_ But after Jesus's resurrection, he regained control over the nations: _"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." -- Mat __28:18__ KJV_ Satan and his angels were given power over the nations at Babel: _"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." -- Deu 32:8 ESV 1970_ _"When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God." -- Deu 32:8 LXX_ Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. Dan

[@Jeremiah6071]

@@BibleResearchTools Wow. That was the longest comment I think I have ever seen, but it is quite good. Thank you for that. Well said all the way around. If I were to complain as I am accustom to doing, it would be that the KJV gives me headaches. I'm going to have to look all those passages up in English to get a better idea of what you're saying :) Like you I am a huge Heiser fan. I've watched and listened to hours and hours of podcasts and lectures. I own 2 of his books and I am rereading Unseen Realm. You are so right that once you see it, you can't unsee it. As to the the debate on the age of the universe, I don't think you can say that you disagree with Heiser because I don't think he really takes a stand one way or another. He just points out that the text itself is ambiguous. I think the geologic column could have certainly been laid down rapidly, but that doesn't really point to the age of the universe or even the planet. Catastrophic reshaping of existing material could account for what we see. The real problems are radiometric dating and light travel time. Radiometric dating is sometimes just all kind of wrong. Certain things give you crazy results. The problem I think is with the assumptions. You have to assume a constant decay rate and you have to assume no daughter material. On the surface that gives good reason to doubt it's reliability. However, if you dig deeper you find that a higher decay rate generates so much heat that it's not a good answer and certain materials are known to have no daughter material upon formation. Forgive me if I butchered that, it's been a while since I studied nuclear physics lol. Now the real problem is with light travel time. We know the speed of light and we know how far away some of the things we see are. I've yet to see a satisfactory answer to how you see light that takes a billion years to travel here if the universe is only a few thousand years old. I heard one guy, Dr. Jason Lisle I think it was argue that we don't know the one way speed of light which is nonsense. Of course we do. We use it whenever we communicate with the Mars rover among other things. Dr. Russel Humphreys had an interesting theory as well which is far to complex for me to articulate, but from a purely scientific stand point, I have yet to hear a good answer. With that said, God can do things that we may never have the capability to understand so I have to consider that as well. Simply because we cannot figure out how it was done, doesn't mean it wasn't done. That is why I am agnostic when it comes to the age of the universe. Maybe it's young, maybe it's old, I don't know, and I'm o.k. with that. It won't shake my faith either way.

[@NoName-DonKai]

Perfect explanation..🎉🎉🎉

[@jjeffles]

Thank you so much for this!

[@jameswelsh3433]

I believe that the reason Eve from created (genetically) from Adam is that this makes her a “descendant” of Adam, and eligible for salvation by our Kinsman Redeemer. Otherwise, if she was created the way Adam was, this genetic relationship would not be there, and Eve wouldn’t be eligible for salvation (at least in the manner through which salvation was accomplished).

[@drewwilson7005]

This should have billions of views

[@darthbane2669]

@@IIrandhandleII More science than you ever see with evolution bull science.

[@seankennedy4284]

@@IIrandhandleII _this video is junk science_ Just out of curiosity, what's something specifically you find to be in error here?

[@jstep100]

Good stuff! Thank you sir!

[@ElonTrump19]

Dr. Wise I really enjoy your lessons.

[@jacobsparks6424]

If there were no gaps in the Gen. 11 genealogy, it would add up to 292 years between Noah and Abraham, which would mean Noah died when Abraham was 52 years old. This would mean the flood occurred around 2300 BC. When Abraham was 75 years old he traveled with Lot to a developed Egyptian civilization (Gen. 12). That would mean that Egypt survived the flood. Or Egypt would have had to develop to its 11th dynasty within the 100 - 400 year gap. How would he account for Egypt?

[@charlesdevier8203]

Actually, it was 395 years between Noah and Abraham, but does it really matter?

[@mikedeitz2924]

@@charlesdevier8203 Take into account the age of each father when their sons were born.

[@collin501]

Check septuagint dating, which agrees with other ancient texts as well. I believe it includes more time which makes sense of Egyptian timeline.

[@papayaman78]

Thank you

[@petefranklin4258]

Well presented & argued.

[@15knexlaz38]

Great lecture. Fully agree with everything. Give God the glory for his scripture and his creation.

[@paradigmbuster]

If one subscribes to an old earth and evolution He can deny the Creator and still feel good about Himself.

[@kathyjames9250]

Thank you Dr. Wise for doing your homework! Your teaching is very clear. My general comment to the replies I have read here, (as a layman) is that I see that scientists as well as the religions (and any field) are somewhat obligated to follow the trail of breadcrumbs left by those who came before them. As for the Bible, Scripture tells us to examine what it says thoroughly. It says if we seek God with all our hearts, we will find him. Most people who have disregarded the Bible have not read it, but believe common misconceptions, or whatever they prefer to believe. Many otherwise intelligent people seeking to disprove the Bible became humble believers. When we find we are threatened by the throes of life, there is only one place to take refuge, and that is in Scripture. God gave every opportunity to turn to Life before enacting the Flood, but for most of the people it was business as usual until it came. Also, there are interesting historical documents turning up, some in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various histories and genealogies of the sons of Noah, plus the oral traditions passed down through the centuries by aboriginals of the earth who include a worldwide flood in their accounts.

[@crisjones7923]

This presentation does a good job of showing why old earth creationism (like that of Hugh Ross) and biblical inerrency are incompatible ideas. The fact is you must jettison the idea of inerrency if you hold to an old earth. The exegetical gymnastics one must perform to hold the 2 ideas simultaneously are over the top and amount to a case of cognitive dissonance . It seems to me that if one rejects YEC one is forced to take an extremely liberal view of the scriptures. Not to say that one could not remain a Christian, however the Bible would have to be viewed as mostly a collection of ancient myths and archetypal stories mixed in with some actual history.

[@CJFCarlsson]

I think you accept too much of the atheists reasoning and that is why they dress up as evolutionists and "love" science. THEY believe that once you do not believe in Noah your christian faith will collapse, which is at most a halftruth. Christianity is centered around the person of Christ, not Noah. Myth is not a synonym for untruth. Myth is a concise way of explaining origin, purpose, context. Because of that scope it will lack scientific detail and it will not be disproven by "scientific fact". Jesus does not have a certificate of death and none o resurrection but there are witnesses from around the cross and from meeting him afterwards and there are people holding to his truths today. He explains where others just deny. There are diffences between the resurrection and creation or the flood, in age of the events and number of witnesses, being 0 (two after the main events) human and 8 human and hundreds of human witnesses for the resurrection and the form of the narrative leaves it more open to interpretation in the earlier cases. In my view the form of the narrative for the earlier narratives is chosen to be robust over hundreds of years, so that there are more of a memnonic pattern them. Bishop Ushers attempt at dating and the attempts to date rocks or the universe, by size and rate of expansion, should not be regarded as challenges to the myth. Going down the path of adding scienctific explanations to the myth detracts and leads to ambushes on any technical question on how to pack tigers and lambs, why humanity does not lack one rib. Science does not do miracles, or morality. Atheists tend to be so-so in science. Worse on the other two.

[@googletaqiyya184]

Sure. As long as you assume linear and unchangeable time. A minute being always the same length. Also assuming that the world was not created with these fossils. When your head is locked into a certain format it is difficult to think in ways other than the one it had been programmed with. Funny how scientists say they are open-minded yet claim to be atheists. Agnostic makes the most logical case, yet they seem to be programmed with hatred for religion. Hardly open-minded.

[@Barthaneous34]

Everything you said is empty

[@knightclan4]

Cris Jones I agree with you. Historical narrative writing, as in Genesis, is as plain as it can be. The flood happening as written seems to be how Moses wanted his readers to understand the event. If not, at what point do we start believing the historical accuracy.

[@813infinityfilms123]

Why do you attack his person and not his evidenced! Its your bias that blinds you!

[@joburton1629]

Makes perfect sense

[@ozowen]

despite being nonsense.

[@lawneymalbrough4309]

It definitely maters. We need to put an end to the evolution hypothesis.

[@mikemolaro4198]

Wow. I had a hair raising moment today, to think that God made ALL of this, every tree and shade of green, every sunrise and cloud pattern (I could go on and on)...He made it ALL for us! Us Meatheads! What a God! And He just did it! Not 18 gazillion years of nonsense and chaos and animal death and survival of the fittest. Nonsense. He made this Earth and put us in it about 7000 years ago. Glory to God!!! What a paradigm shift!

[@karinlofgren6359]

Thank's a lot, a lot Kurt. I totally agree with you. The evidence of an old earth is not holding up to any part of science thinking, if you take science serious. And you are so right, why put your trust in the fallen mans worldwiev? Your'e doing a absolute fantastic job with your lectures. We really need people like you. I wish you all Gods blessing. Keep up the good work, even if times are getting darker. Once again, all Gods blessing to you. Greetings from Sweden, the land of glory and heroes.

[@b-manz]

Karin Löfgren those are poor arguments. Just suits you then?

[@karinlofgren6359]

@@b-manz Well, or you can turn around and say the same thing to yourself. And that will also be true. But seriously, how can anybody buy the poorly argument from secular scientists? But, in the end, if the Bible is right, then we will have the answer ahead as Jesus returns.

[@BibleResearchTools]

ozowen , you wrote, "There is no science supporting a young Earth." You are the consummate troll, ozowen. Again you misstated. That should have read, "There is NO science supporting evolution." Just-so stories are not science. Dan

[@BibleResearchTools]

ozowen, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools You say that stuff, yet no scientific field recognises the basic claims of creationism." All scientific fields recognized them before a failed theologian (Darwin) and a slick lawyer (Lyell,) neither of which were trained scientists, conspired to "get God out of science." Unfortunately for science, the religious cult of evolutionism controls all fields and suppresses the truth. ============= ozowen, you wrote, "No geology paper speaks to the global Noachim Flood." Of course they do. I have many geology papers that mention the flood. ============= ozowen, you wrote, "No geology work speaks to a young Earth, none." Of course they do. I have many geology papers that speaks to a young earth. ============= ozowen, you wrote, "No Biology work speaks to special creation, a dna bottle neck caused by a flood, geographic species radiation from Turkey." Many papers focus on special creation, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA studies, and, of course, the geographical origin of the ark landing. This study involves all three: creation.com/noah-and-genetics ============= ozowen, you wrote, "Your assertions are devoid of science." I will agree that evolutionism is devoid of science. That is why you must continually misdirect and obfuscate, rather than present solid evidence. If there was any empirical, observable evidence for evolution, you would have presented it by now. You are a troll, ozowen. Dan

[@guylelanglois6642]

Awesome

[@raydel5732]

"It's NOT a text book at all . Amen

[@mrchrysler9736]

Well the first five books are properly known as "The Torah", which in Hebrew means "The Instructions". And it does scientifically separate clean animals from unclean animals that the toxicity of the unclean animals can be shown to be at a much higher pollution of humans. It's why He tries to protect us by telling us not to eat unclean animals. Problem is, is humans are rebellious. Nimrod. Though they will regret that when He returns with a flaming sword looking for pork eaters. (Isaiah 66)

[@robo3142]

Then it is a newspaper

[@justinis1454]

@@IIrandhandleII Are you listening to your self ?

[@emmanuelmasih2296]

@@mrchrysler9736 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@emmanuelmasih2296]

@@IIrandhandleII because hi deity is fallacious doesn't mean others are... Logical fallacy

[@Derekwwest]

Great Close!

[@rongplanet]

Quite mad. His eyeballs almost popped out!

[@dilshanchrishantha6548]

great lecture over the bible in the basis of the creation.Holy bible is the genuine foundation of the christianity originated with the true God of Almighty.

[@gjorgin]

If fossilization is a rapid proccess (we have post flood fossils), why arent any fossils, from 2000 or 1000 years ago? Loved your presentation

[@ozowen]

Because fossilisation is not as rapid as these guys claim. Great presentation, low on facts

[@IamDogcrazy]

Things fossilisation takes special conditions.

[@shaneamundson1192]

The trees that were washed into and standing upright in the bottom of Spirit Lake, as a result of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption, are petrified.

[@briananseeuw3534]

Awesome, totally awesome. The last minute was the best part!

[@kanglinyao]

I love this.

[@timreynolds2643]

You should be able to see millions of human fossils from the flood period, they should be in the same rock layer or sediment layer as all the animals. Why can’t we see humans in those same levels? I find it very strange that he started out so good but fails to correlate the flood sediment with the fossil record.

[@me072]

There are very few terrestrial fossils in the record relative to the total number of fossils found. I believe it is like 1 percent or less. The vast majority are marine fossils. So we should not expect to find many human fossils. Is every other land dwelling animal alive today well represented in the fossil record?

[@catherinewilson3370]

In your opinion is there any fossil record of humans destroyed in the flood ?

[@lillianwright2641]

Interesting question. If one starts with the assumption that the biblical record is accurate, then all the humans were on the plains of Shinar. They disobeyed God's command to spread out and subdue the earth and built the tower of babel instead. So, if there are any human fossils that were directly caused by the flood, they would be there. Good luck getting permission to dig there... Middle eastern country, Saudi Arabia?

[@lillianwright2641]

Lol!! That's what I get for commenting before coffee...

[@jeremeypardun1977]

@@lillianwright2641 not sureif tou recanted your statement. But babel was after the flood, not before.

[@paulbriggs3072]

@@jeremeypardun1977 Not to mention the fact that Shinar is in modern Iraq not Arabia.

[@edwardsouth1711]

Of course it matters ... if the earth is, as I believe, young; then in the face of a couple hundred years of ongoing controversy ... it would decree that science has intentionally lied to me my whole life.

[@knightclan4]

ozowen You apparently have not researched this theory very well yet. What realms of science do you base your thinking of an old earth on.

[@edwardsouth1711]

ozowen If our little back and forth in the other thread for this video is any indication; then I don’t think Rick has too much to worry about.

[@edwardsouth1711]

ozowen You’re so wrapped up in bias and logical fallacies you wouldn’t recognize the truth if you landed in it face first. PS: You forgot to respond to my last post in the other thread. I really wanted to hear those answers I know you’re unable to provide Oz.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Edward South , you wrote, "if the earth is, as I believe, young; then in the face of a couple hundred years of ongoing controversy ... it would decree that science has intentionally lied to me my whole life." Science never lies, but many scientists certainly do. Dan

[@BibleResearchTools]

@@edwardsouth1711, ozowen is a troll.

[@christinemiller1885]

Very powerful ... ” and there I must STAND”.

[@sawboneiomc8809]

I just have one question to all old age creationists. Can God speak into existence a universe that looks exactly like the one we have today? If you don’t believe in God, that question has no value to you. If you do believe in God, why can he do it today and not yesterday? If he can’t speak into existence a universe that looks exactly like the one we have, why call Him God anyway?

[@rovidius2006]

It is only informational that we have a clue of how things came into existence, no one knows the limits of what a perceived God can do . The very question is loaded with the intent of mocking the possibility of a creator .

[@sawboneiomc8809]

rovidius2006 ...the question has no value to you like I stated. There are only 2 possibilities, there is a God..or there isn’t a God. With your statement of “perceived god” you fall in the later. So the question stands on its own, and only is valid to one who is in the camp of God exists. If he isn’t all powerful, then another can come dethrone him and creation is a mute point. Finally it has no intention of mocking a creator, it has at its very heart the affirmation of n all powerful, eternal God that can speak into existence a universe that he so desires . Please reread the question

[@Brukaviador]

Fantastic video. I learned a lot here.

[@timreynolds2643]

Why don’t you guys go with the flood and pin everything from that timeframe. That would be far more logical and relevant to everyone.

[@constructivecritique5191]

The formation of the earth crust develop from space dust while life existed? I don't see how that's possible. If we follow the current secular model, the universe began at a specific time. So what causes different ages in the universe, including on earth. All the matter in the universe is the same age? What is the age of?

[@papayaman78]

Where do you place the fossils of humans that died before and during the flood? I seemnto have missed that?

[@ozowen]

There are no actual layers for the supposed flood, so the question is meaningless.

[@thomasosborne8579]

Amen, brother!

[@ShadrachHowie]

Age maters.... Amen...in dating, wine and factually understanding the past.

[@ShadrachHowie]

ozowen we are a young planet and creation. Mater of fact

[@ShadrachHowie]

@@ozowen5961 says eye witnesses. wake up and look around you and I both are created with intelligent design and purpose. But be fully persuaded one way or the other.

[@ShadrachHowie]

@@ozowen5961 it was not an evolutionary long process. From the beginning. scripture provides us with written accurate history and timeline. Not accepted by all I respect your opinion.

[@PJRayment]

@@ozowen5961 "Indeed, and the world is billions of years old" To quote you, "Your "facts" are based only on belief." Belief in the naturalistic views of many scientists and others. "Your beliefs are based on your interpretation of the Bible (exegetical method)" Those beliefs agree with those of Jesus and other biblical authors. "Your exegetical method is based on a new doctrine that claims the Bible is always right in every word." Nothing "new" about that. Jesus believed that, as he said that all of Scripture is worthy as instruction. He did add any riders such as "except for these bits..." "Those are facts." No, they are not. "Other facts include the fact that the Earth is ancient, and that the evidence for this has been despite the beliefs of those who did this research." Yes, the earth is ancient. 6000 years is a long time. But as for older, no, it is _because of_ (not despite) the beliefs of non-Christians such as Hutton and Lyell, the latter who said that his goal was to divorce the science from Moses. He _wanted_ to get away from the biblical account. "Eye witnesses are always poor evidence." No, they are not, and courts rely on them almost exclusively. Even scientific evidence is actually eye-witness evidence of the scientist who did the tests. "But they are not actually eye witnesses, so that's a fail." Who are not eye-witnesses? The only part of Genesis that wasn't witnesses by humans was the first five-and-a-part days of creation. But even that was witnessed by God, who is the ultimate author of the Bible. "But Scripture is not historically accurate at all. It gets timing and events wrong a fair bit." And yet you don't cite any examples. I'd be confident that the only things it gets "wrong" is where it disagrees with an opposing view (deep time and evolution), but it is not wrong simply by contradicting that view, which could itself be wrong. "Most denominations don't see this as an issue. Only creationists" There are creationists in all denominations. It's not a denominational thing, but a matter of whether you are going to believe what the Bible clearly says, or are going to accept the naturalistic views of the majority of scientists. In (almost?) everything you said, you only made sweeping generalisations, with no specifics. That's the lazy way to criticise.

[@ShadrachHowie]

ozowen is Genesis history? I am fully persuaded yes.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

How Does A Centrifuge Work?

[@alanthompson8515]

Verify Truth How does Google work?

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@alanthompson8515 Google Works With Ones And Zeros.

[@alanthompson8515]

@@VerifyTheTruth Does it? Well, I'm the One, and you are.....?

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@alanthompson8515 Quality & Quantum

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@alanthompson8515 The Ghost In The Machine.

[@MN-nr8bq]

One question I’ve never been able to answer is who did Cain marry? Where did she come from?

[@chainingsolid]

The bible doesn't provide full lists of decedents in genealogies, but instead focuses on tracing Jesus back to Adam. So Cain would have married one of his literal sisters. And do remember Abraham married his own sister also (see him lying about the wife part of the relationship but not the siblings part when they where in Egypt). God doesn't ban close intermarriage till the time of Moses, and the dangers of having kids with close family would grow with with time as genetic diversity has been on the decline from the Flood at the least potentially even from every generation past the Fall itself.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

But how can dr. Wise rejects radiometric dating?

[@IsGenesisHistory]

Greetings @lokeshparihar7672, Dr. Wise does not reject radiometric dating itself. Rather, he rejects a number of the assumptions typically used in this process. For more information, please see the following articles: newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-1/ newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-2/

[@jamesjaudon8247]

@22:05 all correct . The "gap" is before that. Between the first and second chapters. Where there's a period. After the period the record continues. No time between chapters is given, period.

[@benspratling9041]

In general, it's a great presentation about the theological ramifications of interpreting most sediment to millions of years instead of the flood. However, for a few of your scriptural references, I don't see the connection to the point they support. -At 47:52, you mention that "Heaven will be perfect as 1st heaven & earth" and reference Isaiah 65:17. However, Isaiah 65:17 says "I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind." (NASB). Where is the scripture which shows that heaven will be perfect specifically like Eden / pre-fall Earth was? -Next you say "heaven will be a rest", and cite Mt 5:18 as a reference. I assume "Mt" means "Matthew"? If so, it reads "“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." which doesn't seemed connected to the point you made. Where is the scripture which describes new heaven / Earth as a rest? -You argue that scripture says "Christ's return will be global, just as the flood was global", and reference Mt 5:18, cited above. I don't see a reference to either Christ's return (specifically) or the flood nor any causal connection between the two in that reference. Where is the scripture which connects the meaning of the global flood to the globalness of Christ's return?

[@jamesginty5688]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmfNYqiCmNSdatk

[@benspratling9041]

That video did not attempt to answer my questions.

[@IsGenesisHistory]

Although this is not Dr. Wise speaking, we know something of his thought to perhaps answer your question. As to the scripture that links the new creation with the first creation, it is Revelation 22. In fact, Gen 1-3 and Rev 20-22 are mirrors: creation-eden-marriage-fall of Man : fall of Satan-marriage-new eden-new creation. As to the link between the global flood and the global manifestation of Christ, that is Luke 17:26-27, 30: "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all....So will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed." I hope that's helpful.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Ben, In the new heaven and new earth, when God makes all things new (or begins to make all things new), there will still be nations, and there will still be kings: _"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea . . . And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful . . . And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it." -- Rev 21:1, 5, 24 - 26 KJV_ The leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations: _"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." -- Rev 22:2 KJV_ That will fulfill these prophecies/promises, among others: _"But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." -- Ps __37:11__ KJV_ _"That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee. O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah." -- Ps 67:2 - 4 KJV_ _"In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." -- Ps 72:7 - 8 KJV_ _"His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed." -- Ps 72:17 KJV_ _"And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever." -- Ps 78:69 KJV_ _"Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." -- Ps 104:1 - 5 KJV_ _"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." -- Isa __45:18__ KJV_ _"And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." -- Dan __7:14__ KJV_ _"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." -- Eccl 1:4 KJV_ _"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." -- John __3:17__ KJV_ Dan

[@KenJackson_US]

I'm disappointing that when trying to allow for an earlier age of the earth, he didn't mention that the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the earliest copies of Josephus are all much older than our Masoretic text and they all have timelines 650 years longer than the Masoretic. I believe the longer timeline.

[@KenJackson_US]

What does _"science"_ say for or against the 650 year difference in genealogies, @@IIrandhandleII?

[@zacdredge3859]

It doesn't really change his points at all. It's still only thousands of years compared to hundreds of millions. The incompatible nature is the same.

[@KenJackson_US]

What do you mean by _"the incompatible nature",_ @@zacdredge3859?

[@zacdredge3859]

@@KenJackson_US Just watch the video again if you're unsure. It covers this in depth.

[@caycehh]

decent theological discussion in comparison to old earth ideas, but I was expecting the paleontologist to explain why carbon dating is flawed, not why old earth is flawed theologically.

[@stephenfowler4115]

Radiological dating is flawed because its based on extrapolation and assumes radio decay is consistent which ain't necessarily so .radio decay is nonlinear and changes with heat and pressure. Otherwise one couldn't build atomic bombs.

[@xpaderom2]

Wise's argument is summed up at 46:37: "If the Earth is old, then Scripture is not true." The rest of the lecture is a detailing of the many points at which the testimony of Scripture, as read by Wise, must be rejected if the Earth is old. Rather than entertain the possibility that Scripture as he reads it is not true, Wise responds by asserting the testimony of the Bible, as he reads it, against all indications contrary to it. Consider the following arguments: 1) If Jesus is the Son of God, the Koran is not true. Therefore Jesus is not the Son of God. 2) If Jesus is the one Way to salvation, the Therevadan Buddhist scriptures are not true. Therefore Jesus is not the one Way to salvation. 3) If Jesus is the one Way to salvation, then the Bahai scriptures are not true. Therefore Jesus is not the one Way to salvation. 4) If God is a Trinity, the Swedenborgian scriptures are not true. Therefore God is not a Trinity. 5) If the Bible is alone the Word of God, the Mormon scriptures are not true. Therefore the Bible is not the only Word of God. And so on. If Wise's mode of reasoning is acceptable, why isn't the mode of reasoning exhibited by 1-5? How are we supposed to come reason together if we accept that it's ok to simply assert the testimony of your favorite scripture against any and all indications to its contrary? How are Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais and Swedenborgians supposed to find their way to Wise's faith if they think like Wise? More importantly (and here's my point), how is anyone to find the God of Truth (or just Truth) via the way of Wise if the God of Truth is other than the God of Wise?

[@CanisDei]

You have to do your own research. You can better keep the comment with yourself and keep thinking about it until you come into a conclusion rather than posting probabilistic comments.

[@DeclareHisGlory]

Gen 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth. (He does not say when or how old) Gen 1:2 And the earth BECAME void and without form. (The earth became full of darkness, oppressed, a wasteland wilderness, full of confusion, suffering, The Katabole, overthrow of Satan) Earth was not made void, but became that way

[@DeclareHisGlory]

@@ozowen5961 I think he has a very GOOD comprehension of the evidence he has presented and shown. He is not the only one to question the lying science “theories” that have been or that are being taught, Thank God for those like him who stand up and tell the truth of their findings! 👍🏼😊

[@shaneamundson1192]

The real bible, (the King James Version), says the earth WAS void.

[@DeclareHisGlory]

@@shaneamundson1192English language is not easy to always comprehend or translate from original texts and the KJV Bible translators are no exception in some cases. English class 101 tells us be, became, was are all the same only the tense/timing changes depending on the topic, past, present, future. There are other scripture and the Lord states He did not create the earth void and without form, and created to be inhabited, thus it “became” void and without form and was replenished.

[@nateswanke3368]

great lecture! But where do the Neanderthals come in?

[@janetedens]

Amen!

[@breadofcomfort]

Preach it brother! Love you with a brotherly love. Greetings from China!

[@NaturalEnquirer]

Under the young earth theory, why are no human fossils found in the flood sediments?

[@alanthompson8515]

NaturalEnquirer What flood sediments? Surely the YECs have got to identify this world wide stratum first?

[@anthonyjames5474]

Alan Thompson Worldwide stratum? The geologic column is a fairy tale

[@anthonyjames5474]

NaturalEnquirer Like neanderthal? They were human

[@alanthompson8515]

@@anthonyjames5474 Worldwide flood? Genesis is a fairy tale. Well, let's be kind. The Noah Flood is an etiological myth, with no fairies involved, but still fiction. However, the geologic column is a factual summary (constantly revised as dating methods have improved). Conspicuously absent from it is any kind of post-Flood deposit, hence my original question to Natural Enquirer. Your denial strongly suggest that you know this.

[@anthonyjames5474]

Alan Thompson Your own evolutionists disagree LOL. A total fairytale lol. The rocks are dated by the fossils, and the fossils are dated by the rocks LOL "J.E. O'Rourke. These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order."1

[@ablaylock4273]

it all boils down to the 1:00:00 mark

[@michaelbergfeld8751]

Dear professor, you make a questionnable interpretation of 《in the beginning》. Because a day begins with the light, 《 in the beginning 》there was not such a thing as light, so that the pure material creation falls out of the concept of the week... At least this as a possible interpretation. It does not interfere with the rest of your interpretation which i share. Now, why could God have done so? Well for a 《human》 demonstration of his power, patience and so on. It only makes the story and création itself more beautiful...Doesn't that sound like solid?

[@ReRe-yl6dq]

please read genesis 1:3, God creates light and calls it the first day.

[@michaelbergfeld8751]

@@ReRe-yl6dq that's not precise

[@joeiiiful]

I have loved BB Warfield for decades and consider him as one of the greatest theologians of the past 150 years, but his stand on the age of the earth has always frustrated me because he is definitely not thinking right on this area. It just goes to prove that "The best of men are men at best". He still remains high on my list because I realize that no man is infallible. We can find serious disagreements with the best of theologians but still respect and agree with the majority of what they write. We must be "Bereans" in every area of our studies. Bottom line is the Bible is our final authority.

[@scottb4579]

One thing I have noticed in 30 years of studying the Bible: The heroes of the faith, the greatest of the Lord's servants, all failed at some point in the one area they were the strongest.

[@biglazyhunt]

This dude is so close to getting it...then he rejects it all and says nope, MAGIC! LOL

[@matthewstokes1608]

You get it all though, don’t you?

[@tallyhorizzla3330]

Where are the human bones that should be next to the dinosaur bones,the trilobites,the megladons etc in the fossil record if they were all destroyed by the same cataclysmic flood event?

[@charlespressley6064]

To my knowledge no human bones and Dino bones have ever been found together. May be they whatch the Flint stone's

[@CJFCarlsson]

@@ozowen5961 Neitehr of you two brainiac watched the video. Even if one does not agree with everything creationist what always amazes is how inept YOU are.

[@BennyV406]

I have a question about carbon dating. I don’t understand how it can be accurate. The firmament which existed before the floor allowed for many things which would have made for quite a different environment, wouldn’t it? To have the whole world encased in a layer of water, wouldn’t this basically create a hyperbaric state for the entire world? Also, wouldn’t it filter all solar radiation and free radicals? We already know men lived much longer before the flood, then the firmament was gone and also God said we would only live 120 years.

[@knightclan4]

It is only accurate to approximately 4400 years ago( flood). The environment prior to the flood was as you stated different than today. An anomaly that secular scientists cannot give a logical explanation for is how carbon dating gives similar dates to coal samples from different layers.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Rick Knight, you wrote, "An anomaly that secular scientists cannot give a logical explanation for is how carbon dating gives similar dates to coal samples from different layers." It gets worse for the evolutionist, Rick. Carbon dating should fail on any coal sample if coal is as old as the evolutionist claims. Yet, every time it is tested, Radiocarbon is present. Dan

[@BennyV406]

@@michaeljameson6468 Christ’s sake is two words. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. And the entire point of the discussion is the science is wrong. I’ve since spoken with the third most published scientist in history. He said there is much credence to my theory. I’ll side with God, him and the Bible. Maybe you should pick it up…King James Version only.

[@BennyV406]

@@michaeljameson6468 all the evidence in the world wouldn’t change anything for somebody like you. Even in the Bible when people ask Jesus for signs he pointed out the fact that that was 100% a sin. I’m not gonna make you read the Bible, I’m not gonna make you accept God. That’s exactly the opposite of what God did so it wouldn’t be very Christlike of me to take away your free will. If you choose to reject God, that’s on you. It sounds like plenty of people have have tried to show you the way. That’s how much God loves you, he lets you choose to reject him. When you’re standing in front of him, it’ll be to late. I love you with the love of Christ and nothing you can say or do will change that. God loves you and nothing you can say or do will change that.

[@fieldcrafttips12]

Has anyone ever tried to superimpose the observed fossil record onto a Pangeaic global elevation map that might show these trends away from low-laying areas? This may be both too complex to map and/or too difficult to observe the layers in enough places to gather data

[@catherinewilson3370]

Where do the human fossils of those that did not survive the flood fit in ?

[@IsGenesisHistory]

To date, no confirmed human fossils or artifacts are known from rock layers laid down during the Flood. It's not just humans that are missing from the Flood-derived fossil record. Most mammals, birds and flowering plants are absent as well. These organisms seem to represent an ecological community that existed before the Flood, but was not preserved in the fossil record like the communities inhabited by dinosaurs or trilobites. One suggestion as to why this is so is that these organisms were living on a landmass near a subduction zone (where the Earth's crust plunges into the Earth's interior) that became activated during the Flood and was completely destroyed. Another option to consider is that the original parts of continents occupied by humans, mammals and flowering plants were located in parts of our modern continents that are now called shields. These are areas that have no rocks or fossils left behind from the Flood. Northeast Canada and a large part of Greenland compose one of these shields. The precise reason for the absence of this human/mammal/flowering plant community from the Flood fossil record awaits further insights from future research

[@alanthompson8515]

@@IsGenesisHistory These "suggestions" do not even qualify as hypotheses. They are untestable. Classic pseudo-science. As a physicist would say: "not even wrong". Why? Your problem is not the missing human fossils etc. It is more simply the missing "Flood" deposits themselves. For comparison, localised flood deposits abound throughout the geologic record, so you know what you should be looking for. And you've had plenty of time (since Whitcomb and Morris) to locate some. Hasn't the continued absence of results made you suspicious yet?

[@albanan1]

Watched this all the way through, to see what his argument would be as to why he believes in YEC. And it's because he believes in YEC. Not even a pretence at evidential analysis as to the roots of this belief, just (to paraphrase) because the Bible tells me so.

[@alanthompson8515]

albanan Exactly. How such an intelligent man copes with the cognitive dissonance Go.. oops! goodness only knows!

[@VerifyTheTruth]

Where Does The Bible Ever Say How Old The Earth Is? These Fundamentalist Theories Are Generally Based Upon Inferred Interpretations From Copies Of Copies Of Translated Translations, Much Like Modern Science.. It Does Not Change The Fact That There Are Also Significant Deficits In The Consensus Scientific Narrative, Which Are Being Blatantly Ignored In Order To Frame Observation Into A Neat Little Theoretical Box; Salting And Omission For Convention And Convenience Is Not Science.

[@alanthompson8515]

@@VerifyTheTruth "Much Like Modern Science" eh? So that means that science textbooks are "Copies of Copies"? Of what? The Original Editions? B*ll*cks! Back in the 1960s my college cohort was already on the 3rd edition of Arthur Holmes' "Principles of Physical Geology" aka The Bible (that was for its weight, though we did worship it a bit). Nevertheless, his chapter "explaining" mountain building left us cold. Prof asked for someone to give a summary. Rick, a blunt Yorkshire lad, said " Can't make head nor tail of it sir". Prof beamed evilly, "Quite right!" he said. "He is now a little out of date, but you needed to read it to appreciate the recent advances. So...." And he proceeded to hand out his own handwritten screeds hot off the Xerox machine. We were the first cohort to be taught what is now known as Plate Tectonics. It was the second "Wow!" moment of my life (understanding natural selection was the first, of course). In one lecture, we had gone from vague notions about geosynclines to an elegant and coherent explanation of the origins and distribution of continents, oceans, mountains, earthquakes and volcanoes. Wow indeed. It took several more years to get Plate Tectonics into school textbooks, but I was ready to teach it when it did. I am also fascinated to hear that there are (i) "Significant Deficits In The Consensus Scientific Narrative" and (ii) that these are being "Being Blatantly Ignored". If true, these claims are serious, but, as they stand, they are nothing but hot air. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say, and you supply NONE. So, please specify or shut up.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@alanthompson8515 Yes, Much Like Modern Science, Ignoring The Wisdom Of The Past In Favor Of Novelty, Yet Continuing To Copy Errors From The Past For Convenience; Promoting Those Errors In Educational Textbooks; Basing Entire Conglomerations Of Theories Upon Theories Based Upon False Interpretations Of Partial Data; And Refusing To Suffer Reasonable Criticism, Insulting And Demeaning Any Opposition, While Calling It All Irrefutable Fact.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@alanthompson8515 With All Due Respect, I Have Spent The Last Two Years Specifying The Deficits To You Arrogant Assholes.

[@DavidOhlerkingII]

Excellent.

[@kenzeier2943]

If death and disease entered the world how could people live hundreds of years?

[@jasondaves2453]

The Lion will lie down with the lamb.. that means no predatory nature exists between animals and man . That also means there’s an absence of sin. Sin = destruction, disease, and death. In other words the curse has been removed. Now if you see predation, disease etc in fossil record that suggests that sin was present then or a curse had been applied because of it. Sin degrades every facet of this world. As time went forward from the moment that sin happened , the curse was applied to all creation below heaven. More people = more sin = more visible results of it.

[@alanthompson8515]

@@jasondaves2453 Pardon? Your usage of the language is a tad cavalier here. Isaiah 11 vv 6-9 is a prophecy couched throughout in the future tense. "Will", "Shall". Whereas your past tense ("has/had been" "was") applies this prophecy to previous events - namely the fossil record. It makes no difference how long or short a period of time you think is involved, this is still a BS argument.

[@jasondaves2453]

Alan Thompson (pardon) the statement I made wasn’t caviler or if it came across as such it was not intended. Bible says there’s nothing new under the sun. That includes the cause and effect of sin in the physical realm and in the spiritual. Example: Before Adam sinned, God told Adam in Genesis 2:20 to name all the creatures correct? God would not have allowed any creature to come in Adam’s presence that would have attacked or killed him correct? Does that suggest the presence of predation or the absence of it? Imagine a lion or a grizzly bear walking up in front of you unarmed.... Most would feel a bit apprehensive about an encounter like that right? Well before sin was present there was no worry toward any creature in the Garden.. Whole different set of circumstances after sin, out of the Garden. The curse was applied until Christ puts sin down in the future. Yes Isaiah 11 does speak of a future peace amongst all God’s creation but it’s a reflection of what was present before sin in the Garden. Hence the statement made in the Bible, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. If God views sin the same yesterday as He does today and we can clearly see the physical results of sin why is it caviler too say the absence of sin “could be” the absence of predation?

[@alanthompson8515]

@@jasondaves2453 Argued like a true preacher. Circled properly squared. God Did It - end of problem. Qoholeth's famous "nothing new" is patently laughable these days. Why, they didn't even have sliced bread back then, let alone the Internet. Classic example of how dated ancient literature can become. Yes, there are many examples of predation preserved in the fossil record (little fish swallowed inside larger ones, bite marks, definitely non-vegetarian shark teeth, etc.) Here again, your "nothing new" mantra fails. Several cross-confirming methods for calendar dating earth materials have been tried, tested and refined for almost a century now. We now know (repeat, know) the fossil record extends back in time for well over 500 million years (and that's just organisms with hard parts that fossilise more readily). Thus, millions of years of predation predate humanity. This fact worries only those few believers who are true bible worshipers - biblioidolaters. Folk like Kurt Wise (and perhaps you?) who blind themselves to the established facts of life and peddle falsehoods. And all to preserve literal belief in the total inerrancy of a set of ancient writings. How small is their God? How much greater is the God who created the folk who made the Hubble Space Telescope? Facepalm!

[@jasondaves2453]

Alan Thompson not disputing your train of thought what so ever...not asking or suggesting you agree with mine either.. I can see valid points on both sides of the spectrum. Been a long way down both sides of that trail. Ultimately God’s in control. However it played out in the past is fine by me. I’m only sharing thoughts on what I’ve noticed that’s it. I know how the future plays out but that’s what I read and believe and that’s my opinion. I respect yours as well. Sometimes it’s nice to think about things on different levels and have discussions with others about them. It’s not about being right or wrong in a discussion it’s what’s shared. Hope you have a wonderful day 👍

[@Phearless7485]

You actually can’t stick a gap anywhere if you believe the Bible. Matthew says from Abraham to David were 14 generations, from David to the carrying away into Babylon are 14, and Babylon to Christ were 14. No gap there. Luke also records father som from Christ all the way back to Adam. It would be forcing the Bible to fit a theory rather than believing what the Bible actually says to insert any gap.

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

The writers of the Bible sure were obsessed with the number 7 and multiples of 7.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

Something I Heard Recently Is That Different Manuscripts Delineate Different Amounts Of Time To The Lineages. Is That True?

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@ozowen5961 It Matters Enough To Completely Restructure The Biblical Timeline.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@ozowen5961 If You Are Going To Scientifically Critique Something, It Helps To Start With Accurate Data. The Genealogical Timeline And Many Entire Verses In The Masoretic Manuscript Apparently Differ Somewhat From Earlier Versions That Have Been Discovered More Recently. Whether This Is True Or Not Would Be A Scholarly Article, But If It Is, Then The Mainstream Timeline Is Distorted By Around A Thousand Years Or So. It Most Certainly Matters In The Realm Of Science.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@ozowen5961 I Have Found That Much Of What Some People Call Science Is Also Very Guilty Of Distorting History And Geology, Reguarding Evidence As Theoretical Piecemeal Rather Than As A Whole, To Arrive At It's Biased And Inaccurate Conclusions.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@ozowen5961 Thankfully, I Do Not Require Your Admiration Or Your Respect To Have Scientific Data And Lithic Samples In My Possession, Which Could Very Well Reprimand The Consensus Narrative That You Appear To Worship So Fervently, But You Wouldn't Be Interested In That Would You? I Have Not Proposed A Young Earth Or A Flat Earth Nor Unscientifically Biased Conclusions, And Yet For Seemingly Nothing More Than The Lack Of A Sufficent Educational Degree And The Lack Of Adequate Technology To Scientifically Prove My Theorem, I Have Been Ignored, Insulted, And Acted Shamefully Upon By Those Who Claim To Believe In Science. I Am Not Speaking From Willful Ignorance Or Prideful Arrogance, Nor Do I Speak This To You Without The Necessary References. However, In Sincerity, I Do Admit That My Perception Is Often Limited And Flawed. By The Way, My Grammar Is, In General, Both Punctual And Correct, Minus the Occasional Errors.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

@@ozowen5961 No, What I Really Mean Is That What You Call Science Is A Dogmatic Secular Religion, Reinforced By Corporate Indoctrination And Selective Internship, And Not Science At All.

[@acarpentersson8271]

Where is the source area for the globally uniform sediment layers that makes these age lines in the earth? If these layers are stacking upwards then where is the place that is going downwards? I assume the only place that could be the source are mountains, but I don't see how that erosion could create continent wide sediment layers as deep as the grand canyon.

[@CanisDei]

Your question is explained in one of the other videos in this channel. Hope it helps!

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

"Does it matter how old the Earth is?" - In the first 12 seconds he has already demonstrated that he is not a scientist and his opinion on scientific matters (such as the age of the Earth) is completely irrelevant. No point in watching this.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

but you believe wet rocks made DNA. what is scientific about that?

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Congratulations, that was the dumbest thing any human person has ever said.

[@joni3503]

it's a quote from B.B. Warfield, a 1911 theologian. Had you watched beyond the 12 seconds, you would have known that Kurt Wise doesn't agree at all with this quote

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Um, well he said it. And if you had an education beyond the 3rd grade level you would know that Kurt Wise is not worth listening to for more than 12 seconds.

[@andresmelendez5972]

What tumor on sea creator? Somebody lie to me, isn't that true that cancer cells can't live alkaline mediun, they live only in a acid environment. And also cancer in not new, is something from millions year ago? Very interesting. Sorry I can not agree on the difference are only deep in the skin, because there is sides on facial bones different for ethnic, like: Forehead side, shin, orbital eyes, angle on forehead, nasal cavity, and kind of teeth, even femur sides and shape. If I'm wrong, be welcome to address me up here thanks.

[@anthonyjames5474]

Andres Melendez It is true cancer cannot live in alkaline. Dr. Simoncini injected tumors with 7% sodium bicarbonate solution. 95% success. I did this with an animal and it killed his cancer

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

@@anthonyjames5474 P S U E D O S C I E N C E

[@stephenfowler4115]

Methuselah died the year of the flood so there can be no gap between him and the flood.

[@stephenfowler4115]

@@ozowen5961 😂🙄the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

@@stephenfowler4115 preaching to the choir?

[@stephenfowler4115]

@@johnbrinsmead3316 apparently not since people keep trying find fault with the Biblical timeline.

[@glenparker234]

I get a kick out of reading the comments of those who don’t agree with the premise of this lecture. Talk about assumptions based on unproven assumptions. One of the problems I have always had with conventional education is the way they preach their dogma as absolute truth and when I find something that contradicts something they said, instead of trying to prove they are right, they just go ballistic and say they are not to be questioned because they have a textbook that explained it. Sounds like a religion to me, not science! Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a series of books about cataclysms in recorded history and caused a firestorm of personal attacks because what could a psychiatrist know about the physical science? However, the religion of uniformity has been proven to be a false religion, and Velikovsky has been proven correct. Also, those who have a problem with this lecture should consider that it is only a small pat of a series of lectures with ample evidence to prove the theses.

[@Tabatista281178]

What kind of Evil would have created a theory that completely erodes everything we were 100% sure about God?

[@ozowen]

Evidence

[@Tabatista281178]

@@ozowen like the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones?

[@ozowen]

@@Tabatista281178 No, that is evidence that collagen remnant can persist in specific circumstances. And it wasn't soft until soaked in an alkaline solution for weeks.

[@Tabatista281178]

@@ozowen No, that is evidence that the Evolutionist Cult isn’t without its dogmas.

[@ozowen]

@@Tabatista281178 Incorrect. If this was a dogma issue, Schweitzer would not have been encouraged to prove her I ritual observations, nor would she be celebrated.

[@davidbrown7213]

The image of God is from within you! God is always concentrating on our souls. The knowledge of the past is limited by the current knowledge of man and man has proven over and over in history he knows nothing. Man without Faith is like a Thunderstorm without end!

[@GathKingLeppbertI]

@@ozowen5961 the universal flood happened. Our image of God is from without. The non-believers' gods comes from within.

[@GathKingLeppbertI]

@@ozowen5961 you're wrong. Jesus, the Christ, recognized Now as an historical figure it follows that He recognized the flood as universal. Geology supports the biblical account. As does oceanography. If you can't see it that shows your bias towards rebellion and surrender to the Satan.

[@GathKingLeppbertI]

@@ozowen5961 no, I start with Jesus' truth, rather than a man made theory. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6S9Xnhjq5pmkKM as well as listening to credible witnesses.

[@jzeerod]

and only when we admit we know nothing, only then can we be willing to have an open mind and reach a deeper understanding. until that time we remain ignorant.

[@timothyappleseed2986]

28:08 The fall was about spiritual and emotional death caused by sin. Sin happens within. It is what causes us to have deveant thoughts that lead to deveant acts. Sin happens when you become attached to your concept of right and wrong; allowing your judgement to get under your skin. Attachment is the eating part and judgment is the fruit produced by from the knowledge of good and evil, the Tree's namesake. Forgiveness, apology or humility such as repentance is the process of spitting the fruit up and grace means leaving it on the Tree; reserving judgment or at least your attachment to it.

[@wvtaco4379]

If the flood killed everyone on earth before the flood, why no human fossils at the bottom portions of your vertical fossil timeline?

[@BibleResearchTools]

foreterry, you wrote, "If the flood killed everyone on earth before the flood, why no human fossils at the bottom portions of your vertical fossil timeline?" No one was there, so we can only speculate. Perhaps they lived on high ground (away from the creepy dinosaurs,) or they moved to high ground when they saw the flood waters rising. One thing we do know from empirical evidence is, the fossil record shows increasing sea-to-land terrestriality. The bottom layers contain only sea creatures, while those above them contain a mix of sea creatures and land organisms. The fact that sea creatures are found in the top most layers reveals that the entire earth was flooded at one time or another. Young Earth Creationists believe that happened during a single event -- the biblical flood, and the empirical evidence supports that understanding. Dan

[@BibleResearchTools]

Mick Healy, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Man you got rocks in your head, creepy dinosaurs were extinct fo 65 million year, you just ignore 65 million years of mammal evolution and think dinosaurs were about. we have those mammal fossils too, and they tell a tale .. all you have for these ridiculous stories of creation and floods are inkstains on paper..just look." It appears you have been reading too many Evolutionism comic books, Mick. Dan

[@BibleResearchTools]

Mick Healy, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools No Dan my friend, you just ignore the truth like you just ignored 65 million years.. amazing..I think you don't have the faintest idea just fantasy land stuff." You have been brainwashed, Mick. That is not only my opinion: _"My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that geology got into the hands of the theoreticians who were conditioned by the social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field. So it was-as Steve Gould put it-that Charles Lyell 'managed to convince future generations of geologists that their science had begun with him.' In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed 'catastrophic' processes. However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from 'normal' in the usual sense of the word. In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic. This may be called the 'Phenomenon of the Catastrophic Nature of the Stratigraphic Record.'" [Ager, Derek V., "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record." John Wilson & Son, 3rd Ed, 1993, Chap 4, p.70]_ Derek Ager was a devout evolutionist. Do you have anything to add to this conversation besides your useless opinion? How about some scientific evidence for an old earth? Do you know of any? Dan

[@BibleResearchTools]

Mick Healy, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Sure Dan, Antarctic ice cores, Chalk, and the Platypus." How do those prove evolution and an old earth, Mick? Be specific, and show us some research -- something besides your opinion. If you continue to obfuscate, I will have have no alternative but to write you off as a troll. Dan

[@BibleResearchTools]

Mick Healy, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Ok you big mouthed pompous buffoon what have you got to say now?" Please refrain from being such an arrogant jackass, Mick. ================= Mick Healy, you wrote, "I presented my evidence and what have you got to prove a young earth?" Mick, are you delusional? You wrote, "Antarctic ice cores, Chalk, and the Platypus." Huh? Those do not prove anything, other than they exist. If you cannot explain how they prove evolution, don't waste my time. ================= Mick Healy, you wrote, "inkstains on paper? a story from middle eastern goat herders you imagine things from? how fascinating... really fascinating." That is another dumb atheist talking point, Mick. Think about it, if you know how to think: about 40 so-called middle eastern goat herders wrote the most complex document in the history of mankind, which we now know as the Bible; and they wrote it over a period of 1500 years -- an astonishing achievement! How does it feel being dumber than a goat-herder, Mick? You are a useless troll. Dan

[@TS-jm7jm]

its not true that we cant detect racial differences in skeletons, cranial differences can be detected and measured in such a way to guess race better than chance would predict, so differences do exist

[@amiraviator2423]

But doesn't growth come from suffering???

[@mikev4621]

Dr Wise seemed relaxed and enjoying himself when discussing the Geologic column with radiometric dates; but as he slides into the biblical explanation he becomes agitated and red and fidgetty and puffy, and needs to refer to his notes much more , and forgets his schtick , as if he is trying to sell something he knows is irrational .In one place he says we can discount the accuracy of radiometric dating, but in another , it suits him to use it to justify one of his biblical suppositions .

[@cocoweepah]

Sitting is the new smoking.

[@billymitchell1790]

I don't believe an infinitely good powerful all knowing truthful God that has created all human kind "which would make human kind his responsibility", not be able to save all of his creation without having to throw a large majority of them into an eternal hell for all eternity! It blows my mind! I can hear some say now that "they choose to disobey God and burn in hell"! So I would have to say that the will of man is stronger than the will of the Christian God! I was once a Christian but I no longer am. I just find it hard that an all knowing, all powerful God would not be so barbaric as to demand blood sacrifice for the remission of sins! And on top of that burn people in some hell for all eternity for not believing in the blood sacrifice of his son! I just believe God is greater that this. I do believe in a God, which you would tell me is the wrong God, but I just can't believe in the Christian God. I send love to all that might disagree with my statements, I don't condemn no one to an eternal hell nor should my God demand you to believe in a blood sacrifice for your sins. God loves us all even the most evil of sinners and I'm sure he will fix all of this without loosing a single one of his creation. WHY, because we are his responsibility and he will not fail to see this through.

[@zenuno6936]

The animals were eaten so the blood sacrifice wasnt wasting animals. Also it was prefigurement of the Eucharist and Christs sacrifice. Also a teaching on the idea of sacrifice, mainly that of our petty wills for His perfect will and that sacrificing for others is what love is. You can see such practices in humans from all over the world indicating this is part of human nature, of how humans relate to God. Sometimes it was totally deformed and depraved by demonic inspiration, as in Aztecs sacrificing humans. As to hell, there is only one unforgivable sin, which is unrepentance. If a person is unrepentant they dont want the company of God and walk away from Him of their own accord. But since God is all goodness, truth and beauty if you walk away from Him, the place can only be a hell. But those people rather be there than admit they are wrong about good and evil. Also if the unrepentant were to face God they would explode out of regret seeing themselves so utterly wretched comparing to the perfection of God. So its a mercy that they get to go elsewhere. You cant fix it that everyone is saved because you cant relinquish free will. Satan says 'i will not serve', should God force him. Then he'd be a slave.

[@LanceGrey]

Adam & Eve could be identified because they had no Belly Button. :P🤣 And their DNA was identical.

[@danielsnyder2288]

If the age of the earth doesn't matter, then why will YEC lie through their teeth?

[@BibleResearchTools]

Daniel Snyder, you wrote, "If the age of the earth doesn't matter, then why will YEC lie through their teeth?" You are assuming facts not in evidence, Daniel. You must first prove YEC's are lying, before asserting they are lying. Otherwise, you are the liar. Dan

[@ICarus-eu3jv]

@@BibleResearchTools "You are assuming facts not in evidence, Daniel. You must first prove YEC's are lying, before asserting they are lying. Otherwise, you are the liar. Dan" As a presuppositional apologist, you start with a conclusion and then try to allow the 'evidence' to fit your narrative: the very definition of dishonesty.

[@BibleResearchTools]

I. Carus, you wrote, "As a presuppositional apologist, you start with a conclusion and then try to allow the 'evidence' to fit your narrative: the very definition of dishonesty." That is what evolutionists do, Carus. According to them, evolution is a fact, and they will reject any falsifying data. It happens all the time. Nearly all of the truly great scientific discoveries were made by Christian creationists. On the other hand, there have been no (zero) scientific discoveries based on evolutionary theory, great or otherwise, since evolution is not science, but story-telling. You are the liar, Carus. Dan

[@ICarus-eu3jv]

@@BibleResearchTools "you wrote, "As a presuppositional apologist, you start with a conclusion and then try to allow the 'evidence' to fit your narrative: the very definition of dishonesty." That is what evolutionists do, Carus. According to them, evolution is a fact, and they will reject any falsifying data. It happens all the time. Nearly all of the truly great scientific discoveries were made by Christian creationists. On the other hand, there have been no (zero) scientific discoveries based on evolutionary theory, great or otherwise, since evolution is not science, but story-telling. You are the liar, Carus." Skeptics do not start with a conclusion: they let the evidence lead to the conclusion. Ancient discoveries were made by religious clerics because the path to higher learning was based on religious organizations. (Why is there an astronometric research center in the Vatican?) For presupostionalist creationists like you, lying is in your DNA.

[@BibleResearchTools]

I. Carus, you wrote, "Skeptics do not start with a conclusion: they let the evidence lead to the conclusion." Give us some examples. ================ I. Carus, you wrote, "Ancient discoveries were made by religious clerics because the path to higher learning was based on religious organizations. (Why is there an astronometric research center in the Vatican?)" Does that mean you agree that most all of the great scientific discoveries were made by Christian Creationists? Show us some great scientific discoveries by evolutionists, Carus. One will be sufficient. ================ I. Carus, you wrote, "For presupostionalist creationists like you, lying is in your DNA." Lying is a characteristic of Satan's children, Carus. I am surprised you don't know that: _"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- John __8:44__ KJV_ Satan's children are easy to spot. All of them reject the words of Jesus. We are all "presuppositional apologists" in one manner or another, Carus. You believe the universe, earth, and life magically appeared out of nothing, while I believe Jesus Christ is our creator. In either case, the creation was supernatural. Dan

[@tonyalan3671]

This man is a very disturbed individual. He reminds me of a detective that goes to interview suspects in a crime. He studies all the evidence , interviews the suspects and one by one rules out the innocent individuals based on the evidence. This process continues until he comes to the person he decided was guilty before he started his investigation. He then ignores all evidence proving his chosen suspect is guilty and charges him with the crime.

[@alanthompson8515]

Tony Alan Nicely put! In other words, a typical YEC.

[@iannicholson4169]

Yes I couldn't agree more. They are all the same. "Answers in Genesis" "Institute for Creation research" It's intriguing the lengths individuals will go to, to stay grasping their beliefs

[@joeiiiful]

You are a typical person who uses ad hominem attacks when you have no intelligent refutation. Blind eyes are bad enough, eyes that are healthy but refuse to see is a tragedy. Darwinian Evolution is the greatest hoax ever thrust upon humanity. There is zero real Science behind this nonsense. No one was present for creation or the flood, except God Almighty, the Creator. Try to learn critical thinking and jettison your outrageous lack of fairness.

[@TheTheotherfoot]

@@joeiiiful That sounds very nice, except that you say nothing except to disagree with the others who replied. It looks good, but it is only your opinion, based on what?? Opinions are like butts, every one has one.

[@bettytigers]

Dr Wise isn't perfect,but he's got a perfect supporter,who encourages him to forgive even his most ungracious criticism.Prove him mistaken,that's all you have to do,then like after a respectful chess game shake hands whoever wins.

[@googletaqiyya184]

1st thing created was light/energy.