The very day this video came out, a few hours before, i was watching a video from an "apologist who embraces the big bang", and it was really troubling to see that compromise.. later this video came out, it never gets old when God shows me He sees me and meets me right where i am. Praise God! Thank you AIG for the video snd your faithfulness to God's Word. God bless
If you trust AIG, you really need to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you like truth or not. IF the answer is yes, then don't get your science from an apologetics channel.
@@earthisasphere i don't "trust AIG" like you probably think. In other words i don't believe what I believe just because AIG or any ministry says it. I believe it because the Bible says it, and the One i trust is God. AIG believes the same things, aka what the Bible says, so i agree with them based on what i already believe myself.
@@SilkyAnteater. it would still help to think about whether or not you care if what you believe is true. Both AIG and the bible get so very many things completely wrong.
@@donzo5984 yes i agree, if it wasn't true i wouldn't want to believe it just to believe it. But i do believe it because i see it's true. The evidence, the reasoning, and the testimony of God's work in my life personally all make the point on my firm conviction. What are some examples of what you say that the Bible gets wrong?
@@SilkyAnteater. That a god created the earth and everything on it in 6 days. A man was created from dust and a woman from his rib. That same woman was told by a serpent to eat a fruit containing knowledge. Among so many other things.
He spoke in parables so he wants us to think critically but since no-one is perfect, no-one can have all the answers. He doesn't expect us to understand absolutely everything and I imagine the universe will always be beyond man's comprehension.
@@mr.k1896 Would "figure of speech" be easier for you to understand? It's totally obvious none of the speakers think stars are living concious entities engaged in self-sacrifice.
@@MedellínInsider-n3o The god El was the father of most of the lesser Canaanite gods, and he was married to the head goddess, Asherah, who bore him many children. Among these were Baal and Anat, and also possibly Yahweh, the god of Israel.5 feb 2023
@@MedellínInsider-n3o The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Psalm 139:14 I will praise You for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows very well. All 200 different types of the 37 trillion cells arranged in my body bearing witness to Him. The same that said man wouldn't be able to solve war. A big one will nearly destroy the earth, leaving it nearly lifeless. Increasing lawlessness. More than a million cars were stolen last year in the USA 7,000+ in Washington DC alone.
That would be unprovable theories Which make the theory of evolution and the big bang just another false religion Might as well call it the lucky charms theory ☘ There’s no reason for matter to spontaneously exist and randomly form into a complex universe . It certainly takes more faith to believe that than God created.
Easy to say. If you think buying into this cringe-fringe dogma is you ticket to eternal life, go for it, but quit insulting professional scientists who have no time to waste on debunking the same, stale arguments over and over, decade after decade. An inerrant bible cannot be reconciled with modern scientific knowledge. Don't embarrass yourself.
God called Abram out of a pagan culture, named him Abraham, and established the nation of Israel. I'm glad Abraham gave up his pagan beliefs when he met the true Creator God!
Imagine living in B.C. times when God didn't reveal himself to all of humanity yet. It's no wonder they worshipped stars, the sun, moon, lightning.. and people, as gods. Nevermind, the child sacrifices and other extremities that were not only normal, but expected to appear said gods.
The Cannanites, the people who eventually became the tribes of Israel, believed in a pantheon of gods that represented both real world events/concepts as well as astrology. Your ancestors were pagan Even your Yahweh was a storm god
@@xXMACEMANXx wrong, as you guys always are. It is God breathed.... The Bible also says God inspired. It is the truth of God and will always be the truth of God.
@@Abidingingrace-p6z By that same logic, doesn't that also validate Islam's claim to the Qur'an being the word of God? I mean, your book claims that it was inspired by the 'holy spirit,' and their book claims that it was dictated by God to Muhammad like many parts of the Pentateukh were directed by God to Moses. Both of those claims have equivalent value, and yet they can't both be the word of God. So I ask you, where is the proof that a God had anything to do with the men who wrote the books? You can believe they were, but you can't pretend as if your beliefs are the only possible answer
Um, no. All we have are 66 books written over centuries (many by unknown authors) that are purported to be god's word. They're not. They're *man's* word. Why isn't this obvious?
I never understood why Christians always claim that The 6 Days of Creation were not Literal 24 hr Days????? Like, the Bible Literally Says How Long He took Morning, Evening, Night😶🙃
@@samw7998 catholics call men holy "father" the Vatican embraces all this "woke" stuff The Vatican believes in pagan traditions and cant back up half of their own stuff using the Bible. Purgatory, the eucharist, ecumenicism, mary immaculate, endulgences, popes, rosaries, praying to saints, bones on the alters, the incense smokes, auricular confession to a light bulb, They violate the Bible up and down.
@@samw7998 I can list off probably 10 major things, using the Bible that they violate but youtube just deletes it. I could code it with numbers or something but i really hate doing that.
I had a teacher in high school who had a bumper sticker on his mini fridge that says "The Big Bang Theory: God Spoke, Bang It Happened." He was one of my Health teachers, by the way. That statement makes a bit of sense if you read or reread Genesis chapter 1. "Let there be light!" Bang! There's light. I stand by it.
Well you have a misunderstanding of the big bang it's just a description of when time started when we say big bang we mean a point in time where all matter heated up and expanded and the thing is that's just what we CAN see so we don't even know that's where we started or even if the universe started or has always been
God declares the end from the beginning. With the Big Bang (1931 A.D.) and evolution (1859 A.D.), mankind attempts to declare the beginning from the end. It's similar to Saul being the 1st king of Israel, but coming from the last son of Jacob (Benjamin) and being from the smallest family of the smallest tribe, yet standing head and shoulders above them all. But moreso, it is fulfillment of Biblical prophecy from Isaiah1, 'they have gone away backward'.
Word of warning. YEHWEH declaring the end from the beginning DOES NOT MEAN that the lie of predestination or the out of context idea if "the elect" in Roman's is true. Reject the lie of calvinism. Follow christ. Calvinism requires that Jesus was/is a liar.
17:25 a lightyear is the distance light travels *in a year* . If an object is 1 lightyear away it means the light took 1 year to reach the earth. If you were to look at earth from 1000 light years away, you would be seeing light that left the earth 1000 years ago. You would see earth in the Middle Ages. If a lightyear wasn’t the distance light travels in a year, the term “lightyear” wouldn’t make sense. We would just use a larger measurement of distance than miles or kilometers. This is not a difficult concept.
He's saying just because it would take us a billion years to get to Billions of light years away doesn't mean that those things took Billions of years to get where they are for example If there is a God those stars would still be billions of years of distance because that's how far they are no matter the date of the planet it the distance would still be billions of years Your trying to be smug but did not understand the point
@@orpheemulemo8053 A light year is a measure of distance, not time. It refers to how far light can travel in one year. So, if something is 1 billion light years away, the light you’re seeing from that object took 1 billion years to reach us, meaning you’re seeing the object as it was 1 billion years ago. It doesn’t refer to how long it took the object to move to its current position.
@@sixfootoneistall2002 But that doesn't make sense as Because of that Objects distance it would travel the same weather millions or not are you saying for a part of our Earths history there was no light and it took billions of years just for light to graze us
@@orpheemulemo8053 I don’t understand the first part of that but, as for the question you raised, no there was never a time when earth had no light because the earth formed after the sun
@@sixfootoneistall2002 And you don't think it's a bit suspicious that somehow we have over one hundred perfect coincidences lining up to life Normaly in a case as a police three coincidences would make something not a coincidence I'm saying As for the first part let's say you make a building you place it so it takes two days drive from your house to get there does that mean the house itself was built two days ago or the road leading to the building was built 2 days ago I don't see how light years are a strong foundation to make that acertion
I wonder if anyone at AIG can give the name of 1 single scientist who has ever used the term "trust Me bro" or "take my word for it" when presenting any findings they have made about a new discovery.
Weird that the heavens don't do that, and that god left behind all sorts of evidence that claim exactly the opposite of what you all believe. Why would he do that?
Repent from what? Not having the exact same interpretation as you have. That's why people were burned alive at the stake, in the dark ages. Maybe YOU should repent. Maybe your interpretation is wrong. Maybe we already have repented but just happen to have a different interpretation. How many different Christian sects are there. There are so many, because we all have a different interpretation. It's not what keeps us from salvation. Judging people just might keep you from salvation, because God is a jealous God and doesn't want you doing, what ONLY he gets to do. STOP JUDGING.
@dalepearson9658 This person did not judge. We're not supposed to judge, so anyone who ever judged you wasn't following the LORD correctly. I'm well aware many Christians look down on nonbelievers, act holier than thou, hate on people, etc, but they're incorrect for doing so. Don't assume we're all like that. We're supposed to love & respect everyone.
@@jamesmark1721 _"Don't assume we're all like that."_ We know you're not all like that. In fact, that's one of the problems if you're trying to convince us that your religious beliefs are actually true. (The biggest problem, of course, seems to be the complete lack of good evidence backing up religious claims. But this is also a problem.) Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity _specifically to tell you stuff!_ Is your god just the world's worst communicator, then? Or simply imaginary? There are _thousands_ of different denominations of Christianity, even _after_ the Catholic Church spent a thousand years rooting our 'heresy' with fire and sword. (Before then, you were _really_ diverse, apparently.) And sure, you no longer burn people alive. You got better. That's great. But why? Make no mistake, I'm _glad_ you got better. I'm glad you know longer murder 'heretics,' atheists, homosexuals, or 'witches.' (I hope it's not just because no denomination still has the power to do that.) But the Bible didn't change. Your book didn't get better. Your god didn't get better. You guys got better for the same reason that the rest of us have gotten better over time. And now, you just drag your god along with you, huh? After all, the one thing we know about gods is that they all agree with whatever _you_ think (the individual believer), right? I've been surrounded by Christians all my life. I didn't know a single other person who _wasn't_ a Christian all the time I grew up - not _one_ (as far as I knew, of course). But everyone I knew just seemed to believe it because they were taught to believe it as a child and they really, really _wanted_ it to be true. Many decades later, if any of you have something distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious claims, I have yet to hear it. And Muslims have claims, too, of course. Mormons have claims. Religious Jews have claims. I never get a chance to talk to Hindus, but I know that they have claims, too. Just nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing them up, as far as I can tell, in every case. And, unfortunately, faith-based thinking seems to be destroying my country and my world. No, you're not _all_ like that. But if you're faith-based, you're still part of the problem, as far as I can tell. We should all care enough about the _truth_ of our beliefs to be evidence-based, not faith-based.
Then why are you using iternet and youtube. Or GPS. Or medicine, cars, germ theory, planes, and so on... All these things are created by the very same physics and scientists they (and you) claim to be false.
Evolution is not science it is metaphysics. Real science is experimental and gave us medicine and engineering. It arose uniquely in Christendom. To believe in evolution you have to believe in multiple impossible things. For example that the universe cause itself, a violation of the law of non contradiction which is foundational to reason. You must believe in spontaneous generation that non life gives rise to life. You must believe that star dust became Rembrandt and Mozart. You must believe that there are exceptions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You must believe that information comes from matter. You must believe that the fossils show ancestry and gradualism when all it shows is abrupt appearance and discontinuity.
Its where did it start. There is a starting point. Destruction does not make things. The big bang is not a thing that makes anything other than a mess.
At 12:10 the seven-day week DOES have a natural basis. If we place the Earth is motionless at the center of the universe --- the common assumption until just a few hundred years ago --- we can see seven "planets" with the unaided eye. . . Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn, then Sun and Moon, which in a geocentric universe are considered planets. The days of the week are named for them. Cultures around the world observed this, which is how the number seven became so prominent.
As a YEC myself I suggest the time zone analogy for the ASC model of light speed is flawed. When a plane leaves Ohio at 4pm and arrives in Colorado at 4pm this has nothing to do with altering the passage of time, neither for the plane nor for the rest of the universe. It is simply a side-effect of how we measure time. Time itself continues to pass at the same rate in each location. If the speed of light is instant and we are watching the universe in real time then I'm not sure how we have a measurable unit for light-speed. Also a light-year is the distance that light can travel in the equivalent of one Earth-year.
Jason Lysle is correct regarding instantaneous action. His problem is he went to University to study physics which is pure nonsense both in The Big Bang and Standard Model. Light does not travel as photons. It's a two-way change in energy. The receiver has to he ready first. This is what takes the time. Once the receiver is ready starlight travels instantly. So we see the stars as they are now, in this moment. To add to their nonsense, scientists claim the Earth moves around the Sun which is easily disproved by the duration of Mars retrograde loops. When Mars is close to Earth these loops should be huge due to parralax and small when Mars is further away. We see the opposite as photographed in 2003 and 2012 by Tunc Tezel. Namaste
Correctly said, there is no reference to the first day, so you can't say Saturday, or Sabath, but rather 6 days of work and 1 day of rest. The Another interesting look at time: The Earth has experienced close to being 6000 years of troubles and turmoil since the fall of man in the garden, and the Sabath or time of rest for the Earth will be when Jesus sets His millenium Kingdom here on Earth (1000 years of rest), a temporary Sabatical for the Earth (though later it gets a whole makeover). That same 1000 years may be what Leviticus also speaks about the year of Jubilee; could it also be a prophetic Jubilee for the Earth (50th millenium). So maybe the Earth was created almost about 49,000 years ago? Something to ponder about.
So he likes providing evidence that proves one thing, but then wants us to believe what is written in s 2,000 yr old book over said evidence. That is your argument? That isn't a sense of humor, that is just sick, if it were true that is. There is no evidence that supports a young earth, or a god for that matter.
Thank you, very interesting and I appreciate that you don't speak so fast as most AIG videos. Just wanted to point out at 13:10, it's not just Christian, it's Judeo-Christian. Christians, let's not appropriate the Hebrew scriptures for ourselves while forgetting who wrote them and handed them down for generations before Christianity.
Just change over time won't answer the origin of natural laws, matter, natural constants, life, DNA, reproduction, earthly water, complex organs, fossils, etc.
The origin of natural laws and natural constants are defined by, come from, and relate to the discoveries made by science. Matter, Life, DNA, Reproduction, Complex Organs, and fossils are all describing the same thing. All natural in origin. Earthly water ? Did you just throw this in as an afterthought ? Did you have a point. I know you have a hard time understanding. But why do you need literally every step from one cell to a human mapped out one by one, yet a man living in a whale for days seems legit to you. No questions asked. Rather hypocritical. Yes ?
💯 if I tell people all these changes will occur in 5 minutes, they will laugh at me. But if I tell them all these changes will occur over millions of years, then all of a sudden I'm a genius. What does time have to do with any part of the equation?
@@rayspeakmon2954 No, the time it took is irrelevant. You would still have to demonstrate HOW it could happen. Science does that. Religion doesn't even try.
@@amazingcaio4803Explain why you believe the Materialist Cosmology when 68% of the energy and 27% of the matter required to explain the universe's existence and motions are missing? Just labeled "dark?" Just like believing in life having a natural origin and can't demonstrate the prebiotic chemistry required for even a single protein to form from it's elements?
The universe is the biggest stumbling block for Christians. Because the Church and Christianity bought into the lie that GOD created the universe and earth and all its inhabitants are the byproducts of stardust. And now the universe and space is a place where nasa flies their science fiction spaceships and satellites. Nowhere in any Biblical text the universe is ever mentioned. It is called heavens and heaven. The sun, moon, and stars are set in the firmament of heaven and there are different realms ov heaven. Nobody will ever get in a spaceship and fly to the moon and stars in space because the moon and stars are not in space, they are in the firmament of heaven. The only way anyone will ever be able to travel through the realms of heaven is spiritually.
Notice, the Stardust argument begins---for both Krauss and Tyson---with anthropomorphizing nature. "The stars were kind enough to die..." and "We are children of the sun and stars." Ironically, the atheists are the ones truly with a creation mythology.
Ypou know they are speaking figuratively, right? It is totally obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells that do not literally believe that stars are conscious entities who engaged in self-sacrifices or had offpsring.
so what does it imply if the big bang theory is incorrect? were it to be wrong that does not add any evidence for any other theory; a different theory has to explain the observations better than the big-bang theory. how does the speaker't theory better explain the observations we make?
He literally gave the example of how the Webb telescope found exactly what the creation model predicts and exactly opposite of what secular scientists predicted
@@mike300rum what was the prediction of creation science, and where can I find that this prediction was written before this observation, making it a "pre" diction?
@@billjohnson9472 he gave all that in the video. It was the christian Dr. who predicted the Webb telescope would find large, mature fully formed galaxies, while the atheists assumed they would be infant galaxies. It was almost the whole point of the entire video.
Materialists refer to the causative agent of the Big Bang as a "singularity." Isn't it fascinating that in Deut.6: 4 God describes himself as a singularity?
You're making an equivocation fallacy. In science a singularity is a condition in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically. Black holes have singularities. There are are multiple singularities in the Universe. Does that mean there are multiple gods?
@@amazingcaio4803 you say black holes have singularities, but black holes don't create new universes. So what's the difference between the singularity that ostensibly created the universe and the singularities you are talking about?
Reading this comment section I see both the Christians & non Christians attacking each other, being passive aggressive, holier than thou (both sides) & so on. It's perfectly fine to debate, of course, but please respect one another, especially the Christians, it's what the LORD would do after all.
The thing is, I can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, or millions of years old... But, how did it happen? So, the big bang happened when matter exploded. Ok, where did that matter come from?
@zuhalter0071 the theory doesn't try to explain origins, just that the data shows a very hot dense universe that became unstable and then rapidly expanded then after it expanded and cooled matter was able to form
@@raymondzuendel5181 Yet every tom dick and harry gloms onto the theory to debunk God - as if the theory has pronounced the truth about our origins.....interesting how that works, right?
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ge 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Ge 18:27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Job 10:9 Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. Ps 30:9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? Ps 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. Ps 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Ec 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Ec 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
"The BB theory, take my word for it...". No. That's not what science says "take my word for it". The reason the theory exists, is because there's a ton of evidence for it. Contrast that with "god did it", zero evidence for that. That's a big difference.
@@noneyabidness9644 There is. Your denial of science doesn't make said science just disappear. Creationists meed to reframe everything in a disingenuous and propagandistic manner because they cannot argue with the overwhelming science.
@@noneyabidness9644 No. You deny science because it doesn't validate your religious belief. There, in your denial the overwhelming scientific consensus based on evidence must a religion as well. I don't need to ''defend'' anything. The global scientific community and their endless list of scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals do that for me. Where's all the science for creationism? Oh right. There is none.
If the road to destruction is wide and the road to salvation and future glorification is narrow That has to mean millions of those who profess to be Christian yet do not believe His word. Will be on that narrow road . Just the truth.
Think: when God made the sun, did he have to wait 8 minutes for the light to reach the earth? Obviously not, God created everything ready, instantaneously. God said: let there be light, and there was light. Instantaneously, only God Himself, in everything I give thanks to Him.😊
@@brunobastos5533 Keep in mind: To be God you must be eternal (without beginning or end), live outside of time/space, and not be bound by any law of nature for the simple fact of being the creator and sustainer of everything that exists.
@@urso3000 E=mC^2 do you know what it mean E energy can be converted to m mass or matter , do you deny this , because that lead to the atomic bomb where mass is converted to energy
No, that's not a fact. It's a line. It's a saying. At best, it's a theory, but no one has ever demonstrated that we are stardust. It's true that some of the same elements in us are believed to be found in stars also. That's about as close as you can get.
I don’t see any conflict with the Big Bang. Yah could have used the Big Bang as a means of creation. The more science I learn the more biblical my world view becomes. Shalom
The main problem with evolution is that it requires death before man even evolved, but the Bible says that death came after man sinned. Not to mention that the days of Creation in the Bible don't line up with the evolutionary timeline (Day 3 the plants were made, then Day 4 the sun). But you are right too, that science does back the Bible
There is definite conflict with it.. if you believe in Bb then you deny what the Bible says…. There is no evidence for bb and evolution though anyway.. actually evidence AND logic points to a designer
Six 24 hour days of CREATION work for 6 days, by The Creator God, is far less preposterous than a BIG BANG, wherein & whereby the universe AND everything in it came into existence simultaneously on EACH day that God declared "Let there BE". Of course God would have no problem creating everything in ONE SECOND of TIME, IF He had chosen to do so. As such, I stand on the Biblical account, of God's daily declaration of what He made that day, on each of the 6 days of Creation.
_whereby the universe AND everything in it came into existence simultaneously_ It doesn;t say anything like that. At all. The early universe had very little resemblance to the current one.
Wait, you're saying that a six-day creation is less preposterous than the Big Bang, but also god could've chosen to create everything in a second and that wouldn't be preposterous? That sounds like a case of doublethink.
@@richardgregory3684 - Well, I fixed it above, about as well as anyone could I guess. Also, you haven't the slightest idea about what the universe looked like before. Keep on guessing, since everyone of us does. Still, many of us tire of those who make such grand claims as you do.
@@richardgregory3684 - Not quite what I meant, but rather each day the Lord BANGED creation into existence. Did you wake up with a thorn in your buttsky today? Pull it out and quit antagonizing folks. Shall ANYONE rely on what someone else says just because they said it? I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and all else that is said by humans is either incomplete or questionable at best. So, get on with your life, since there is life afterwards. Whosoever believes on Jesus, who died for their sins to give them eternal life, after this brief existence has passed, HAS BEEN GIVEN WHAT JESUS STATED. .
"has anybody ever tested the big bang?" Yes. We made predictions based on the standard model that cosmic microwave background exists, and we also predicted that the universe is constantly expanding. We later found out that there IS a cosmic microwave background radiation of the universe, and that all matter is expanding (though not at a fixed rate, thanks to the wrinkling of spacetime through gravity, or the lack thereof).
Wrong. The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (intelligence) to explain natural phenomena (functions) relying on fixed laws of nature (functions) is simply: 1. Observation 2. hypothesis 3. Text & predict ( needs fixed laws) 4. Conclude 5. Refine ( only if valid/true/natural) The Big Bang fails to pass the scientific method, but simply starts ... with the conclusion a a natural origin of the Universe billions of years ago as a fact ... then seeks a hypothesis and observational & experimental data so support it. And the Big Bang originated from an Atheist upset with the red shift data proving the Universe is not infinite but had a beginning like the Christians have been saying for a thousand plus years. Atheism began in the 1800's from "Christians" Europe. Prior to this all nations & empires believed in "the gods" or a powerful unnatural intelligence due to everything including Man's body having clear purpose, rules, design (information). Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies (observations) and easily passes the Scientific Method proving the origin of the Universe & Life ... and ... the objective,l rational, & logical reason for religions believing in "the gods." Atheism is sim;y a religion based entirely on Humanism and fake science as they will never be any evidence that nature & natural processes can make & enforce rules & laws ... and make things with clear purpose, rules & design. Christians developed the Sciences we have today not Atheists, Muslims, Hindus or pagan Ancient Greeks, and they are still the majority of Nobel Prize winners. Christians developed the free civilized world with the People created equal with inalienable rights including the right to keep, bear & make any firearm anywhere in the nation for self defense, hunting, recreation or service in a Militia that is to police the Government to deter tyranny and violation of rights. Meanwhile Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists and Progressive Liberals .. claim they follow the facts & science ... hates Conservatives and followers of God of the Bible ....and do not want the People to keep & bear "assault weapons" but only the Government (minority) should have an armed force .. and control & run ... the media, schools, economy, police, courts, prisons, military, legislature ... and .. any elections of the government. All the world wars & the rise of Communist/Humanist Regimes with nukes threatening the free "christian" world is due entirely to Humanist Liberals ... from Britain, France, & US in the late 1700's ... who followed Man's ways not God of the Bible. Science only supports God of the Bible creating Man for a reason/purpose. And the Bible has always said for thousands of years ... Man's nature is selfish & corrupt and needs a strong moral guide ( God & the Bible) to do good rather than evil. And you do have freewill to follow & obey God ( Life) or Man (Death) with most choosing death.
@@abelincoln.2064 exactly. They assume all of these things and they've made the wrong assumptions. At the very least, they have made unprovable assumptions.
@@abelincoln.2064 exactly. They assume all of these things and they've made the wrong assumptions. At the very least, they have made unprovable assumptions.
@@abelincoln.2064 HAHA, just because you don't like it you claim it is wrong. Red shift data has never, ever, shown what you think it does. I don't even know where you got that asinine idea. Christians did NOT develop the sciences. As usual, YEC"s have no idea of history or science. It would take way to long to correct you on the history and science nonsense you are spewing, and you would shrug it off anyway (you obviously already have) so it isn't even worth it to go there. But suffice it to say that ALL the civs, and more, that you mention contributed vast amounts to science including in understand the human body, illness/disease, medicine, astrology, astronomy etc. A 2014 study showed that only about 40% of Noble prize winners identify as Christian. So no, they are clearly not the majority winners of Noble prizes. All living organisms have a clear purpose - survive. The Bible promotes slavery and even says it is ok to beat them, so just stop with the free civilized world nonsense. Name one good reason a civilian should own an assault weapon. Do you really think if he U.S. army unleashed tanks and the air force on civ that the civs could do anything about it? Even with assault weapons? Hell no. It was important in colonial times only because the military basically used the same weapons hunters did. Good leadership protects the people (and doesn't send a crowd to attack the capital and then hide behind said crowed in defense). Christians have started as many if not more wars than any other religion. Science has never supported a god, and you have no evidence otherwise. (This just shows how little you know about science, it can't delve into the supernatural) I do know many selfish and corrupt Christians who need good morals to guide them. Too bad that don't have book to help them with that.
@@abelincoln.2064In what way do you think that disproves anything? Yes, in the turn of the 20th century, we found out the light we observe from some objects from space is shifted into the red spectrum in varying degrees and we wanted to find out why. This isn't about keeping some sort of pseudo canonical belief against Christianity. As for your claim that all nations and people believed in gods and spirits until suddenly Europeans decided not to is just objectively wrong. The beliefs of individuals isn't uniform among civilizations, and there were countless civilizations that housed citizens with a wide range of beliefs. Plenty of people in the Greco-Roman sphere didn't literally believe in the pantheon. There were also plenty of people who devoutly believed in them, much like there is today. Your claim that atheism/humanism is a religion falls flat when you realize that it isn't governed by any specific doctrine or order of worship. An overwhelming majority of people who consider themselves atheists are what theology scholars call "passive atheism." You are describing active atheism, which is the knowing rejection of religious doctrine, where as passive atheism would probably be more accurately considered agnostic, with no particular preference of believe system over the other. Most atheists just want proof, and surprisingly enough, there isn't any proof for a young Earth. I have many Christian friends, one of my best friends is a literal priest. He has a major in biblical theology and a minor in ancient Greek. We've discussed at length the topic of the historicity of the Bible, and even he can concede to the fact that the Bible was written by man and contains both historically inspired events and poetic symbolism. There's nothing wrong with believing the universe we live in is a product of a God, but to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is nonsense. Some of the first scientists to ask "how old is the Earth really?" we're devout Christians, attempting to discover the accuracy of the Bible in an objective manner. Because all evidence suggests it's older than the biblical timeline, they rightfully adjusted their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality so they can retain their faith. If anything, I would say learning to appreciate the world for what it really is is an act of faith in your creator. Placing 100% faith in Genesis is to put your faith in man (as they are the origins of these stories), not God. If you are truly a Christian, then you believe that the universe we live in was created by God, so why would you discredit his creation that you can literally see and interact with so your beliefs align better with what humans had to say about it thousands of years ago?
It takes far more faith to believe in the theories of the ‘Big Bang’ and the evolution than it does to believe in a Creator. If people truly understood how the math behind our universe, our galaxy, our planet, and that there is life on this planet they would have a very difficult time not believing in a Creator.
That's part of science. That's what scientists do. Why do you think they built the James Webb Space Telescope, for example, in the first place? You think they did it just so they could 'confirm their beliefs'? Of course not. They knew they would learn new information, and they expected that much of what they had previously thought would be overturned and replaced with that new information. They built that telescope to learn new things, not to confirm beliefs, as science is not about beliefs.
@bighairyviking387 No, it isn't. It's backed by a bunch of assumptions and a narrative the that steals from genetic adaptation. The killer for evolution is the lack of evidence of any increase in genetic information in any single kind of animal that might suggest a change an evolution from one kind of creature to another. Even in speciation there is no increase in genetic information, it is always a loss of information. A "forgetting" of a characteristic through the turning off of a specific gene.
@@bighairyviking387 no not evidence just someone’s interpretation of what they see . In other words their opinion , which makes it a belief system. Theories and opinions are not facts , and data is open to interpretation.
I have long said I think God just made it that way so that the more man learns the harder it is for man to logically deny the existence of God. That way, at judgement day, no one will have a valid excuse.
We believe that diamond could have been formed by two processes. First is the crystallization of the magma ocean, but this process likely contributed to forming only a very thin diamond layer at the core/mantle interface," Namur explained. "Secondly, and most importantly, the crystallization of the metal core of Mercury."
@@stevenwhite8937 And your explanation is, My 2000-year-old bronze age book told me that an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing and because my 2000-year-old bronze age book says it's true I'm going to blindly go along with that and get offended when somebody else doesn't believe what my 2000-year-old bronze age books says.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
When you make the elements do what you claim they did. Make some dna simulating a prebiotic world. Life is the creation of the supernatural. Prove life didn't come from life. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
There are numerous documented cases of people who have been pronounced dead by medical professionals who came back to life. If we are only material, how could material come back to life after it has ceased to be alive? If there is nothing outside of nature involved, how can material be reanimated? What animates material in the first place?
@@Vernon-Chitlen nothing demonstrable leaves the body other than fluids etc. One minute you are alive and then you died is the difference. When all bodily functions have ceased you are the opposite of having them functioning.
@@poliincredible770 people are resuscitated all the time and rarely some do it themselves. But. There is a window of time x amounts of minutes, that can be extended in cold conditions etc, but ultimately there is x amount of time when organ failure is irreversible and beyond that no one comes back from it.
Yup get out there and vote, Trump 2024. He's not perfect just like everyone else in the world but he does believe in God's grace and the value of human life.
Well not all life, according to him only some...some are worthy of life while others don't deserve right to life...who gives any man the authority to decide who lives and who dies?
@@annemcdowell4723 respects life enough to not want to start new wars in the 4 years of peace he gave us with record peace deals made including peace between North and South Korea which was a very historical moment. Both leaders give Trump open credit for the peace deal too.
@@bgonzales817 We were at war throughout Trump's term, and no, he made no "peace" deals. His capitulation to North Korea had nothing to do with "peace". Everyone told them they would ignore the "deal," and that is exactly what they did.
Those people are blinded by Satan's lies. God told us exactly how all things were created. I wouldn't want to be them when they stand before God and have to answer for their comments.
Well thats a wide claim for something thats never been observed. Starbirth has never been observed. Jason Lisle showed me that and he was right. They show clusters they call "birthing regions"" but they can call them anything they want, i demand they SHOW it and.. they havent ever done that. Thank you Jason
@@PsalmCourier We have seen stars in various stages of forming, but it takes a long time, so obviously we can't see the whole thing. And it isd usually obscured by the debris disc anyway
Alternatively is ASC is correct and we are seeing the universe in real-time, then wouldn't that mean there is no limit or cap to how fast we can theoretically travel through the universe? That would be an interesting implication.
@@stevelawrence8352 Sorry, but think about the claim: some 2k year old book is actually the word of god. That's huge. You need to provide really, really strong evidence for that claim. And you can't turn it around, otherwise you can't have a cogent conversation. You could say all kinds of nonsense and If I say "I don't believe it", you can just counter with "what evidence do you have for not believing it?". It would be utterly exhausting.
The prophets wrote the Bible, and they asserted themselves to be God’s prophets, or in other words his spokesmen. But the only way that you can come to know that is true is by doing an experiment of faith. The way you do that is by keeping one of the commandments which God has given, and seeing if it really does bless you, make you happier, and help you become a better person. For example, love your enemies instead of hate them. Give unto others generously expecting nothing in return instead of being selfish. Study the teachings in the Bible and see if they do not teach you truth and expand your mind and heart. All devout Christians have done this and received a confirmation that the Bible is true, and it comes from God. I invite you to give it a try!
In an evolutionary paradigm before we can get to molecules to man evolution we have to start with cosmic and stellar evolution. Since it is affirmed by evolutionary science that the stars are where the elements come from, in current stars up to iron, when a star starts trying to fuse iron that is its death knell. all of the rest of the elements are said to come from Super Nova explosions. as has been said "star stuff that's us" So in an evolutionary paradigm, explaining star formation is rather important. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "We Know the cloud wants to Collapse under its own weight to make one or more stars. but rotation as well as turbulent motion within the cloud work against that fate, so too does the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in High-school chemistry class, Galactic magnetic fields also fight collapse they penetrate the cloud and latch onto any free-roaming charged particles contained therein restricting the ways in which the cloud will respond to its self-gravity The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form." [Neil DeGrasse Tyson, 2007, pg 107] Death by black hole and other cosmic quandaries. New York: w.w. Norton and co. Eva Novotny said, “The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known.” [Eva Novotny. Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors, p. 279.] Martin Harwit said, “Literally hundreds of ideas on how stars are formed have been advanced in past decades. However, we are still far from any real solution.” [Martin Harwit, Astronomical Concepts, Second Edition. p.405.] Martin Harwit said, “The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form. There’s no lack of ideas, of course. We just can’t substantiate them.” [Martin Harwit, Book Review in Science, 7 Match 1996, p. 1201-2] Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu said, “The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.” [Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu. The Formation of Sunllke Stars. Science, 4 May 1990, p. 564.] Ward D Thompson said, “The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics... No current model can reproduce all of the observations.” [Ward D Thompson, Isolated Star Formation: From Cloud Formation to Core Collapse, Science 4 January 2002: " Vol. 295. no. 5552, pp. 76 - 81.] V. Trimble and M. Aschwanden, “The formation of galaxies and large-scale structure remains TMIUPIMA. . . "the most important unsolved problem in modern astrophysics.” [V. Trimble and M. Aschwanden, Astrophysics in 2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 113:1025-1114, 2001 September] Roger A. Windhotst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell said, “Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” [Roger A. Windhotst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, "A Matter of Timing" Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p.30] These are just a few, I have more, they cannot tell us how stars formed, and there is no end of ideas but nothing concrete, so to be honest, if you cannot even explain how the first stars formed, which are very essential in your paradigm for life, why should I trust your molecules to man story? The evolutionary paradigms are fraught with problems, but you only find this out when you look into their journals and papers not meant for public consumption, gee I wonder why that is? It does not really matter anyway because none of this is real according to the Big Bang model and Boltzmann's brain paradox in which a very prominent cosmologist said it is infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains. There is no universe, there is no milky-way galaxy, and you are infinitely more likely to be a naked brain, you popped into existence and will pop back out shortly. this is where the math of the Big Bang when taken to its limits ends up
@@billcook4768 I am well aware of that, but both are evolutionary explanations of origins, one dealing with how the universe and the things in it got here and the other dealing with how life got here on Earth. So why should I believe the second origin story when the first one is fraught with problems? you cannot get to molecules to man without first having a habitable universe with habitable galaxies and planets, obviously, cosmic evolution must proceed before biological evolution, so why trust the second when the first is still not understood, and not only but JWST has been giving cosmologists fits with it's discoveries. For the longest, they have said that it took about 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang for galaxies to even form let alone be mature, but JWST has found fully mature galaxies between 400-200 million years after the Big Bang and is just one of several discoveries that have rocked cosmologists. What next push the estimated age of the universe further back to accommodate the young galaxies? every time you turn around it seems like they are having to modify their views to match the newest observations, where things they predicted turned out to be wrong. In my world, if someone claiming to be a Christian makes a false prediction, just one, they are a false prophet that God did not speak to, and not to be listened to, your people have been doing this on an ongoing basis for years and that is supposed to be just peachy.
@@billcook4768 Yes that is a big difference, what is scientific orthodoxy today is thrown out tomorrow, there was a time when phlogiston was a scientific fact, and some had successful careers doing phlogiston studies but the truth was finally discovered and phlogiston was tossed out on its can. You get to teach our kids, stuff that is true today but overturned tomorrow, for example, there have been four theories on how we got our moon, and three of them were to be decided on during the Apollo missions, 1: the Nebula theory 2: the fission theory 3: the capture theory For various reason it turned out none of the above, so that they needed more data and some new theories. Enter the large impactor theory where a Mars-sized object, hit the Earth at just the right speed, at just the right angle and both turned into molten rock, the heavier stuff sunk down into the Earth and the lighter stuff formed the moon. Well not so fast, they went back and looked at those moon rocks with better equipment and discovered water in them, enough to postulate that there was as much water in the moon as in the Caribbean Ocean, that is a big problem. As one scientist put it, it is hard to imagine a scenario where all of the moon is molten and holds on to its water, "that is a really difficult knot to untie" And that was the last good theory for how we got our moon, it is not possible for the moon to have been completely molten and hold on to its water. So that theory does not work, well guess what, it is still being taught today even though they know it does not work, but they do not have any other theories to replace it. is that true science? Not only is that a problem, but it is a known thing that volatile elements were not supposed to condense out of the cloud that made our solar system at heliocentric distances that is why the inner four planets are rocky, they once said that comets brought all of the water to the Earth I suppose in that bombardment that would include the moon too. but then they sent a probe to some comets and found out that the comets had far too much deuterium in their ices and could not have been the source of all of our water, now they are saying asteroids brought the water, On and on it goes, the stories keep changing, the kids in school get taught stuff that in a few years is overturned and y'all are just peachy with that. with your science, it's just like the weather in Denver Colorado, if you do not like it wait fifteen minutes and it will change. I am glad my bible and my Christian faith have not changed, and that what was taught 2,000 years ago has come down unaltered, that is not to say that there are not those who have altered things, but the true faith is still being taught. as that was the promise Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Many have perverted the true teachings, but there is a remnant of those who still hold on to the true faith. I am thankful for the stability of the true Christian faith, my anchor in Christ, holds fast in these uncertain and trying times.
Nothing is perfect, and that's why science changes as we learn more things. You guys are generally forced to change your beliefs as needed by law or general sentiment of society. Most slave owners in America were Christian. In modern times, the slavery tends to only stick around in 3rd world Christian countries.
Plenty of things are both good and bad for you. All cooked food contains carcinogens, but the pros of making the food more bioavailable for our metabolism outweighs the small amounts of carcinogens that are produced when food is cooked. All those prop 65 warnings (known by the state of California to cause cancer) are accurate. Everything with that label does contain carcinogens because a majority of everything can be carcinogenic if consumed.
Instant Light from Stars? "Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens and STRETCHED THEM OUT." - Isaiah 42:5a Genesis 1:14-15,19 14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And it was so. 19) And the evening and the morning were the Fourth Day.
20 billion years ago there was a big bang. And then 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup, and the soup came alive 3 billion years ago. And the first life form found somebody to marry and something to eat and slowly evolved into everything we see today. So great great great great great great grandpa was soup.🍜
If I had just 1% of the luck or coincidences that evolution had in Las Vegas I would be kicked out of every casino for cheating. This makes Evolution the biggest cheater of all time. TC
@@jockyoung4491No, it doesn't mock science, jockoboy. It mocks the ridiculousness of evolution. I see you're still trolling Christian videos. Why is that?
If you can explain how your alternative method works, I'm all ears. How exactly does 'speaking things into existence' work? What is the mechanism involved? When only God existed, communucation would have been pointless. With nobody to communicate with, language wouldn't have been required. Who was God speaking to when he 'spoke things into existence'? All YEC's can do is ridicule our attempts at trying to explain things. When will anyone step up and explain how their alternative works, and if they can't, why believe it?
lol don't understand what the word soup mean , but believe a couple populate the world and even accept incest as that is the only way possible but totally forget the inbreed
@@friisteching3433 I'm waiting for you, anybody demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for life. Evidence that life exists because non living matter became living without design or purpose.And no pesky, sovereign Creator. So I can become an intellectually satisfied atheist like you and worship my genitalia. So I can exploit the less fit
Creation in bible can't be mixed up with knowledge, for example when Adam 1 day old according to creation, how old was he according to knowledge...? 30 years old.....? So as the universe... it can't be mixed up between creation and knowledge
Science does exactly that, though. The big bang theory states that the universe had an ultimate beginning, often referred to as the "cosmic egg", or a singularity. Then, for whatever reason impossible to prove empirically, space rapidly expanded and then expanded at a more steady rate (cosmic inflation). At that point, supposedly, space, time, matter and energy came into existence. Scientists work in fallacious ways though, because they claim that nature came into existence at that very moment, yet still claim the cause for it was natural... nature cannot have caused itself. Quantum fluctuations make no sense as the initial cause, because the very fields they exist in did not even exist then. This is why scientists claim that everything quite literally came from "nothing", without any outer input or motivation. We Christians make the simple, far more logical claim that everything came into existence from nothing, but via someone. Occam's razor.
@@sikzo4628 No it does not. The big bang theory doesn't cover the singularity, since all known physical laws break down at that point. The big bang theory is about only the EXPANSION of the universe. It says nothing about where it came from. For THAT we simply don't know.
@@sikzo4628 “This is why scientists claim that everything quite literally came from ‘nothing’" Did you even read the comment you replied to? They don’t claim that.
The question I have for the Big Bang theory is this: if everything expanded out in all directions from the singularity, how did anything ever come together to form matter? Gravity is not a strong enough force to overcome the velocity of the particles and as time goes on they only become farther and farther apart. It doesn’t seem possible.
A very well thought out question. You're correct in saying that all matter is expanding outward from the Big Bang singularity event, but you have to remember that neighboring matter is also traveling in the same direction as other neighboring matter. Atoms in clusters are traveling at roughly the same relative rate together, and because they would be moving in roughly the same direction with the same velocity, they would be relatively still to one another. You also have to take into account the uneven expansion of the universe, of which we don't exactly know why it happens. Some chalk it up to dark matter, an undetectable form of matter that changes the velocity of other objects, but personally, I think modified Newtonian dynamics fits better, as it supposes that the uneven expansion is caused by the shrinking and expanding of spacetime in areas of space with little to no matter whatsoever.
while the universe's expansion does push matter apart on a large scale, gravity and the initial conditions of the universe allowed matter to clump together and form the structures we observe today.
@@xXMACEMANXxeven if some particles traveled next to each other after the initial expansion, gravity isn’t strong enough to over come the particles bumping into each other as they come together. The force of the collision would immediately push them apart again. It’s the same reason the air particles in a room don’t all clump together. If you’re saying the laws of physics must have been different at the beginning, well, that just seems like a rescue device to me.
@@baldbutton1983 You have to remember, it's all about relative motion. If two particles are traveling at 5% of the speed of light in the same direction parallel to each other, they would both be motionless relative to each other. If you slowly pulled them together through a weak and passive force (gravity, for example), they wouldn't bump against each other and shoot off on a direction because of their kinetic energy. It's the same reason that spacecraft can dock in space. The international space station orbits at a speed of 17,500 miles an hour, and a Soyuz or Dragon spacecraft needs to meet its orbital velocity of 17,500 miles an hour to dock with it. When they intercept each other, they're just gently floating next to each other, and they softly touch and mate together at a relative velocity of just a few feet per minute.
He was the only one that predicted the findings of the james webb while the rest were saying they were going to see baby galaxies in a baby universe and he was proven right they werent.
And know what they did? Moved the goal posts as they always do. "Well its just older than we thought"" to cover the fact that they were wrong. Jason showed how the math doesnt allow for that.
@@PsalmCourier something observed by the jwst never seen before wasnt wrong. It is what the jwst is for to look deeper back in time to learn more about the early universe. Lisle predicted galaxies like we have today and that was not what they saw.
When you calculate the time from Adam to now you are starting at Adam’s sin, not his creation. You also assume on the day Adam was given his wife she immediately was fooled and then fooled Adam. Adam was tending the garden and naming all the animals. Was given a wife and instructions. I doubt it fell apart instantly. New calculations are needed here.
@@amazingcaio4803 evolution is patently unobservable. Peppered moths are still moths. Moths that produce moths are not evidence that non-moths developed into moths. The first chapter of the Bible states that God created creatures to produce after their own kind. So peppered moths demonstrate the truth of God's word. Moths actually disprove evolution. Think about it; darwinists say that caterpillars developed the ability to become moths over millions of years (patently unobservable). Caterpillars don't have reproductive organs, they don't acquire reproductive capabilities until they go through metamorphosis and become moths. So the very first caterpillar had to come preprogrammed with the ability to go through metamorphosis or it was game over. Please accept observable science; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).
@@amazingcaio4803 moths that produce moths of a different color are not evidence that non-moths developed into moths. They are evidence that moths produce moths, just like the 1st chapter of the Bible says they were designed to.
@@amazingcaio4803 actually moths disprove evolution. Think about it; darwinists say that caterpillars developed the ability to become moths over millions of years (patently unobservable). Caterpillars don't have reproductive organs, they don't acquire reproductive capabilities until they go through metamorphosis and become moths. So the very first caterpillar had to come preprogrammed with the ability to go through metamorphosis or it was game over. Please accept observable science; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).
@@refuse2bdcvd324 You're correct. Moths having offspring of a different colour is not evidence that non-moths produce moths. However, my comment did not try to show that, as that was not what you originally disputed. You claimed evolution provides implausible assumptions. I mentioned that evolution of peppered moths shows that evolution provides more than implausible assumptions - it is in fact observable.
IMHO, the biggest problem with the Big Bang Theory is the timeline. According to the speculation, all matter, energy, space and time banged into being. Gen 1 explains all of that. "In the beginning (time) God created (mechanical energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)". When God said, "Let there be light," that was acoustic energy and the list goes on. Obviously God, through Moses, got it right. People are (often willingly) misinterpreting or misrepresenting the evidence.
@@jockyoung4491 Do you really think that your opinion counts…🤣🤣🤣🤣 …How life really works…if scientists could prove anything, any of their stupid monkey theories, then, there wouldn’t be any religion…as a result of their incompetence to include yours, 96% of the world’s population consists of 4 religions because scientists suck at their jobs. Some people believe that aliens built the pyramids because scientists can’t prove anything different because scientists suck at their jobs. You lost before you even started, and, you don’t have enough cellular structures in your cranial cavity to see the logic. How life really works… People been trying for how long to disprove God??? And, they have failed miserably over and over and over, and, you think what??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 That you’re special…and got something new to bring to the table…🤣🤣🤣 Look at the logic. That makes you just another loser like scientists. Men put dresses on and make ridiculous claims too. Go to Israel, or go to Palestine, or go to one of those countries where women can’t drive, and tell them all about your sob little story, and, see what happens to you. You will find out very quickly “how life really works” because they throw people like you off the roofs…Even mathematicians because of the mathematics, believe in multiple dimensions, multiple universes and dark matter. Look at the logic now, now you will never be able to disprove God’s existence Skydaddy…and for the record: nobody alive on this planet is in any position to call anything a myth or legend. There’s more archeological evidence to prove the Bible than any of mankind’s stupid theories. Those people saw something, something so significant, that they wrote about it and built megalithic structures that scientists can’t explain because they suck at the jobs, and, that abundance of empty space between your ears isn’t going to call any of those people liars. Do you know why??? Because none of y’all alive today on this planet was there…that’s why.
@@jockyoung4491 God speaking is the acoustic energy. Light is electromagnetic, another form of energy. My broader point is that when I am in discussion with "Big Bangers", I simply point out that their major points are already covered by a more coherent explanation that needs no revision when new facts or conjectures come around. (Asking them for experiments that confirm their hypothesis is a good point, too.)
@@tonycolle8699 But you're saying the Bible is evidence that is being willingly discarded. God as an explanation in the book that could have been possibly altered is not evidence of God doing so. You can't prove those words true, and thus they are disregarded. Sure we can't answer how the universe started without speculation, but I prefer no answer over a wrong one, considering we do not have any evidence to hint at how the universe was caused. We can't exactly test other universes, this is the only one we know. The Bible as evidence is dubious at best, contradictory at worst.
I think we can take the basic elements of the Big Bang to support the bible, as in there is a single point of origin. “Let there be light” and the aggressive expansion of the universe. I think it’s the interpretation of everything else that we should be careful with as they are continually changing as you said 😊
Dang, if only oil and coal companies used old earth models (like the fossil record, salt mounds, plate tectonics, sea basins, etc.) to find their oil and coal deposits. Those billions of years believers might be on to something if they did use old earth models.... oh, wait... they DO use old earth models to find oil and coal deposits.
What you perceive in your humanity as a "mistake" may very well be a part of an infinite, all-powerful God's perfect plan. This is a truth that Christians understand. We accept that we don't know everything, and we are okay with that.
@@nataliepope5578 I don’t accept that an all powerful being exists, and suggest that if he does and if he has a plan, that plan is a failure on all reasonable grounds.
If God created the universe, which I believe he did, and stars explode releasing elements that are also present in earth and humans - it’s not a stretch to say we are made of star stuff. It doesn’t take anything away from God. He is our creator. You can’t deny reality though. He created this amazing engine of the universe and life and used it to create us. God is the universe, therefore we are made of star stuff.
The very day this video came out, a few hours before, i was watching a video from an "apologist who embraces the big bang", and it was really troubling to see that compromise.. later this video came out, it never gets old when God shows me He sees me and meets me right where i am. Praise God! Thank you AIG for the video snd your faithfulness to God's Word. God bless
If you trust AIG, you really need to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you like truth or not. IF the answer is yes, then don't get your science from an apologetics channel.
@@earthisasphere i don't "trust AIG" like you probably think. In other words i don't believe what I believe just because AIG or any ministry says it. I believe it because the Bible says it, and the One i trust is God. AIG believes the same things, aka what the Bible says, so i agree with them based on what i already believe myself.
@@SilkyAnteater. it would still help to think about whether or not you care if what you believe is true. Both AIG and the bible get so very many things completely wrong.
@@donzo5984 yes i agree, if it wasn't true i wouldn't want to believe it just to believe it. But i do believe it because i see it's true. The evidence, the reasoning, and the testimony of God's work in my life personally all make the point on my firm conviction. What are some examples of what you say that the Bible gets wrong?
@@SilkyAnteater. That a god created the earth and everything on it in 6 days. A man was created from dust and a woman from his rib. That same woman was told by a serpent to eat a fruit containing knowledge. Among so many other things.
Jesus is Lord
that a literal sin twice you shall never say the name of god in vain ,You shall have no other gods before Me
Amen! Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of lords.
AMEN!
Amen 🙏
voldemort is lord
He spoke in parables so he wants us to think critically but since no-one is perfect, no-one can have all the answers. He doesn't expect us to understand absolutely everything and I imagine the universe will always be beyond man's comprehension.
The stars died for me? The stars were never alive.
You've heard of speaking poetically, right?
@@richardgregory3684 this isn’t poetry.
@@mr.k1896 Would "figure of speech" be easier for you to understand? It's totally obvious none of the speakers think stars are living concious entities engaged in self-sacrifice.
Alive in this sense does npt mean biologically alive. We use this for many things. Waves dying do not mean they were biologically alive
@@xavierowino It's clearly just a figur eof speech being used for dramatic effect.
God is the creator
Which 'god'? 'yahweh'?
@@MedellínInsider-n3o Nah, Yahweh was a son of El so that can't be true.
@@kevinkelly2162 but...but... 'yahweh' IS 'el"...
@@MedellínInsider-n3o The god El was the father of most of the lesser Canaanite gods, and he was married to the head goddess, Asherah, who bore him many children. Among these were Baal and Anat, and also possibly Yahweh, the god of Israel.5 feb 2023
@@kevinkelly2162
God the Father (YHWH), God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. One God, three Persons.
God's word will always stand tall. Praise God!
Which 'god'???
@@MedellínInsider-n3o The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Psalm 139:14 I will praise You for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows very well. All 200 different types of the 37 trillion cells arranged in my body bearing witness to Him. The same that said man wouldn't be able to solve war. A big one will nearly destroy the earth, leaving it nearly lifeless. Increasing lawlessness. More than a million cars were stolen last year in the USA 7,000+ in Washington DC alone.
@@MedellínInsider-n3o only one
@@MedellínInsider-n3o Jesus!!!
@@MedellínInsider-n3o only one
Creation is self-evident, but some people trust unproven theories more than their common sense.
Whoever suggested you change your handle to "Analbeta" sure hit the target. 😆
If it is so evident, how did it happen?
That would be unprovable theories
Which make the theory of evolution and the big bang just another false religion
Might as well call it the lucky charms theory ☘
There’s no reason for matter to spontaneously exist and randomly form into a complex universe . It certainly takes more faith to believe that than God created.
Easy to say. If you think buying into this cringe-fringe dogma is you ticket to eternal life, go for it, but quit insulting professional scientists who have no time to waste on debunking the same, stale arguments over and over, decade after decade. An inerrant bible cannot be reconciled with modern scientific knowledge. Don't embarrass yourself.
@@solipsist3949 Actually most of mainstream science is false
This is a great blessing 🙌
Being a Hebrew I know my ancestors did not worship the Stars.
Your ancestors did at one point worship baal though. Facts. God said don't burn children and yall burned children. So Elijah was sent. Facts.
@@kevlark3184 well some did but NOT all.
God called Abram out of a pagan culture, named him Abraham, and established the nation of Israel. I'm glad Abraham gave up his pagan beliefs when he met the true Creator God!
Imagine living in B.C. times when God didn't reveal himself to all of humanity yet. It's no wonder they worshipped stars, the sun, moon, lightning.. and people, as gods. Nevermind, the child sacrifices and other extremities that were not only normal, but expected to appear said gods.
The Cannanites, the people who eventually became the tribes of Israel, believed in a pantheon of gods that represented both real world events/concepts as well as astrology. Your ancestors were pagan
Even your Yahweh was a storm god
Perfect 😍 God bless you ❤
We take God's word for it. After all, he was there.
Except none of the books of the Bible were written by God. They were written by humans with motives and beliefs
@@xXMACEMANXx wrong, as you guys always are. It is God breathed.... The Bible also says God inspired. It is the truth of God and will always be the truth of God.
@@Abidingingrace-p6z By that same logic, doesn't that also validate Islam's claim to the Qur'an being the word of God?
I mean, your book claims that it was inspired by the 'holy spirit,' and their book claims that it was dictated by God to Muhammad like many parts of the Pentateukh were directed by God to Moses.
Both of those claims have equivalent value, and yet they can't both be the word of God. So I ask you, where is the proof that a God had anything to do with the men who wrote the books? You can believe they were, but you can't pretend as if your beliefs are the only possible answer
Um, no. All we have are 66 books written over centuries (many by unknown authors) that are purported to be god's word. They're not. They're *man's* word. Why isn't this obvious?
God's word always takes precedence over man's word. Amen 🙏🙏🙏
I never understood why Christians always claim that The 6 Days of Creation were not Literal 24 hr Days?????
Like, the Bible Literally Says How Long He took Morning, Evening, Night😶🙃
Catholics, who have the true interpretation handed down to them from the apostles, disagree
@@samw7998 Total Nonsense
@@samw7998 catholics call men holy "father" the Vatican embraces all this "woke" stuff The Vatican believes in pagan traditions and cant back up half of their own stuff using the Bible. Purgatory, the eucharist, ecumenicism, mary immaculate, endulgences, popes, rosaries, praying to saints, bones on the alters, the incense smokes, auricular confession to a light bulb, They violate the Bible up and down.
@@samw7998 I can list off probably 10 major things, using the Bible that they violate but youtube just deletes it. I could code it with numbers or something but i really hate doing that.
there is no purgatory.
GOD not only created all the stars He named them.
There are roughly 10 to the 24th stars. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000.000,000 stars. rofl.
Great presentation. Jesus is LORD!
No, Jesus is Lord, Jehovah is LORD(all Capitals) see Psalm 110:1 in most Translations.
There are huge problems with the things we've been taught. Theyre not true.
I had a teacher in high school who had a bumper sticker on his mini fridge that says "The Big Bang Theory: God Spoke, Bang It Happened." He was one of my Health teachers, by the way. That statement makes a bit of sense if you read or reread Genesis chapter 1. "Let there be light!" Bang! There's light. I stand by it.
There wasn't any light at the big bang. Light came much later. Honestly your teacher would rightly be laughed at in Europe.
@@richardgregory3684 Dude is in his 40's. Said teacher would be laughed at in the US now too.
I wonder if that teacher mentioned the cosmic Dark Age..
Well you have a misunderstanding of the big bang it's just a description of when time started when we say big bang we mean a point in time where all matter heated up and expanded and the thing is that's just what we CAN see so we don't even know that's where we started or even if the universe started or has always been
Excellent presentation. Well done to everyone involved. Lyn
Thank you so much and God bless you and your Team 🙏
God declares the end from the beginning.
With the Big Bang (1931 A.D.) and evolution (1859 A.D.), mankind attempts to declare the beginning from the end.
It's similar to Saul being the 1st king of Israel, but coming from the last son of Jacob (Benjamin) and being from the smallest family of the smallest tribe, yet standing head and shoulders above them all.
But moreso, it is fulfillment of Biblical prophecy from Isaiah1, 'they have gone away backward'.
Word of warning.
YEHWEH declaring the end from the beginning DOES NOT MEAN that the lie of predestination or the out of context idea if "the elect" in Roman's is true.
Reject the lie of calvinism. Follow christ. Calvinism requires that Jesus was/is a liar.
17:25 a lightyear is the distance light travels *in a year* . If an object is 1 lightyear away it means the light took 1 year to reach the earth.
If you were to look at earth from 1000 light years away, you would be seeing light that left the earth 1000 years ago. You would see earth in the Middle Ages.
If a lightyear wasn’t the distance light travels in a year, the term “lightyear” wouldn’t make sense. We would just use a larger measurement of distance than miles or kilometers. This is not a difficult concept.
He's saying just because it would take us a billion years to get to Billions of light years away doesn't mean that those things took Billions of years to get where they are for example
If there is a God those stars would still be billions of years of distance because that's how far they are no matter the date of the planet it the distance would still be billions of years
Your trying to be smug but did not understand the point
@@orpheemulemo8053 A light year is a measure of distance, not time. It refers to how far light can travel in one year. So, if something is 1 billion light years away, the light you’re seeing from that object took 1 billion years to reach us, meaning you’re seeing the object as it was 1 billion years ago. It doesn’t refer to how long it took the object to move to its current position.
@@sixfootoneistall2002 But that doesn't make sense as Because of that Objects distance it would travel the same weather millions or not are you saying for a part of our Earths history there was no light and it took billions of years just for light to graze us
@@orpheemulemo8053 I don’t understand the first part of that but, as for the question you raised, no there was never a time when earth had no light because the earth formed after the sun
@@sixfootoneistall2002 And you don't think it's a bit suspicious that somehow we have over one hundred perfect coincidences lining up to life
Normaly in a case as a police three coincidences would make something not a coincidence I'm saying
As for the first part let's say you make a building you place it so it takes two days drive from your house to get there does that mean the house itself was built two days ago or the road leading to the building was built 2 days ago
I don't see how light years are a strong foundation to make that acertion
Lets us not exalt our intellect over the Creator's mind & intellect. God is WAY smarter than us.. Mike, Tasmania
Great explanation... Thank You!!!!
I wonder if anyone at AIG can give the name of 1 single scientist who has ever used the term "trust Me bro" or "take my word for it" when presenting any findings they have made about a new discovery.
Ron Wyatt? Oh wait, he is a creationist. Can't think of a legit scientist.
Because they are using "trust me bro", they think others must do the same.
@@friisteching3433All the scientists that assert life had a natural origin. They don't know how, but non living matter became living.
@@Vernon-Chitlen They have evidence. It's your problem that you don't know what evidence is.
@@Vernon-Chitlen RNA world is a way how life could have had their natural origin. They know how. It is unknown that life on earth did it like that.
@@Vernon-Chitlen they know how. Just don't know if it really did that.
Thank you for your work! Shalom!
God bless AIG!
The Heavens declare the Glory of God!
Can I get an AMEN?
Weird that the heavens don't do that, and that god left behind all sorts of evidence that claim exactly the opposite of what you all believe. Why would he do that?
AMEN
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 Your silence is deafening.
Unless they repent they will perish
*Evidence?*
Repent from what?
Not having the exact same interpretation as you have.
That's why people were burned alive at the stake, in the dark ages.
Maybe YOU should repent.
Maybe your interpretation is wrong.
Maybe we already have repented but just happen to have a different interpretation.
How many different Christian sects are there.
There are so many, because we all have a different interpretation.
It's not what keeps us from salvation. Judging people just might keep you from salvation, because God is a jealous God and doesn't want you doing, what ONLY he gets to do.
STOP JUDGING.
@dalepearson9658 This person did not judge. We're not supposed to judge, so anyone who ever judged you wasn't following the LORD correctly. I'm well aware many Christians look down on nonbelievers, act holier than thou, hate on people, etc, but they're incorrect for doing so. Don't assume we're all like that. We're supposed to love & respect everyone.
@@jamesmark1721
_"Don't assume we're all like that."_
We know you're not all like that. In fact, that's one of the problems if you're trying to convince us that your religious beliefs are actually true. (The biggest problem, of course, seems to be the complete lack of good evidence backing up religious claims. But this is also a problem.)
Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity _specifically to tell you stuff!_
Is your god just the world's worst communicator, then? Or simply imaginary?
There are _thousands_ of different denominations of Christianity, even _after_ the Catholic Church spent a thousand years rooting our 'heresy' with fire and sword. (Before then, you were _really_ diverse, apparently.) And sure, you no longer burn people alive. You got better. That's great.
But why? Make no mistake, I'm _glad_ you got better. I'm glad you know longer murder 'heretics,' atheists, homosexuals, or 'witches.' (I hope it's not just because no denomination still has the power to do that.)
But the Bible didn't change. Your book didn't get better. Your god didn't get better. You guys got better for the same reason that the rest of us have gotten better over time. And now, you just drag your god along with you, huh? After all, the one thing we know about gods is that they all agree with whatever _you_ think (the individual believer), right?
I've been surrounded by Christians all my life. I didn't know a single other person who _wasn't_ a Christian all the time I grew up - not _one_ (as far as I knew, of course). But everyone I knew just seemed to believe it because they were taught to believe it as a child and they really, really _wanted_ it to be true.
Many decades later, if any of you have something distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious claims, I have yet to hear it. And Muslims have claims, too, of course. Mormons have claims. Religious Jews have claims. I never get a chance to talk to Hindus, but I know that they have claims, too. Just nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing them up, as far as I can tell, in every case.
And, unfortunately, faith-based thinking seems to be destroying my country and my world. No, you're not _all_ like that. But if you're faith-based, you're still part of the problem, as far as I can tell. We should all care enough about the _truth_ of our beliefs to be evidence-based, not faith-based.
Unless they put they’re faith in Christ*
Awesome and Amen!!!
I trust in the Lord. I don't need secular theories to explain it for me and neither does God.
Then why are you using iternet and youtube. Or GPS. Or medicine, cars, germ theory, planes, and so on...
All these things are created by the very same physics and scientists they (and you) claim to be false.
Great video thank you
This joke called a speaker for science, " Stars died for you"😅😅
Evolution is not science it is metaphysics. Real science is experimental and gave us medicine and engineering. It arose uniquely in Christendom. To believe in evolution you have to believe in multiple impossible things. For example that the universe cause itself, a violation of the law of non contradiction which is foundational to reason. You must believe in spontaneous generation that non life gives rise to life. You must believe that star dust became Rembrandt and Mozart. You must believe that there are exceptions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You must believe that information comes from matter. You must believe that the fossils show ancestry and gradualism when all it shows is abrupt appearance and discontinuity.
Not going to lie... you had me in the first half.
Its where did it start. There is a starting point. Destruction does not make things. The big bang is not a thing that makes anything other than a mess.
At 12:10 the seven-day week DOES have a natural basis. If we place the Earth is motionless at the center of the universe --- the common assumption until just a few hundred years ago --- we can see seven "planets" with the unaided eye. . . Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn, then Sun and Moon, which in a geocentric universe are considered planets. The days of the week are named for them.
Cultures around the world observed this, which is how the number seven became so prominent.
As a YEC myself I suggest the time zone analogy for the ASC model of light speed is flawed. When a plane leaves Ohio at 4pm and arrives in Colorado at 4pm this has nothing to do with altering the passage of time, neither for the plane nor for the rest of the universe. It is simply a side-effect of how we measure time. Time itself continues to pass at the same rate in each location.
If the speed of light is instant and we are watching the universe in real time then I'm not sure how we have a measurable unit for light-speed. Also a light-year is the distance that light can travel in the equivalent of one Earth-year.
Jason Lysle is correct regarding instantaneous action. His problem is he went to University to study physics which is pure nonsense both in The Big Bang and Standard Model.
Light does not travel as photons. It's a two-way change in energy. The receiver has to he ready first. This is what takes the time. Once the receiver is ready starlight travels instantly. So we see the stars as they are now, in this moment.
To add to their nonsense, scientists claim the Earth moves around the Sun which is easily disproved by the duration of Mars retrograde loops. When Mars is close to Earth these loops should be huge due to parralax and small when Mars is further away. We see the opposite as photographed in 2003 and 2012 by Tunc Tezel. Namaste
And on the 7th day, God rested and made it holy. The 7th day is Saturday, not Sunday.
Where does the Bible say what day of the week the first day was on? The calendar is an arbitrary structure developed much later.
@@kirkjgries3527 and this is the reason Jesus left this commandment out. Who cares? Pick a day and rest and go to church.
Correctly said, there is no reference to the first day, so you can't say Saturday, or Sabath, but rather 6 days of work and 1 day of rest. The Another interesting look at time: The Earth has experienced close to being 6000 years of troubles and turmoil since the fall of man in the garden, and the Sabath or time of rest for the Earth will be when Jesus sets His millenium Kingdom here on Earth (1000 years of rest), a temporary Sabatical for the Earth (though later it gets a whole makeover). That same 1000 years may be what Leviticus also speaks about the year of Jubilee; could it also be a prophetic Jubilee for the Earth (50th millenium). So maybe the Earth was created almost about 49,000 years ago? Something to ponder about.
Jesus of Nazareth, regarded by many as an expert on Christianity, said "Man was not made for the sabbath. The sabbath was made for man."
Amen!
Our Lord has a wonderful sense of humour.
So he likes providing evidence that proves one thing, but then wants us to believe what is written in s 2,000 yr old book over said evidence. That is your argument? That isn't a sense of humor, that is just sick, if it were true that is. There is no evidence that supports a young earth, or a god for that matter.
Thank you, very interesting and I appreciate that you don't speak so fast as most AIG videos. Just wanted to point out at 13:10, it's not just Christian, it's Judeo-Christian. Christians, let's not appropriate the Hebrew scriptures for ourselves while forgetting who wrote them and handed them down for generations before Christianity.
Great!
Just change over time won't answer the origin of natural laws, matter, natural constants, life, DNA, reproduction, earthly water, complex organs, fossils, etc.
Exactly.
The origin of natural laws and natural constants are defined by, come from, and relate to the discoveries made by science. Matter, Life, DNA, Reproduction, Complex Organs, and fossils are all describing the same thing. All natural in origin. Earthly water ? Did you just throw this in as an afterthought ? Did you have a point. I know you have a hard time understanding. But why do you need literally every step from one cell to a human mapped out one by one, yet a man living in a whale for days seems legit to you. No questions asked. Rather hypocritical. Yes ?
We don't know about the first origin, but everything after that can be pretty well explained.
💯 if I tell people all these changes will occur in 5 minutes, they will laugh at me.
But if I tell them all these changes will occur over millions of years, then all of a sudden I'm a genius.
What does time have to do with any part of the equation?
@@rayspeakmon2954
No, the time it took is irrelevant. You would still have to demonstrate HOW it could happen. Science does that. Religion doesn't even try.
I wish there is a simple and condense version of this to explain to people lol. Thank you for this lecture. God is great!
A simple and condensed version would be just as wrong, completely wrong.
light did not travel as far in the begining, The Bible says God strechted the Heavens like a scroll
The Bible says many things. It says there's water above the sky, just like there is water under it (Gen 1:7-8), but we know that's not true.
Well, he must not be finished, because the universe is still expanding.
@@Gigatechi7 Please demonstrate your claim. Explain how there could have been water in space, above the dome of the earth.
@@amazingcaio4803Explain why you believe the Materialist Cosmology when 68% of the energy and 27% of the matter required to explain the universe's existence and motions are missing? Just labeled "dark?" Just like believing in life having a natural origin and can't demonstrate the prebiotic chemistry required for even a single protein to form from it's elements?
The universe is the biggest stumbling block for Christians. Because the Church and Christianity bought into the lie that GOD created the universe and earth and all its inhabitants are the byproducts of stardust. And now the universe and space is a place where nasa flies their science fiction spaceships and satellites.
Nowhere in any Biblical text the universe is ever mentioned. It is called heavens and heaven. The sun, moon, and stars are set in the firmament of heaven and there are different realms ov heaven. Nobody will ever get in a spaceship and fly to the moon and stars in space because the moon and stars are not in space, they are in the firmament of heaven. The only way anyone will ever be able to travel through the realms of heaven is spiritually.
Thank you Aig.
Notice, the Stardust argument begins---for both Krauss and Tyson---with anthropomorphizing nature. "The stars were kind enough to die..." and "We are children of the sun and stars." Ironically, the atheists are the ones truly with a creation mythology.
So true, thank you for pointing that out.
It's a metaphor. Duh.
Figures the person who interprets the Bible 100% literally can't pick up on poetic phrasing or symbolism
Ypou know they are speaking figuratively, right? It is totally obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells that do not literally believe that stars are conscious entities who engaged in self-sacrifices or had offpsring.
It's a metaphor - no one literally believes that. It's Christians who literally believe nonsensical things, like talking snakes and donkeys.
Thanks for this AIG. I love astronomy from a christian perspective. 😊🙏✝️🕊️ This is great!
That isn't astronomy. Astronomy doesn't have a "perspective."
This isn't astronomy. Rather biblical cosmology 🙄.
Jesus is Lord and savior. Speak his name
so what does it imply if the big bang theory is incorrect? were it to be wrong that does not add any evidence for any other theory; a different theory has to explain the observations better than the big-bang theory.
how does the speaker't theory better explain the observations we make?
He literally gave the example of how the Webb telescope found exactly what the creation model predicts and exactly opposite of what secular scientists predicted
@@mike300rum what was the prediction of creation science, and where can I find that this prediction was written before this observation, making it a "pre" diction?
@@billjohnson9472 he gave all that in the video. It was the christian Dr. who predicted the Webb telescope would find large, mature fully formed galaxies, while the atheists assumed they would be infant galaxies. It was almost the whole point of the entire video.
@@mike300rum I meant where can I read where it was predicted before the Webb finding.
@@mike300rum " while the atheists assumed th" -- you do realize that many or even most astronomers and astrophysicists are christians, right?
Materialists refer to the causative agent of the Big Bang as a "singularity."
Isn't it fascinating that in Deut.6: 4 God describes himself as a singularity?
You're making an equivocation fallacy.
In science a singularity is a condition in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically.
Black holes have singularities. There are are multiple singularities in the Universe. Does that mean there are multiple gods?
@@amazingcaio4803 you say black holes have singularities, but black holes don't create new universes. So what's the difference between the singularity that ostensibly created the universe and the singularities you are talking about?
@@refuse2bdcvd324 The difference is the Big Bang - the singularity expanded.
Once, a believer was terribly offended that I would limit God to just 6 days🤭
12:10 "Do you ever think about why a week is seven days? A week has no such astronomical basis." - It's a phase of the moon.
Reading this comment section I see both the Christians & non Christians attacking each other, being passive aggressive, holier than thou (both sides) & so on. It's perfectly fine to debate, of course, but please respect one another, especially the Christians, it's what the LORD would do after all.
Nothing said about planets. Just stars to give lights.
0:25 Photographer here… one word, “white balance.”
The thing is, I can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, or millions of years old...
But, how did it happen?
So, the big bang happened when matter exploded. Ok, where did that matter come from?
At the point the big bang occurred there wasn't matter, just energy, you shouldn't just believe what creationists tell you.
There also was not an explosion, there was a very rapid expansion.
@raymondzuendel5181 lol, so, there was energy. It expanded into matter. Where did the energy come from?
@zuhalter0071 the theory doesn't try to explain origins, just that the data shows a very hot dense universe that became unstable and then rapidly expanded then after it expanded and cooled matter was able to form
@@raymondzuendel5181 Yet every tom dick and harry gloms onto the theory to debunk God - as if the theory has pronounced the truth about our origins.....interesting how that works, right?
Why are they so worried about someone who never existed according to them...
This is enough to make a cat laugh.
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Ge 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Ge 18:27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
Job 10:9 Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?
Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
Ps 30:9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?
Ps 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
Ps 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Ec 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Ec 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
"The BB theory, take my word for it...". No. That's not what science says "take my word for it". The reason the theory exists, is because there's a ton of evidence for it. Contrast that with "god did it", zero evidence for that. That's a big difference.
Except there really isn't any evidence for it. It literally is a "trust me, bro!"
Please share the evidence for the big bang!
@@noneyabidness9644 There is. Your denial of science doesn't make said science just disappear. Creationists meed to reframe everything in a disingenuous and propagandistic manner because they cannot argue with the overwhelming science.
@@LarsLarson-u1x denial? No, I deny what ideology that isn't science, which calls itself "science." Which is a religion you accept, but cannot defend.
@@noneyabidness9644 No. You deny science because it doesn't validate your religious belief. There, in your denial the overwhelming scientific consensus based on evidence must a religion as well. I don't need to ''defend'' anything. The global scientific community and their endless list of scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals do that for me. Where's all the science for creationism? Oh right. There is none.
If the road to destruction is wide and the road to salvation and future glorification is narrow That has to mean millions of those who profess to be Christian yet do not believe His word. Will be on that narrow road . Just the truth.
Think: when God made the sun, did he have to wait 8 minutes for the light to reach the earth? Obviously not, God created everything ready, instantaneously. God said: let there be light, and there was light. Instantaneously, only God Himself, in everything I give thanks to Him.😊
who create god
@@brunobastos5533 Keep in mind: To be God you must be eternal (without beginning or end), live outside of time/space, and not be bound by any law of nature for the simple fact of being the creator and sustainer of everything that exists.
@@brunobastos5533 Think: if the universe created you, who created the universe?😊
@@urso3000 E=mC^2 do you know what it mean E energy can be converted to m mass or matter , do you deny this , because that lead to the atomic bomb where mass is converted to energy
@@urso3000 So to you god can be eternal no problem , but to you is a fairy tale space time being also eternal
Which Bible verses address galaxies and heavy elements?
We are stardust.
Its a fact.
There's ailens everywhere all over the universe. We just the smartest
No, that's not a fact. It's a line. It's a saying. At best, it's a theory, but no one has ever demonstrated that we are stardust. It's true that some of the same elements in us are believed to be found in stars also. That's about as close as you can get.
@@mike300rum where u think the microbes comes from?
@@Stimulation334 I believe all life was created
@@snipersougo13 god made us out of the microbes that came from the sand on earth.
The big newer telescopes have NOT found traces of a Big Bang
I don’t see any conflict with the Big Bang. Yah could have used the Big Bang as a means of creation. The more science I learn the more biblical my world view becomes. Shalom
The main problem with evolution is that it requires death before man even evolved, but the Bible says that death came after man sinned. Not to mention that the days of Creation in the Bible don't line up with the evolutionary timeline (Day 3 the plants were made, then Day 4 the sun).
But you are right too, that science does back the Bible
There is definite conflict with it.. if you believe in Bb then you deny what the Bible says…. There is no evidence for bb and evolution though anyway.. actually evidence AND logic points to a designer
Six 24 hour days of CREATION work for 6 days, by The Creator God, is far less preposterous than
a BIG BANG, wherein & whereby the universe AND everything in it came into existence
simultaneously on EACH day that God declared "Let there BE". Of course God would have no problem creating everything in ONE SECOND of TIME, IF He had chosen to do so. As such, I stand on the Biblical account, of God's daily declaration of what He made that day, on each of the 6 days of Creation.
_whereby the universe AND everything in it came into existence simultaneously_
It doesn;t say anything like that. At all. The early universe had very little resemblance to the current one.
Wait, you're saying that a six-day creation is less preposterous than the Big Bang, but also god could've chosen to create everything in a second and that wouldn't be preposterous? That sounds like a case of doublethink.
That's not what the Big Bang model suggests
@@richardgregory3684 - Well, I fixed it above, about as well as anyone
could I guess. Also, you haven't the slightest idea about what the universe
looked like before. Keep on guessing, since everyone of us does. Still, many
of us tire of those who make such grand claims as you do.
@@richardgregory3684 - Not quite what I meant, but rather each day the Lord BANGED creation into existence. Did you wake up with a thorn in your buttsky today? Pull it out and quit antagonizing folks. Shall ANYONE rely on what someone else says just because they said it?
I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and all else that is said by humans is either incomplete or questionable at best. So, get on with your life, since there is life afterwards. Whosoever believes on Jesus, who died for their sins to give them eternal life, after this brief existence has passed, HAS BEEN GIVEN WHAT JESUS STATED.
.
"has anybody ever tested the big bang?"
Yes. We made predictions based on the standard model that cosmic microwave background exists, and we also predicted that the universe is constantly expanding. We later found out that there IS a cosmic microwave background radiation of the universe, and that all matter is expanding (though not at a fixed rate, thanks to the wrinkling of spacetime through gravity, or the lack thereof).
Wrong. The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (intelligence) to explain natural phenomena (functions) relying on fixed laws of nature (functions) is simply:
1. Observation
2. hypothesis
3. Text & predict ( needs fixed laws)
4. Conclude
5. Refine ( only if valid/true/natural)
The Big Bang fails to pass the scientific method, but simply starts ... with the conclusion a a natural origin of the Universe billions of years ago as a fact ... then seeks a hypothesis and observational & experimental data so support it.
And the Big Bang originated from an Atheist upset with the red shift data proving the Universe is not infinite but had a beginning like the Christians have been saying for a thousand plus years. Atheism began in the 1800's from "Christians" Europe. Prior to this all nations & empires believed in "the gods" or a powerful unnatural intelligence due to everything including Man's body having clear purpose, rules, design (information).
Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies (observations) and easily passes the Scientific Method proving the origin of the Universe & Life ... and ... the objective,l rational, & logical reason for religions believing in "the gods."
Atheism is sim;y a religion based entirely on Humanism and fake science as they will never be any evidence that nature & natural processes can make & enforce rules & laws ... and make things with clear purpose, rules & design.
Christians developed the Sciences we have today not Atheists, Muslims, Hindus or pagan Ancient Greeks, and they are still the majority of Nobel Prize winners.
Christians developed the free civilized world with the People created equal with inalienable rights including the right to keep, bear & make any firearm anywhere in the nation for self defense, hunting, recreation or service in a Militia that is to police the Government to deter tyranny and violation of rights.
Meanwhile Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists and Progressive Liberals .. claim they follow the facts & science ... hates Conservatives and followers of God of the Bible ....and do not want the People to keep & bear "assault weapons" but only the Government (minority) should have an armed force .. and control & run ... the media, schools, economy, police, courts, prisons, military, legislature ... and .. any elections of the government.
All the world wars & the rise of Communist/Humanist Regimes with nukes threatening the free "christian" world is due entirely to Humanist Liberals ... from Britain, France, & US in the late 1700's ... who followed Man's ways not God of the Bible.
Science only supports God of the Bible creating Man for a reason/purpose.
And the Bible has always said for thousands of years ... Man's nature is selfish & corrupt and needs a strong moral guide ( God & the Bible) to do good rather than evil. And you do have freewill to follow & obey God ( Life) or Man (Death) with most choosing death.
@@abelincoln.2064 exactly. They assume all of these things and they've made the wrong assumptions. At the very least, they have made unprovable assumptions.
@@abelincoln.2064 exactly. They assume all of these things and they've made the wrong assumptions. At the very least, they have made unprovable assumptions.
@@abelincoln.2064 HAHA, just because you don't like it you claim it is wrong. Red shift data has never, ever, shown what you think it does. I don't even know where you got that asinine idea. Christians did NOT develop the sciences. As usual, YEC"s have no idea of history or science. It would take way to long to correct you on the history and science nonsense you are spewing, and you would shrug it off anyway (you obviously already have) so it isn't even worth it to go there. But suffice it to say that ALL the civs, and more, that you mention contributed vast amounts to science including in understand the human body, illness/disease, medicine, astrology, astronomy etc.
A 2014 study showed that only about 40% of Noble prize winners identify as Christian. So no, they are clearly not the majority winners of Noble prizes.
All living organisms have a clear purpose - survive.
The Bible promotes slavery and even says it is ok to beat them, so just stop with the free civilized world nonsense.
Name one good reason a civilian should own an assault weapon. Do you really think if he U.S. army unleashed tanks and the air force on civ that the civs could do anything about it? Even with assault weapons? Hell no. It was important in colonial times only because the military basically used the same weapons hunters did. Good leadership protects the people (and doesn't send a crowd to attack the capital and then hide behind said crowed in defense).
Christians have started as many if not more wars than any other religion.
Science has never supported a god, and you have no evidence otherwise. (This just shows how little you know about science, it can't delve into the supernatural)
I do know many selfish and corrupt Christians who need good morals to guide them. Too bad that don't have book to help them with that.
@@abelincoln.2064In what way do you think that disproves anything? Yes, in the turn of the 20th century, we found out the light we observe from some objects from space is shifted into the red spectrum in varying degrees and we wanted to find out why. This isn't about keeping some sort of pseudo canonical belief against Christianity.
As for your claim that all nations and people believed in gods and spirits until suddenly Europeans decided not to is just objectively wrong. The beliefs of individuals isn't uniform among civilizations, and there were countless civilizations that housed citizens with a wide range of beliefs. Plenty of people in the Greco-Roman sphere didn't literally believe in the pantheon. There were also plenty of people who devoutly believed in them, much like there is today.
Your claim that atheism/humanism is a religion falls flat when you realize that it isn't governed by any specific doctrine or order of worship. An overwhelming majority of people who consider themselves atheists are what theology scholars call "passive atheism." You are describing active atheism, which is the knowing rejection of religious doctrine, where as passive atheism would probably be more accurately considered agnostic, with no particular preference of believe system over the other. Most atheists just want proof, and surprisingly enough, there isn't any proof for a young Earth.
I have many Christian friends, one of my best friends is a literal priest. He has a major in biblical theology and a minor in ancient Greek. We've discussed at length the topic of the historicity of the Bible, and even he can concede to the fact that the Bible was written by man and contains both historically inspired events and poetic symbolism. There's nothing wrong with believing the universe we live in is a product of a God, but to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is nonsense. Some of the first scientists to ask "how old is the Earth really?" we're devout Christians, attempting to discover the accuracy of the Bible in an objective manner. Because all evidence suggests it's older than the biblical timeline, they rightfully adjusted their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality so they can retain their faith. If anything, I would say learning to appreciate the world for what it really is is an act of faith in your creator. Placing 100% faith in Genesis is to put your faith in man (as they are the origins of these stories), not God. If you are truly a Christian, then you believe that the universe we live in was created by God, so why would you discredit his creation that you can literally see and interact with so your beliefs align better with what humans had to say about it thousands of years ago?
It takes far more faith to believe in the theories of the ‘Big Bang’ and the evolution than it does to believe in a Creator. If people truly understood how the math behind our universe, our galaxy, our planet, and that there is life on this planet they would have a very difficult time not believing in a Creator.
I rather believe Yahweh with " at beginning I "😉👍💯%.
You'd be a science denier, though.
This is such good news. I am so happy this evidence is making these astronomers reconsider their misunderstanding. Jesus is so good!
They lie. This changes nothing. Scientists are not reconsidering the formation of the universe.
What evidence
That's part of science. That's what scientists do. Why do you think they built the James Webb Space Telescope, for example, in the first place? You think they did it just so they could 'confirm their beliefs'?
Of course not. They knew they would learn new information, and they expected that much of what they had previously thought would be overturned and replaced with that new information.
They built that telescope to learn new things, not to confirm beliefs, as science is not about beliefs.
Cult-like behaviour
@@dezziik definitely
Weak apologetics is a detriment to true Christianity.
Evolution, a dystopian theory. Creation, the truth that conquers dystopia.
Evolution is backed up by a vast body of evidence.
@bighairyviking387 No, it isn't. It's backed by a bunch of assumptions and a narrative the that steals from genetic adaptation. The killer for evolution is the lack of evidence of any increase in genetic information in any single kind of animal that might suggest a change an evolution from one kind of creature to another. Even in speciation there is no increase in genetic information, it is always a loss of information. A "forgetting" of a characteristic through the turning off of a specific gene.
Creationists say no one has seen evolution. I say no one has seen creation..
@@bighairyviking387 no not evidence just someone’s interpretation of what they see . In other words their opinion , which makes it a belief system. Theories and opinions are not facts , and data is open to interpretation.
Unlike a death cult like these guys worship 🤦🏻♂️
I have long said I think God just made it that way so that the more man learns the harder it is for man to logically deny the existence of God. That way, at judgement day, no one will have a valid excuse.
Name one scientists who hasn't provided evidence for their claims and just said, "Take our word for it!" Anyone believing this nonsense needs help.
Anthony Fauci.
Every evolutionist that has opened their mouth….
We believe that diamond could have been formed by two processes. First is the crystallization of the magma ocean, but this process likely contributed to forming only a very thin diamond layer at the core/mantle interface," Namur explained. "Secondly, and most importantly, the crystallization of the metal core of Mercury."
@@stevenwhite8937 And your explanation is, My 2000-year-old bronze age book told me that an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing and because my 2000-year-old bronze age book says it's true I'm going to blindly go along with that and get offended when somebody else doesn't believe what my 2000-year-old bronze age books says.
Charles Darwin
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Demonstrate anything supernatural?
When you make the elements do what you claim they did. Make some dna simulating a prebiotic world. Life is the creation of the supernatural. Prove life didn't come from life. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
There are numerous documented cases of people who have been pronounced dead by medical professionals who came back to life. If we are only material, how could material come back to life after it has ceased to be alive? If there is nothing outside of nature involved, how can material be reanimated? What animates material in the first place?
What leaves the body when a person dies? What's the difference between the moment, living and dead?
@@Vernon-Chitlen nothing demonstrable leaves the body other than fluids etc. One minute you are alive and then you died is the difference. When all bodily functions have ceased you are the opposite of having them functioning.
@@poliincredible770 people are resuscitated all the time and rarely some do it themselves. But. There is a window of time x amounts of minutes, that can be extended in cold conditions etc, but ultimately there is x amount of time when organ failure is irreversible and beyond that no one comes back from it.
Smart guy. Lots of smacking sounds. Lots of info.
Yup get out there and vote, Trump 2024. He's not perfect just like everyone else in the world but he does believe in God's grace and the value of human life.
Not really. I doubt he has ever been inside a church, and he still can't decide whether he supports abortion bans or not.
Well not all life, according to him only some...some are worthy of life while others don't deserve right to life...who gives any man the authority to decide who lives and who dies?
@@annemcdowell4723 respects life enough to not want to start new wars in the 4 years of peace he gave us with record peace deals made including peace between North and South Korea which was a very historical moment. Both leaders give Trump open credit for the peace deal too.
@@annemcdowell4723I would like evidence of what you said that Trump said!
@@bgonzales817
We were at war throughout Trump's term, and no, he made no "peace" deals. His capitulation to North Korea had nothing to do with "peace". Everyone told them they would ignore the "deal," and that is exactly what they did.
Weekends started with Judaism, the Sabbath was originally celebrated Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
Those people are blinded by Satan's lies. God told us exactly how all things were created. I wouldn't want to be them when they stand before God and have to answer for their comments.
Somehow I doubt God will punish people for accepting scientific evidence.
There is as much evidence for satan as there is for god, NONE WHATSOEVER.
Amen 🙏
@@jockyoung4491 somehow you are wrong.
You worship science like it's a god
We will all have a lot to answer for. I seriously doubt what we believe about the age of the universe will be one of them.
Loved it
Who created the stars. People will get a rude awakening someday.😊
Gravity isn't a "Who". But gravity formed stars.
Well thats a wide claim for something thats never been observed. Starbirth has never been observed. Jason Lisle showed me that and he was right. They show clusters they call "birthing regions"" but they can call them anything they want, i demand they SHOW it and.. they havent ever done that. Thank you Jason
Gases in space dont accumulate they actually repel themselves. So there ya go.
@@PsalmCourier
We have seen stars in various stages of forming, but it takes a long time, so obviously we can't see the whole thing. And it isd usually obscured by the debris disc anyway
@@PsalmCourierDr. Lisle is awesome! He knows his stuff!
Alternatively is ASC is correct and we are seeing the universe in real-time, then wouldn't that mean there is no limit or cap to how fast we can theoretically travel through the universe? That would be an interesting implication.
And this whole "based on god's word". What evidence do you have that what's written in the bible is god's word? Zero evidence for that assertion.
What evidence do you have that it's not based on God's word??
@@stevelawrence8352 The burden lies on you to prove it is, not on others to prove it isn't.
@@LarsLarson-u1x Not so, if you want to go against the evidence that supports the prevailing theory, it is on you to disprove it.
@@stevelawrence8352 Sorry, but think about the claim: some 2k year old book is actually the word of god. That's huge. You need to provide really, really strong evidence for that claim. And you can't turn it around, otherwise you can't have a cogent conversation. You could say all kinds of nonsense and If I say "I don't believe it", you can just counter with "what evidence do you have for not believing it?". It would be utterly exhausting.
The prophets wrote the Bible, and they asserted themselves to be God’s prophets, or in other words his spokesmen. But the only way that you can come to know that is true is by doing an experiment of faith. The way you do that is by keeping one of the commandments which God has given, and seeing if it really does bless you, make you happier, and help you become a better person. For example, love your enemies instead of hate them. Give unto others generously expecting nothing in return instead of being selfish. Study the teachings in the Bible and see if they do not teach you truth and expand your mind and heart. All devout Christians have done this and received a confirmation that the Bible is true, and it comes from God. I invite you to give it a try!
In an evolutionary paradigm before we can get to molecules to man evolution we have to start with cosmic and stellar evolution.
Since it is affirmed by evolutionary science that the stars are where the elements come from, in current stars up to iron, when a star starts trying to fuse iron that is its death knell. all of the rest of the elements are said to come from Super Nova explosions.
as has been said "star stuff that's us"
So in an evolutionary paradigm, explaining star formation is rather important.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "We Know the cloud wants to Collapse under its own weight to make one or more stars. but rotation as well as turbulent motion within the cloud work against that fate, so too does the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in High-school chemistry class, Galactic magnetic fields also fight collapse they penetrate the cloud and latch onto any free-roaming charged particles contained therein restricting the ways in which the cloud will respond to its self-gravity The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form." [Neil DeGrasse Tyson, 2007, pg 107]
Death by black hole and other cosmic quandaries. New York: w.w. Norton and co.
Eva Novotny said, “The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known.” [Eva Novotny. Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors, p. 279.]
Martin Harwit said, “Literally hundreds of ideas on how stars are formed have been advanced in past decades. However, we are still far from any real solution.” [Martin Harwit, Astronomical Concepts, Second Edition. p.405.]
Martin Harwit said, “The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form. There’s no lack of ideas, of course. We just can’t substantiate them.”
[Martin Harwit, Book Review in Science, 7 Match 1996, p. 1201-2]
Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu said, “The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.”
[Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu. The Formation of Sunllke Stars. Science, 4 May 1990, p. 564.]
Ward D Thompson said, “The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics... No current model can reproduce all of the observations.” [Ward D Thompson, Isolated Star Formation: From Cloud Formation to Core Collapse, Science 4 January 2002: " Vol. 295. no. 5552, pp. 76 - 81.]
V. Trimble and M. Aschwanden, “The formation of galaxies and large-scale structure remains TMIUPIMA. . . "the most important unsolved problem in modern astrophysics.” [V. Trimble and M. Aschwanden, Astrophysics in 2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 113:1025-1114, 2001 September]
Roger A. Windhotst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell said, “Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” [Roger A. Windhotst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, "A Matter of Timing" Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p.30]
These are just a few, I have more, they cannot tell us how stars formed, and there is no end of ideas but nothing concrete, so to be honest, if you cannot even explain how the first stars formed, which are very essential in your paradigm for life, why should I trust your molecules to man story?
The evolutionary paradigms are fraught with problems, but you only find this out when you look into their journals and papers not meant for public consumption, gee I wonder why that is?
It does not really matter anyway because none of this is real according to the Big Bang model and Boltzmann's brain paradox in which a very prominent cosmologist said it is infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains.
There is no universe, there is no milky-way galaxy, and you are infinitely more likely to be a naked brain, you popped into existence and will pop back out shortly. this is where the math of the Big Bang when taken to its limits ends up
There isn't really any such thing as an "evolutionary paradigm". That's a term creationists use because they confuse science with atheism.
The is cosmology. And biological evolution. Different fields of study.
@@billcook4768 I am well aware of that, but both are evolutionary explanations of origins, one dealing with how the universe and the things in it got here and the other dealing with how life got here on Earth.
So why should I believe the second origin story when the first one is fraught with problems? you cannot get to molecules to man without first having a habitable universe with habitable galaxies and planets, obviously, cosmic evolution must proceed before biological evolution, so why trust the second when the first is still not understood, and not only but JWST has been giving cosmologists fits with it's discoveries.
For the longest, they have said that it took about 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang for galaxies to even form let alone be mature, but JWST has found fully mature galaxies between 400-200 million years after the Big Bang and is just one of several discoveries that have rocked cosmologists.
What next push the estimated age of the universe further back to accommodate the young galaxies? every time you turn around it seems like they are having to modify their views to match the newest observations, where things they predicted turned out to be wrong.
In my world, if someone claiming to be a Christian makes a false prediction, just one, they are a false prophet that God did not speak to, and not to be listened to, your people have been doing this on an ongoing basis for years and that is supposed to be just peachy.
@@dennishagans6339 That’s the difference between science and religion. Science changes conclusions when new evidence is found. Religion doesn’t.
@@billcook4768 Yes that is a big difference, what is scientific orthodoxy today is thrown out tomorrow, there was a time when phlogiston was a scientific fact, and some had successful careers doing phlogiston studies but the truth was finally discovered and phlogiston was tossed out on its can.
You get to teach our kids, stuff that is true today but overturned tomorrow, for example, there have been four theories on how we got our moon, and three of them were to be decided on during the Apollo missions,
1: the Nebula theory
2: the fission theory
3: the capture theory
For various reason it turned out none of the above, so that they needed more data and some new theories.
Enter the large impactor theory where a Mars-sized object, hit the Earth at just the right speed, at just the right angle and both turned into molten rock, the heavier stuff sunk down into the Earth and the lighter stuff formed the moon.
Well not so fast, they went back and looked at those moon rocks with better equipment and discovered water in them, enough to postulate that there was as much water in the moon as in the Caribbean Ocean, that is a big problem.
As one scientist put it, it is hard to imagine a scenario where all of the moon is molten and holds on to its water, "that is a really difficult knot to untie"
And that was the last good theory for how we got our moon, it is not possible for the moon to have been completely molten and hold on to its water.
So that theory does not work, well guess what, it is still being taught today even though they know it does not work, but they do not have any other theories to replace it. is that true science?
Not only is that a problem, but it is a known thing that volatile elements were not supposed to condense out of the cloud that made our solar system at heliocentric distances that is why the inner four planets are rocky, they once said that comets brought all of the water to the Earth I suppose in that bombardment that would include the moon too. but then they sent a probe to some comets and found out that the comets had far too much deuterium in their ices and could not have been the source of all of our water, now they are saying asteroids brought the water,
On and on it goes, the stories keep changing, the kids in school get taught stuff that in a few years is overturned and y'all are just peachy with that. with your science, it's just like the weather in Denver Colorado, if you do not like it wait fifteen minutes and it will change.
I am glad my bible and my Christian faith have not changed, and that what was taught 2,000 years ago has come down unaltered, that is not to say that there are not those who have altered things, but the true faith is still being taught. as that was the promise
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Many have perverted the true teachings, but there is a remnant of those who still hold on to the true faith.
I am thankful for the stability of the true Christian faith, my anchor in Christ, holds fast in these uncertain and trying times.
"Science" doesn't even know if eggs are good for us or not. 😏
Yes, crazy isn’t it
Nothing is perfect, and that's why science changes as we learn more things.
You guys are generally forced to change your beliefs as needed by law or general sentiment of society.
Most slave owners in America were Christian. In modern times, the slavery tends to only stick around in 3rd world Christian countries.
They are a good source of protein, but they also contain a lot of cholesterol so you shouldn't exaggerate with them. There you have it
Plenty of things are both good and bad for you. All cooked food contains carcinogens, but the pros of making the food more bioavailable for our metabolism outweighs the small amounts of carcinogens that are produced when food is cooked.
All those prop 65 warnings (known by the state of California to cause cancer) are accurate. Everything with that label does contain carcinogens because a majority of everything can be carcinogenic if consumed.
@@xXMACEMANXx This is waaaay too much nuance for these kinds of people to ever understand....sadly.
Instant Light from Stars?
"Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens and STRETCHED THEM OUT." - Isaiah 42:5a
Genesis 1:14-15,19
14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.
15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
19) And the evening and the morning were the Fourth Day.
20 billion years ago there was a big bang. And then 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup, and the soup came alive 3 billion years ago. And the first life form found somebody to marry and something to eat and slowly evolved into everything we see today. So great great great great great great grandpa was soup.🍜
If I had just 1% of the luck or coincidences that evolution had in Las Vegas I would be kicked out of every casino for cheating. This makes Evolution the biggest cheater of all time. TC
@@jockyoung4491No, it doesn't mock science, jockoboy. It mocks the ridiculousness of evolution.
I see you're still trolling Christian videos.
Why is that?
If you can explain how your alternative method works, I'm all ears. How exactly does 'speaking things into existence' work? What is the mechanism involved? When only God existed, communucation would have been pointless. With nobody to communicate with, language wouldn't have been required. Who was God speaking to when he 'spoke things into existence'?
All YEC's can do is ridicule our attempts at trying to explain things. When will anyone step up and explain how their alternative works, and if they can't, why believe it?
@@rayspeakmon2954
I'm trolling videos that lie about science, whatever their motivation is. I make no claims about Christianity or any other faith.
lol don't understand what the word soup mean , but believe a couple populate the world and even accept incest as that is the only way possible but totally forget the inbreed
Thank you for standing up against the works of the god of this world!
Teacher mocking God because they cant explain creation. What a genious😂😂
There is nothing to explain, there has to be evidence for creation first.
@@friisteching3433Creation is all around you, just open your eyes
@@friisteching3433 I'm waiting for you, anybody demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for life. Evidence that life exists because non living matter became living without design or purpose.And no pesky, sovereign Creator. So I can become an intellectually satisfied atheist like you and worship my genitalia. So I can exploit the less fit
well the god of the old testament. people have created many gods throughout history. if we were in Greece 2k years ago you'd say he's mocking Zues
@@Mhats The God of the Bible said there are many gods. As many gods as people who believe in their hearts in theirs.
Creation in bible can't be mixed up with knowledge, for example when Adam 1 day old according to creation, how old was he according to knowledge...? 30 years old.....? So as the universe... it can't be mixed up between creation and knowledge
FYI, no scientific theory claims anything came from nothing. Only religion does that.
Science does exactly that, though. The big bang theory states that the universe had an ultimate beginning, often referred to as the "cosmic egg", or a singularity. Then, for whatever reason impossible to prove empirically, space rapidly expanded and then expanded at a more steady rate (cosmic inflation). At that point, supposedly, space, time, matter and energy came into existence. Scientists work in fallacious ways though, because they claim that nature came into existence at that very moment, yet still claim the cause for it was natural... nature cannot have caused itself. Quantum fluctuations make no sense as the initial cause, because the very fields they exist in did not even exist then. This is why scientists claim that everything quite literally came from "nothing", without any outer input or motivation.
We Christians make the simple, far more logical claim that everything came into existence from nothing, but via someone. Occam's razor.
@@sikzo4628
No it does not. The big bang theory doesn't cover the singularity, since all known physical laws break down at that point. The big bang theory is about only the EXPANSION of the universe. It says nothing about where it came from. For THAT we simply don't know.
@@sikzo4628 “This is why scientists claim that everything quite literally came from ‘nothing’"
Did you even read the comment you replied to? They don’t claim that.
There has to be a beginning, right?
@@zakattak167
Perhaps, but science can't say anything about it. We have no evidence to work with
The question I have for the Big Bang theory is this: if everything expanded out in all directions from the singularity, how did anything ever come together to form matter? Gravity is not a strong enough force to overcome the velocity of the particles and as time goes on they only become farther and farther apart. It doesn’t seem possible.
A very well thought out question.
You're correct in saying that all matter is expanding outward from the Big Bang singularity event, but you have to remember that neighboring matter is also traveling in the same direction as other neighboring matter. Atoms in clusters are traveling at roughly the same relative rate together, and because they would be moving in roughly the same direction with the same velocity, they would be relatively still to one another.
You also have to take into account the uneven expansion of the universe, of which we don't exactly know why it happens. Some chalk it up to dark matter, an undetectable form of matter that changes the velocity of other objects, but personally, I think modified Newtonian dynamics fits better, as it supposes that the uneven expansion is caused by the shrinking and expanding of spacetime in areas of space with little to no matter whatsoever.
while the universe's expansion does push matter apart on a large scale, gravity and the initial conditions of the universe allowed matter to clump together and form the structures we observe today.
@@xXMACEMANXxeven if some particles traveled next to each other after the initial expansion, gravity isn’t strong enough to over come the particles bumping into each other as they come together. The force of the collision would immediately push them apart again.
It’s the same reason the air particles in a room don’t all clump together.
If you’re saying the laws of physics must have been different at the beginning, well, that just seems like a rescue device to me.
@@luish1498gravity isn’t a strong enough force to overcome two molecules bumping into one another, how did it happen in the past, but not today?
@@baldbutton1983 You have to remember, it's all about relative motion. If two particles are traveling at 5% of the speed of light in the same direction parallel to each other, they would both be motionless relative to each other. If you slowly pulled them together through a weak and passive force (gravity, for example), they wouldn't bump against each other and shoot off on a direction because of their kinetic energy.
It's the same reason that spacecraft can dock in space. The international space station orbits at a speed of 17,500 miles an hour, and a Soyuz or Dragon spacecraft needs to meet its orbital velocity of 17,500 miles an hour to dock with it. When they intercept each other, they're just gently floating next to each other, and they softly touch and mate together at a relative velocity of just a few feet per minute.
All of Jason Lisles predictions failed. Look them up.
He was the only one that predicted the findings of the james webb while the rest were saying they were going to see baby galaxies in a baby universe and he was proven right they werent.
And know what they did? Moved the goal posts as they always do.
"Well its just older than we thought"" to cover the fact that they were wrong. Jason showed how the math doesnt allow for that.
@@PsalmCourier something observed by the jwst never seen before wasnt wrong. It is what the jwst is for to look deeper back in time to learn more about the early universe. Lisle predicted galaxies like we have today and that was not what they saw.
@@PsalmCourier💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯 when you get pinned down, just change the definitions of the terms!
Classic internet atheist strategy!
💯
When you calculate the time from Adam to now you are starting at Adam’s sin, not his creation. You also assume on the day Adam was given his wife she immediately was fooled and then fooled Adam.
Adam was tending the garden and naming all the animals. Was given a wife and instructions. I doubt it fell apart instantly. New calculations are needed here.
Scripture provides us with plausible explanations. Evolution provides implausible assumptions.
Evolution is observable. For example, the natural selection of peppered moths during the Industrial Revolution.
@@amazingcaio4803 evolution is patently unobservable. Peppered moths are still moths. Moths that produce moths are not evidence that non-moths developed into moths. The first chapter of the Bible states that God created creatures to produce after their own kind. So peppered moths demonstrate the truth of God's word. Moths actually disprove evolution. Think about it; darwinists say that caterpillars developed the ability to become moths over millions of years (patently unobservable). Caterpillars don't have reproductive organs, they don't acquire reproductive capabilities until they go through metamorphosis and become moths. So the very first caterpillar had to come preprogrammed with the ability to go through metamorphosis or it was game over. Please accept observable science; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).
@@amazingcaio4803 moths that produce moths of a different color are not evidence that non-moths developed into moths. They are evidence that moths produce moths, just like the 1st chapter of the Bible says they were designed to.
@@amazingcaio4803 actually moths disprove evolution. Think about it; darwinists say that caterpillars developed the ability to become moths over millions of years (patently unobservable). Caterpillars don't have reproductive organs, they don't acquire reproductive capabilities until they go through metamorphosis and become moths. So the very first caterpillar had to come preprogrammed with the ability to go through metamorphosis or it was game over. Please accept observable science; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).
@@refuse2bdcvd324 You're correct. Moths having offspring of a different colour is not evidence that non-moths produce moths. However, my comment did not try to show that, as that was not what you originally disputed.
You claimed evolution provides implausible assumptions. I mentioned that evolution of peppered moths shows that evolution provides more than implausible assumptions - it is in fact observable.
There’s a lot of stuff out there, so that science has the opportunity to think about something until it comes time that matter doesn’t matter.
IMHO, the biggest problem with the Big Bang Theory is the timeline. According to the speculation, all matter, energy, space and time banged into being. Gen 1 explains all of that. "In the beginning (time) God created (mechanical energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)". When God said, "Let there be light," that was acoustic energy and the list goes on. Obviously God, through Moses, got it right. People are (often willingly) misinterpreting or misrepresenting the evidence.
"Let there be light" is an appeal to magic, and there is nothing "acoustic" about light.
@@jockyoung4491 Do you really think that your opinion counts…🤣🤣🤣🤣 …How life really works…if scientists could prove anything, any of their stupid monkey theories, then, there wouldn’t be any religion…as a result of their incompetence to include yours, 96% of the world’s population consists of 4 religions because scientists suck at their jobs. Some people believe that aliens built the pyramids because scientists can’t prove anything different because scientists suck at their jobs. You lost before you even started, and, you don’t have enough cellular structures in your cranial cavity to see the logic. How life really works… People been trying for how long to disprove God??? And, they have failed miserably over and over and over, and, you think what??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 That you’re special…and got something new to bring to the table…🤣🤣🤣 Look at the logic. That makes you just another loser like scientists. Men put dresses on and make ridiculous claims too. Go to Israel, or go to Palestine, or go to one of those countries where women can’t drive, and tell them all about your sob little story, and, see what happens to you. You will find out very quickly “how life really works” because they throw people like you off the roofs…Even mathematicians because of the mathematics, believe in multiple dimensions, multiple universes and dark matter. Look at the logic now, now you will never be able to disprove God’s existence Skydaddy…and for the record: nobody alive on this planet is in any position to call anything a myth or legend. There’s more archeological evidence to prove the Bible than any of mankind’s stupid theories. Those people saw something, something so significant, that they wrote about it and built megalithic structures that scientists can’t explain because they suck at the jobs, and, that abundance of empty space between your ears isn’t going to call any of those people liars. Do you know why??? Because none of y’all alive today on this planet was there…that’s why.
@@jockyoung4491 life coming from nonlife is an appeal to magic, and there is nothing scientific about that.
@@jockyoung4491 God speaking is the acoustic energy. Light is electromagnetic, another form of energy. My broader point is that when I am in discussion with "Big Bangers", I simply point out that their major points are already covered by a more coherent explanation that needs no revision when new facts or conjectures come around. (Asking them for experiments that confirm their hypothesis is a good point, too.)
@@tonycolle8699 But you're saying the Bible is evidence that is being willingly discarded. God as an explanation in the book that could have been possibly altered is not evidence of God doing so. You can't prove those words true, and thus they are disregarded. Sure we can't answer how the universe started without speculation, but I prefer no answer over a wrong one, considering we do not have any evidence to hint at how the universe was caused. We can't exactly test other universes, this is the only one we know. The Bible as evidence is dubious at best, contradictory at worst.
I think we can take the basic elements of the Big Bang to support the bible, as in there is a single point of origin. “Let there be light” and the aggressive expansion of the universe. I think it’s the interpretation of everything else that we should be careful with as they are continually changing as you said 😊
Dang, if only oil and coal companies used old earth models (like the fossil record, salt mounds, plate tectonics, sea basins, etc.) to find their oil and coal deposits. Those billions of years believers might be on to something if they did use old earth models.... oh, wait... they DO use old earth models to find oil and coal deposits.
Agree with the anthropomorphism of stars but there’s are lots of ways to mathematically prove what is considered as a “big bang”
For an all powerful being your god has made so many mistakes which disqualify him from worshipped, let alone believed in.
Epic fail.
What you perceive in your humanity as a "mistake" may very well be a part of an infinite, all-powerful God's perfect plan. This is a truth that Christians understand. We accept that we don't know everything, and we are okay with that.
@@nataliepope5578 I don’t accept that an all powerful being exists, and suggest that if he does and if he has a plan, that plan is a failure on all reasonable grounds.
@@RealHooksy Would love to hear what this epic fail is
@@jasperwieringa6038 all of the above
@RealHooks : who are you to judge God ???!
If God created the universe, which I believe he did, and stars explode releasing elements that are also present in earth and humans - it’s not a stretch to say we are made of star stuff. It doesn’t take anything away from God. He is our creator. You can’t deny reality though. He created this amazing engine of the universe and life and used it to create us. God is the universe, therefore we are made of star stuff.