Is There Geologic Evidence That the Earth Is Young? - Dr. Andrew Snelling
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- This video segment is from "Beyond Is Genesis History? Vol 1 : Rocks & Fossils," the follow-up to our feature-length film where we explore the impact of the global Flood on the Earth. Check it out on our website: bit.ly/BIGH-1.
Del Tackett and geologist Andrew Snelling conclude their adventure with a discussion about evidence for a young earth. Dr. Snelling points out several lines of data from the geologic record that do not fit the old earth paradigm and are instead more consistent with the idea that much of it was formed relatively quickly during the global Flood of Noah's day.
Dr. Snelling completed a BS in applied geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first-class honors in 1975. His PhD in geology was awarded in 1982 by The University of Sydney for his research thesis titled “A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.” Dr. Snelling worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, variously as a field, mine, and research geologist. For over ten years, Dr. Snelling was a research consultant to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization for an international collaborative research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy which involved university and government research scientists from the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Sweden, Austria and Belgium.
For more information on Dr. Snelling, please go to bit.ly/2zIzOFZ.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
🦕 Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
🍃 Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
🌌 Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
🔬 Help support the advancement of creation science: bit.ly/genesis...
Excellent presentation by a top world class geologist. Every University should teach this Paradigm.
Agreed, people should be allowed to choose.
I live in this area and it totally makes sense. When I drive to the California coast from Southern Utah it's a gradual decline in elevation and you can see where the valleys have been carved out from what looks like massive current flows, not little rivers and streams. It's dry now but you can see first hand where water would flow down to the sea.
God Is Powerful And You Can See His Work!
Our Lord 's plan is perfect. Thank you for sharing this information.
Except for that whole starving kids in Africa thing. Plans not so great for those people.
@@RapidFireReaper you mean like nailing JESUS to the cross for the sins of everyone else ?
@@aznation4592 A lot of good that does when you are starving to death because God decided to have you born into a country where he knew you would starve to death. But hey maybe if those kids can find it they can eat the cross?
@@RapidFireReaper GOD is not the reason starvation exist. Your parents had you born in a world full of evil 👿 guess we ought to blame them as well. FYI go read the Bible entirely from Genesis to Revelation, you will find GOD isn’t at fault for anything evil. Just because he knows the future we can’t blame him for knowing. But indeed he does know the end future a plan to stop all pain, tears, and evil completely.
@@aznation4592 Who else is their to blame? If God says this soul is going to be born to these parents in Africa then he must know the likelihood of that child dying before ever getting old enough to read the bible is pretty high. I wouldn't send a child into that situation. I must assume you wouldn't send a child into that situation. How did you and I sinful awful humans end up being morally superior to a God? Probably because he doesn't exist.
First of all the Coconino Sandstone that Snelling is referring to is an eolian sandstone. In other words desert , sand dunes. Secondly it doesn’t expand all across the world, it’s very regional like all geologic formations. All geology is regional due to the mantle and plate tectonics. The Grand Canyon is in the Colorado Plateau. It was uplifted as a solid unit, with little to no folding or faulting. Yet to the East are the Rocky Mountains and to the west and southwest are the Basin and Range region of the US. Totally different tectonics at play. Finally Snelling fails to mention the 40 plus other sedimentary formations in that area. The guy is lying plain and simple.
Debunking Lie #1. The Coconino is made up of fine sand/mud which is NOT found in a desert anywhere on earth, so it can't be Eolian and why its sand waves are low angled. Not even the Gypsum sand dunes in Colorado have this low angle. Repose angle of sand is proportional to density of grain, sand grain size, and roughness, but don't let basic physics get in the way of your lies now... If tabulating all desert sand dunes is too difficult, or just looking up this basic information, you can go to your local gravel yard and measure their gravel/sand piles. If that is still too difficult for yourself, then you can do the experiment in your own garage by ordering different texture of sand. Then compare to the angle of repose in said formation you play make believe was in a desert environment.
Debunking Lie #2: While I cannot talk about expanding across to Africa, this layer most certainly does extend all the way to Canada and into the NE USA. That has been a proven fact for many decades now. It is not the Colorado plateau that was uplifted, but rather the Rocky mountains which broke through these layers and pushed to the side, so why should there be folding? --> Hint: There shouldn't.
Debunking Like #3: Many other layers... yes, small layers in small regions compared to the layers being discussed which can be traced across the entire continent and yet, the geologic column is still the same age of said layer across the entire continent. Why would one NOT expect this? There is not this giant PERMANENT source of mud/debris in a flood, it comes in waves buddy. Your uniconformian brain broke.
@@w8stral thank you for replying back, even if the tone of your response was somewhat caustic for a ‘Christian’.
First of all what I post is based on the work and research of 100,000s of geoscientists over the past century. Their research is based on the Scientific Method and empirical method of acquiring knowledge. Which is further backed up by Scientific Papers submitted for Peer Review. The old Earth model of geology is used by all the Oil/Gas companies (I use to work for ExxonMobil). What I stated are not lies, to the contrary, it’s the current knowledge in the field of geology and used by industry.
Item 1: the Coconino Sandstone. Your information about the sand/mud is incorrect. No where in real Scientific journals and text books do you find this description of the Coconino. I rely on the USGS and other worthy Geological groups, not on a couple of charlatan geologist. The angle of repose for a consolidated sandstone is high enough. We’re talking rock formations not current day sand dunes open to the sky.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconino_Sandstone
nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/65/65_p0261_p0271.pdf
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365_1.html
Item 2: again your information is incorrect regarding the extent of the Coconino formation. I’ll let the previous links inform you. Regarding the Rocky Mountains vs the Colorado Plateau, the Rocky Mountains have a long history that entails 3 orogenies, with the Laramide Orogeny resulting in the current Rocky Mountains we see today. This occurred some 80-55 million years ago. A 20000 foot mountain range doesn’t pop up over night. That’s absurd !
On the other hand the Colorado Plateau was uplifted some 9000 feet about 20 million years ago, around the same period of the Basin & Range uplift in eastern California, southern Idaho, Nevada, to Mexico. While the Colorado Plateau was tectonically stable, the Basin & Range were created by crustal thinning due to Mantle convection currents.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountains
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_and_Range_Province
Item 3: your comment was again false, confusing and contradictory. There is no consistency of sedimentary layers ( sandstones, shale, limestones ) across this continent. Not even close. I can list you 10 major geological regions just in this country, much less the whole world.
Geology is regional due to tectonics both in the large scale of plate tectonics and regional tectonics due to the earths mantle, convection currents and hot spots.
Finally check out the Grand Canyon link on all the geological formations and their thickness!!
We’re not talking thin tiny formations !
I worked on seismic imaging and would routinely see 30-40 sedimentary formations beneath the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention Salt Domes.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_United_States
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
Thank you for sharing this fascinating post supporting the Genesis flood. It reminds me of content in a book I purchased in the mid-1960s, by young Earth creationists John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. I still have that book.
They certainly wrote some nonsense.
Even the rocks shall speak out
Yes the rocks don’t lie, this is obviously a very old planet. Radiometric dating proves it over 4 billion years old. Check the age of rocks in the Canadian Shield.
There are hundreds of sedimentary rocks layers. Many are folded and faulted. Some areas have angular unconformities proving large gaps of time between deposition and the underlying sedimentary layers.
It’s all pretty obvious, the earths geological forms are dictated by the inner work of the mantle and plate tectonics. Both in a big scheme and a regional scheme. Just look at the United Stated alone and see there are 10 major geological regions.
Yes the rocks don’t lie .
Yup young Earth . The moon 🌝 proves it also
@@MrPandoman yeah yeah yeah and Donald Trump is my Irish ☘️ uncle 😂 The moon 🌙 actually proves a young 🌍 Earth. The moon is getting further away from Earth every single year by just a tiny bit. Back track millions of years the moon would have been touching the Earth. No way José
@@MrPandoman they want you to believe that hog wash 🧼 your too funny 😂
@@twchannel7503 ?
Thanks guys, refreshing truth.
Where?
No it's not, it's a theory, there has not been a definitive certainty of when life on Earth began.
@@johndonahue3162 I don't understand the point you are making. Estimates of some by products also range from 800 million years ago to 3 billion years ago.
Thank you for sharing. Anti creationism is what the world wants,not the truth.
*_The Red Sea Crossing_*
The escape route that the Israelites took across the Red Sea, when they were fleeing from the Egyptians; was prepared for them at the time of Noah's flood.
The Gulf of Aqaba, (Red Sea); is five thousand feet deep and nautical charts show that there is an underwater land bridge which spans the eight miles across the sea from Nuweiba Beach on the Egyptian side too Saudi Arabia on the east coast.
The bridge is raised four thousand feet above the seafloor to a depth one thousand feet below sea level, it is about a quarter of a mile wide, and has gently sloping inclines where it meets the land.
The bridge was formed by the receding water which was draining from the land after Noah's flood. This remarkable geological event happened on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba, with both run offs meeting perfectly together in the middle of the sea, creating a flat roadway beneath the waves from shore to shore.
This in itself is miraculous!
God plays the long game. Its very impressive and apparent. Also I doubt we'd know where the crossing happened without Ron Wyatt.
@@keepthechange2811
R.I.P Ron Wyatt
Sounds good, and I understand that “bridge” is there - however ‘what’ moved the water to expose ‘dry land’ for the children of Israel to safely cross over- then suddenly moved the water back so quickly that it flooded and killed the Egyptians …
Yes - it seems Egyptian chariot wheels of that time period have been there, which seems to prove the biblical account …
Surely a God that can create us, this world and ‘the heavens’ can use His powers to separate and hold back the waters- then suddenly release the waters …
@@fmichaelfaulkner7339
Apparently a strong east wind blew all night long which created the pathway across the sea, the walls of water either side of the pathway were frozen by the wind.
Since there never has been an Egyptian slavery of the ancient hebrews, such ideas are quite useless. The whole exodus story doesn´t make any sense if you look at it from an neutral standpoint. Let´s say the ancient Israelites were slaves of the Egyptians and were allowed to return to their homeland (which was part of the Egyptian empire at that time😉). So the most likely the safest way they could take would be along the Mediteranian Sea and then turn east to Jerusalem. The distance from Alexandria to Jerusalem is about 1.000 km. So even if they walked only 10 km daily, they would need only a couple of months to reach their destination. Instead according to the Bible they followed the God inspired Moses and were lost in the desert for 40 years! At least he brought them a version of Ten Commandments back from a mountain where no one was around. Well done prophet!
Absolutely beautiful thank you. I have no idea how anyone could ever even consider that the Bible is not scientific fact
Doesn't the lack of evidence for erosion in the sandstone, merely confirm that the sandstone was laid down under water, i.e. under the sea. Then the layer of limestone which formed above is the result of the shells of billions of small sea creatures which died and the shells were crushed to form the limestone. This would be an extremely slow process and support the view that it occurred over millennia. Then one supposes, that at some time geological activity raised the sea bed so that it emerged from under the sea to form land. At this point normal water and wind erosion would begin to carve out the layers. This would create the very structures we see today, but of course would have required perhaps millions of years to create what we see today. The fact that one can trace the same formations across continents, also supports the scientific theory that at one time they were one larger tectonic plate. Then over time the plates separated and drifted apart. Again this is a very slow process.
Forget about plate tectonics and uplift and deposition and erosion and faults and folds and subduction and obduction and divergence and convergence and fossils and geologic time and everything in the universe, why is there more than one rock type to begin with?...Why isn't there only one religion?...Why is the rest of the solar system so full of imperfection?
How did the rock layers form? How did they form so quickly? If the flood was 40 days, why are there thousands of layers? If the canyon formed quickly after the flood, how did it not get entirely washed over since it was wet? Why are there certain creatures in certain layers? God bless! Please help me with these questions...?
The rain lasted 40 days but the flood waters didn't begin to recede until a year later.
The Colorado Plateau for instance was buried in mud, compacted by an additional ~10,000ft of mud/rock, + heat, + untold meters deep of water for additional pressure and then top ~10,000ft of mud/rock itself was removed by giant currents etc, and then uplifted out of the oceans as they receded. These gargantuan receding waters eroded the gargantuan canyons we see in the soft rock. The receding waters did not recede in a single year either. Likewise we then have gigantic movements of the continents later after the flood as well which would have created giant mountain ranges etc. Peleg's time/Tower of Babel + 1 Chronicles when the nations of peoples were created and divided. Throw in gigantic glaciation/Volcanism during this post Flood period as well and viola. Also, if you have a gigantic world wide event which literally dumps all the oceans onto the land and buries everything 10,000ft deep in mud and then washes 10,000ft of mud/debris off, why would ANYONE think there would not be massive gargantuan earthquakes shifting continents 10's of meters if not more in aftershocks post Flood for years, decades, centuries???
@@w8stral you just continue to state things that are clearly untrue! Check all the geological formations at the Grand Canyon. There are more limestone formations than shale. Don’t forget about the sandstone formations too!
Why don’t you try looking up the obvious facts before spouting out phony scenarios.
@@stevegagnon1539 Genius: If you have a giant limestone formation eroded and deposited, can you tell the difference? No. SO you are now making stuff up that I never said and then pretending there is a difference. Oh this is getting good... Do prattle onwards... No, I did not bother to read past first 4 lines of your strawman. There is no need as you are lying from the start so why bother with reading more.
@@w8stral how old are you ? What do you do for a living ?
This should have been in the regular movie. Great idea for a re-release extended edition of this seminal movie. Soooo much important information is in this clip.
It would be constructive to see a conversation between these guys and William Lane Craig who kind of oppose the young earth theory. All this might be a pointless debate.
William Lane Craig rejects God's Word.
these guys are scientists william lane craig is not
We need more people becoming scientists that are believers
The issue is, the scientific community is against anything that has to do with god. Neil Degrasse Tyson is ok with the theory that we are living in a simulation, but rejects the possibility that God is the creator of that simulation.
@@hansdemos6510 and yet, people like me regained their faith through science.
@@hansdemos6510 you do understand that modern science that is accepted by the mainstream science community does use pseudoscience , right. Example; dark matter and dark energy is said to permeate 96% of the universe, even though dark matter/energy has never been detected.
Popular scientist Neil Degrasse Tyson openly accepted the possibility that we are living in a simulation, but mocked the idea of god being the creator of this supposed simulation by referring to god being like a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Last, no modern day scientist can reasonably explain how soft tissue was found on a triceratops horn that was found only a foot deep in the ground. According to scientific decay rate of organic materials, that soft tissue should have completely decayed within 1 million years. It’s not pseudoscience if you are using the accepted scientific rate of decay, is it?
I'd like to see Tyson debate the mutation rate between generations and explain how Darwin's theory could incorporate that scientific evidence? At the current rate our dna won't even have enough viable structure to get Hillary a vote. Lol
@@mattohio3721 I wasn’t trying to not be political but, You are right on point. Dems claim to be the “party of science” until science disagrees with their point of view.
If Both of you came to Korea, I would buy good supper for you. Thanks a lot.
Jesus stepped onto his own creation as a man. Fully man, fully God. What a wonderful God the Lord is. He'll reveal everything in heaven to those who love him. I can't wait, yet it'll be an eternity of bliss in the Glory of Jesus Christ. My Lord and my God. Thank you Jesus, please come back soon!!!
Jesus Christ the Son of God who also became the son of man. The archangel 'Who is as God' (Mi'cha-el); the only begotten of God.
@@spiritoftruth56 true, so, do you expect Him back as the ghostly figure floating in the air (as most vision him) or as a Man, fully God and fully Man? Just curious. I
@@hernandez-yanezboldvoyager2623 He will come in all of his Glory. How that will be, I can't wait to find out, but will not pretend to know.
@@spiritoftruth56 I'm confused. The Jesus is the only begotten of God. The archangel Michael is only an angel and certainly not begotten of God...
@@unionjackjohn thanks for replying back, but this is not about pretending to know, this is about knowing what we are supposed to know. Jesus was born of a woman, that's how he descended to earth, no spaceship, no flying disc, but as a Man. That's why He is fully God and fully Man. How you ever wondered why He is a descendant from The Lineage Of David? Well because He incarnates through the same lineage, just common sense. How can a King wear a crown without a head like yours or mine? Or how can we ask our Father to let his Kingdom come if his Kingdom is not supposed to come and remain here?
Jesus was taken to the cross under the assumption of blasphemy, for He made himself equal to God, YET the church "has problems" with God descending down to earth as a Man? That to me is hypocrisy. Because many claim that God incarnated 2000 years ago, but somehow have issues with HIM being a Man again. That's just nuts, and quite honestly blasphemeous.
Thank you from Indonesia
Book of Romans Chap. 1. TY IGH. As always these videos & the info in them is outstanding. I've said this before & I'll say again "I pray parents at home are watching these videos w/their children". Give honor, glory, & thanksgiving to HIM who lives forever, AAAMEN !!
@A StarWars Gamer Hi StarWars Gamer. TY for your comment. You know I served in the U.S. Military for 6 yrs & have seen many explosions during those yrs. NEVER ONCE have I ever seen an explosion create order from the chaos that an explosion causes. The result was ALWAYS, fire, blood, & death, NEVER LIFE. So TY very much for your truthful comment. P.S. A U.S. Marine who fought in the 2 worst battles in the Pacific wrote a book. These battles sickened him & he also added that such things will continue until "The Millennium Reign of Christ". To keep his sanity he studied & taught biology always looking for & finding evidence of "In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth". His wife even testified to the fact that if it hadn't been for his studies her husband (Eugene Sledge) would have went insane because of his experiences in those Pacific Island battles.
@A StarWars Gamer My honor to serve. Thanks for the tip on the movie, I will check it out. Hope to see you soon.
Better not. They would only learn a big load of geological nonsense
Immanuel Velikowsky, in his various books, initiated the above challenges to the Orthodoxy from 1946 onwards and was pilloried for his insolence by The Establishment. It's so good to see his message not only still lives but is further evidence that The Truth is indestructable.
There is indeed, several erosional features between the formations of the Grand Canyon. For example, the top of the Muav Limestone and the top of the Redwall Limestone are erosional surfaces, with channel like features. Furthermore, YEC-s mostly focus on the Grand Canyon, as evidence for the global flood, but the total thickness of the Precambrian units (The units below the great unconformity) is similar to the units on top. How did the Precambrian formations form? Was there another catastrophy between the Creation and the Flood?
The type of erosional features Dr. Snelling is talking about in the video is water erosion in the form of river channeling. If each layer were exposed on the surface for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we would expect to see channels within channels and buried channels. While we do find occasional buried channels in the geologic record (e.g. Surprise Canyon), these are minor in comparison to widespread, flat-lying, geological layers we typically see at places like the Grand Canyon.
You also asked about the Precambrian. The consensus among young-earth geologists is that they were mostly formed mostly during Creation Week, though some of the uppermost Precambrian deposits may have formed during volcanic/tectonic/oceanic events leading up to and during the early phases of the Flood. You can read more about this in the following article:
digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol8/iss1/49/
@@IsGenesisHistory I’ve worked in seismic imaging all my career. Buried river channels are quite common on various seismic depth slices.
@@stevegagnon1539 Do you happen to know what layers of the stratigraphic column you were looking at when you were doing seismic imaging? Because I’m pretty sure the @Is Genesis History crew attribute a considerable portion of the rock record to the post-Flood era, when we 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 expect to see the buried river channels you’re speaking of.
@@animaladventures14 it was Eocene age in most cases, but your point is invalid. First of all they are all over the place on what the sedimentary rock age is before and after the flood. You can’t pin them down. For instance the top layers at the Grand Canyon are Permian in age. Why and how are those rock formations on top lithified ? How do you have hard rock at the very top, there’s no other rocks above it to create lithification ?
@@stevegagnon1539 Lithified sedimentary rocks... Chemicals present, Pressure from water and top layers which were eroded away. And two heat and three, required time to Lithify is unknown as that can be as quick as a matter of a couple years even today. Looking at those canyons ... a lot of that rock isn't exactly what anyone would call rock if you have ever been there in a rain storm, it turns into mud. So, saying that "rock" is lithified... what definition of lithiified are you using? There is none. That is an arbitrary term. And no one knows how long it takes to turn mud into rocks when just sitting under lightly buried conditions for pressure/heat. Not to mention that mud "stone" is often a deeply buried in geological age mud stone which should have LITHIFIED Millions of years ago and yet has not and has the chemical composition to do so judging by the layers ABOVE them... Or we could just admit the layers ABOVE the mud stones etc were brought in over the mudstone, buried with hot water and why they lithified and the lower mud layer stone did not. Of course the guessed age itself argues against itself for the mudstone even existing at all. So, which is it?
Top layers are often limestone which we know lithifies very quickly and why we use it in building homes and exteriors etc. Limestone top is often protecting the super soft mud layers(It is a travesty to call them rock). So, your point seems rather banal.
Here is true Science. Explains so much about science and debunking of evolution.
@@AwesomeWrench do you honestly believe that RANDOM MUTATION would ever make an animal better? Do you think any engineer or computer programmer RANDOMLY makes changes to their product expecting the product to somehow be better? Intelligent design is the most plausible explanation for the extreme integrated complexity that we see in animal life and the universe.
@@iamtruth6056 the issue here is that you are supposing someone made the changes. Also selection of changes is not random in any way.
Well its like any random mutation cant be benficial and in my honesty evolution just explains how all this other dead stuff exists in my opinoin it doesnt effect your holy book as well it takes place 6000 years ago while evolution covers the other huge timespan
And another part to random mutations if something can get better cant random mutations eventually hit the gold mine i mean its not like that cant happen if theres even a slim chance it will most likely happen over time and its not like conputers dont to random stuff they can do that for millions of times over thats the thing
@@obiomajronyekwere4469 you can not compare a computer to an organism.
Yes mutations are random, but if they are beneficial or not is decided by the environment they live in. If there is a 1% higher chance of survival, within a few generations most organisms will have the mutation that makes them survive better.
A recent example is the size of fish in the North Sea. Due to regulations the smaller fish were thrown back and the larger fish were caught. The amount of fish caught diminished while the amount of fish did not. Then biologists found that the adult fish had shrunk in size, because it prevented them from being caught. After a full stop on fishing, size increased again as without the humans fishing size was beneficial.
Yup they are still fish, but it is a clear example of evolution through natural selection.
What are the Mount St Helens sedimentary layers made of.
Do we see the separation of sandstone, limestone and mudstone? Do we see the same sequence as the megasequences How thick are the layers?
Honest accurate science cannot help but magnify the Bible and Jesus' blood.
@Richard Fox So, in this video, you did not hear an interpretation of observation that is more harmonious than what evolutionary theory postulates? (Yes, this is science in case you are not aware.) - If not, you had your ears shut.
Your 'rebuttal' is clearly less scientific than what you accuse the video of.
@Richard Fox, so the positions you believe are not based on assumptions and conjecture? …okay, suuure. Tell me again about how bad steroids are for people with COVID just like all the “expert” scientists told us last year…
@Richard Fox - No, you also have a lot of conjecture coming from the atheist side as well, reinforcing narratives over scientific fact or they wouldn't be trying to silence those who counter their views.
Somebody should come up with an animation that shows how the Grand Canyon layers would have formed under each paradigm.
THANK U FOR THIS INFO
I wish u guys would do some research on how they lived and what they did to survive. I wish u guys would learn about the ramparts. !! Truly this will help you understand the earth much better.
Beautiful. Thank you for sharing. I just don't understand how the layers formed within a year!? Minutes hours days weeks month's? I agree but an animation would be awesome?
@Richard Fox And yet this video proves they are not.
@@karenpearson6991 OMG you mean this video will win this years NOBEL PRIZE?
@Richard Fox How do “they” know? You can’t carbon date rocks. And if your going to purpose “by dating the Dino bones in the sediment” remember Carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 yrs. which is found in something else they say takes millions of years to form: Diamonds. My advice is to not take something said to you from a person holding a title at face value. Acts 17:11
@Unvaccinated I will say the title is a bit off, maybe should have said “evidence of the flood” Check out the other videos, they discuss Seismites. There’s good evidence and more explanation to back up claims of the minute / seconds process. And keep digging, there’s a ton of other fascinating theory’s about the earths age from other Christians. Young or old is still just a theory and to say believing one or the other makes you a non-believer is not true.
@@coonrat4793 Your last sentence is correct. The rest is gibberish.
Perhaps look up what diamonds are made of. And that a half life does not mean that after two half lifes all is gone.
Also please look up the term scientific theory, as you are confused on that one as well.
@@karenpearson6991 how did this video prove they are not extremely old ? Did Snelling explain where the other 38 sedimentary rocks formations in the Grand Canyon came from; sandstones, shales and limestones ? Did Snelling explain the Grand Canyon is part of the Colorado Plateau which comprises northeast Arizona, northwest New Mexico, southwest Colorado, and southeast Utah, or simpler put the 4 corners. Did Snelling explain this is a small region of western United States geologically ? Did Snelling talk about the geology of the rest of the country like the Rocky Mountains vs the Appalachians or the Sierra Nevada’s or the Ozarks? Did he explain the geology of the Great Plains or coastal plains, or Gulf of Mexico? All very different geologically. Did he explain the Canadian Shied comprising of Precambrian igneous rock billions of years old by Radiometric dating?
Please keep 'em comming.
Sooner or later millions will realize: years cannot be counted like counting people :))))
I wish you were right, but at the core, it's a heart issue.
@@daboffey see your cardiologist if you have a heart issue.
@@theshadow4737 The heart problem is with people who reject God.
@@daboffey if that gives you heart problems you still need to see a cardiologist.
@@theshadow4737 No heart problems with me, whether physical or spiritual. I have no need for a cardiologist.
good stuff. thanks
Can't the Earth still be 4.543 billion years old and still had the flood restart the Earth's surface? Was this sediment deposit done on the Pangea Continent, before the three meter per second movement?
I am not a skeptic; I agree with a young earth, but I have a question: They keep talking about "no erosion" between the layers of sediment. If there were erosion, and everything else was the same as it is now, what would we see? That is to say, what would the erosion in the side of a mountain or cliff look like?
If there were erosion between layers, you wouldn’t have the crisp and clear lines of each layer. You would have sections were the layers formed later would be intermixed with earlier layers. There would be gullies where that show the eroded sections and that area would be filled with the sediments of the later layers.
Good question. He expains that in this video. Lol👍
@@velkyn1 What you're saying is nonsense.
@@velkyn1 Just because I didn't show it doesn't mean I can't show it. It's obvious that you didn't actually listen to what was said in the video. The fact that the lines between layers of sediment are flat is what shows that there was no normal, long-term erosion between the layers. If erosion had taken place between the layers, the layers would not be flat and even.
If there had been thousands and millions of years of erosion between the layers, there would be a great deal of unevenness between the layers. We do not see this. The evidence points clearly to a catastrophic event, not millions of years. The video itself SHOWS why what you are saying is nonsense. I don't really have to do it myself.
@Richard Fox Did you actually watch the video?
No erosion between the layers says it all.
No
it's like the bible is true and there was a flood. and as the water ran off. it deposited sediment. (formed by wights I guess) and it shows all around the world etc.
Wrong
@@yoshisaidit7250 whats wrong.
@@johnsmith-fz5pz The bible is not true, there was no global flood, the water didnt fall off the edge of the earth, deposited sediment doesnt form like that, and it doesnt show it all around the world.
In short, EVERYTHING is wrong.
@@yoshisaidit7250 LOL so again you didn't watch the video. it does form like that. did you see around the world (according to geoligists) there are layers. that all pretty much formed the same. there was a global flood. and who said about falling of the edge? where in the bible does it say the world is flat? does it.? in short everything in the bible is correct.
P.S why are you here then? it's okay we will be praying for you
@@MrPandoman Earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives? from where and how long ago
If you EVER thought the Grand Canyon was made by the Colorado river...
I’m not talking to you....
That said, how does the quick deposition of a set of layers (wide spread or not) from a what seems to be a period of planetary instability exactly speak to its age?
Why aren't there more grand canyons?
What was the estimated speed of the water
Amazing.
To many trolls allowed to clog up a good discussion
Even in gods wrath during the flood the outcome is beyond words...
@Richard Fox your repeated pokes at the people in the comments here is indicative of your problem with christianity and/or the bible. Because you arrive married to this mindset, there's no way you will learn anything here as you have no ability to challenge what you think you know. Why are you here other than to poke and annoy like a child? Allow people to have their beliefs and move on. Go live your life as you believe and see fit and rest easy knowing that none of what is discussed or presented on this channel or in the comment section is affecting you. Go in peace.
When we look at the many horizontal layers that we find throughout our planet, we clearly see the effect of a repeating cataclysm. These disasters are mentioned in ancient books like the Mahabharata of India and the Popol Vuh of the Mayans and others. They tell us about a cycle of seven disasters that separate the eras from the world. Certainly, regularly recurring global disasters cannot be caused by asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions. The only possible cause is another celestial body, a planet, orbiting our sun in an eccentric orbit. Then it is close to the sun for a short period and after the crossing at a very high speed it disappears into the universe for a long time. Planet 9 exists, but it seems invisible. These disasters cause a huge tidal wave of seawater that washes over land "above the highest mountains." At the end it covers the earth with a layer of mud, a mixture of sand, clay, lime, fossils of marine and terrestrial animals and meteorites. The land looks "without form and void". Jungles that existed are flattened and because of the pressure from the layer on top it is changed into coal. The world looks without form and void. These disasters also create a cycle of civilizations. To learn much more about the recurring flood cycle, the re-creation of civilizations and its chronology and ancient high technology, read the e-book: "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It can be read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
That's a theory, that hasn't been proven, so cannot be called "fact "
@@kimfleury Most of the facts about this recurring cataclysm can be found in the Bible.
@Richard Fox So hundreds of layers on top of each other as we can see in the Grand Canyon does not show a pattern?
@Richard FoxIf you really could measure the date of each layer, you would find a pattern. Did you know that the bible is the book with the most details about the recurring and predictable natural disaster?
@@kimfleury Every layer in the Grand Canyon is a tangeble fact for a recurring disaster. By the way, the Bible tells us about a recurring, thus predictable disaster several times. And it gives us many details about the disaster.
Let all the earth fear the LORD [YHVH]: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. [Psalm 33:8-9] The Bible reveals an instantaneous Creation, where God "spoke and it was done". It did not require long periods of time (according to the Bible). Add to this that Jesus held to a literal interpretation of Creation: But from the beginning of the Creation God made them male and female. [Mark 10:6, Gen 1:27] We see a link between "the beginning of the Creation" and the sixth day when "God made Adam and Eve". So from purely a Scriptural perspective, there is no room whatsoever for the theory of evolution or the need for millions of years in order to produce Creation. All Bible-believing Christians must accept this Biblical doctrine of a literal 6 days of Creation and the seventh day was set aside as "the Day of the LORD" or "the LORD's Day" (the Sabbath Day) which we are commanded to "Remember the Sabbath Day" in the Ten Commandments [Ex 20:8] to "keep it Holy". In the New Testament, we are still instructed to "keep the commandments". See [1 John 2:4, 1 John 5:3, John 14:15, Luke 6:46, 1John 3:4, John 8:11, Matt 5:48, Matt 22:36-38, Mark 12:28-30, Luke 10:25-27, 2 Peter 3:16-17, Rev 12:17, Rev 14:12] and there are many more examples.
Less than 6000 years old, YES! God's Word confirms it...Moses
Even when I was in elementary school and they said the Colorado River made the Grand Canyon, I could not see how that tiny amount of water did all of that carving. If I questioned that when I was so young, why don't college level students question that today?
Because we went to university and actually learned how the various types of erosion work.
Because the are biased and not open minded like they claim. They also think they are smarter than everyone else.
Snelling and Austin are brilliant minds but they don't hold the status quo.
Check out Dr. Austin and the mat theory. He is watching his theory play out in real time.
@@foechicken8023 the status quo. is about to go the way of the Dodo bird. So many mainstream theories are about to be debunked. Soft tissue found in a Triceratops horn in Wyoming is one! Many in stock dinosaur bones are being picked from the shelves all over the world and are showing the same thing.
Maybe you should have questioned your holy book, too, when you were younger and put it under the exact same level of scrutiny that you insist on for everything else in your life...The theory you believe doesn't account for glacial periods and meltwater or that you are likely comparing the modern river that is so heavily dammed that it doesn't even reach the Gulf of California anymore...
Always appreciate the knowledge of these men about Biblical evidence of the great deluge
Love these teachings
So in another word, I it formed millions of years, the canyon could go through out of space.
@isgenesishistory? I have a question. There is a theorie about the creation of the world: they say God indeed created the heavens and the earth. But the second verse of Genesis 1 says there was darkness and chaos. This theory claims between the moment God has created heaven and earth and the moment He created the world we know, there has been another creation with another society. Lucifer was reigning in that time over the earth (iasiah 14) Do you also think this theory is true or can be true?
How given over do the so called experts have to be to deny the obvious. I'm glad I'm not that kind of expert.
Thanks for your insight showing more of our Lord Gods hand in all things
I think Dr. Snelling is mistaking a lack of gradation with a lack of erosion. The area where the upper bound of the Hermit Formation has filled in channels from erosion and is effectively 'jagged' as Snelling put it. There is an erosional unconformity where it meets the Coconino Sandstone but what there is not is gradation which I think may be Dr. Snelling's confusion. Gradation meaning that the layers merge one into the other. A lack of gradation is not surprising with unconformities (erosion period) especially large ones. This is not an attack on Dr. Snelling but I would suggest that he submit his work for peer review or discuss it with other prominent geologists because if you are right then you should be able to demonstrate it. Personally I would be excited to see some of this flood geology work come to fruition but I'm afraid that not much of what has been said here can stand up to scrutiny. FYI: I am not a professional geologist.
Mainstream peer-review journals probably won't accept this stuff. He literally had to sue the park service and a bunch of industry scientists(who make up the peers reviewing) were all for the park service's position over his wanting to collect some rock samples in the Grand Canyon.
I am a former Christian and videos like these started my path to atheism. My advice is to heavily research the claims within this video. Once knowledgeable then judge forthrightness of this video
The easiest debunking is simply asking about the Navajo Sandstone formation to the north in Utah. The rock formation in places like Zion park. The base of the rocks in Zion is the top layer of the Grand Canyon. The Navajo was made by a vast desert and sits on the Kayenta formation which was made of rivers, ponds, and contains many dinosaur footprints.
Keeping all of this in mind, have the creationist explain the Navajo Sandstone. How and when did it appear.
Until it is shown that a cell and genetic code can be formed naturally evolution can not be taken seriously. Geology and anthropology is merely interpretive. Type 1 experiments support creation.
@@rejectevolution152 so I have a random/unknown person in a comment section on RUclips claiming they have the data to overturn a scientific consensus.
In any other circumstance outside of evolution, you would view such a claim as deeply misguided. Or are there other sciences that you could destroy with your wit and knowledge?
@@AWalkOnDirt Its the science itself.
Until a natural model can be shown to produce genetic code and cells evolution is merely an assertion.
Larry Cloyes your statement: *"I am a former Christian"* is false claim; unbiblical. No one can be a "former" Christian; salvation is irreversible [John 10 v27-30]. Many [like you], have claimed Christ and walked away, yet the truth is they simply knew "about" Jesus [1 John 2 v19], vs truly being *'born again'* via the godly repentance that leads to salvation [2 Cor 7 v10]. Only by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit does a person become a *"Christian"* which WILL be evidenced by a *'new nature'* which Gods word says we SHALL know them by [2 Cor 5 v17]. *"You shall know them by their fruit"* [Matt 7 v16]. *edit:* please think about these things. *Truth is a stubborn thing.*
Amazing how logical geology is according to the history stated in scripture.
Flood sediments are more than 100 million cubic miles around the world with animals that were living at the time.. Some say up to 200 million cubic miles of water deposited sediment layers.
@@johndonahue3162 So? You can get maps where there is igneous rock.
@@MrPandoman You believe what the internet tells you. Think for yourself.
@@MrPandoman The Bible is in the middle of ancient history. The internet doesn't tell you about that.
@@johndonahue3162 You are trying to say humans don’t have a history. That’s categorically not the case. Every ancient civilization is the descendants of the grandsons and great grandsons of Noah. We know their names. We know their history. I can name them for you. They are all actual groups of people.
@@MrPandoman I don’t think you heard what I was saying. There is no other human history. Ancient history is contemporaneous with Biblical history. The founders of every ancient civilization is the grandsons and great grandsons of Noah and I can name every one of them. There are no other calendars or any other actual historical records because we are the survivors of the global flood.
Of coarse just go to your bible and read Genesis. There are a lot of people that are confused because of teaching that does not recognize the almighty Iam as our creator and try to Shove in the lie of Evolution.
Which of the facts of evolution are, as you say, lies?
all great stuff.
And the layers all formed on a spinning ball. lol
@@MrPandoman Well, you have to give pgabli credit, he takes all the bible literally instead of only some of it like the two heretics in the video. ofc they are all wrong, but still...
"The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the *deep waters.* And the Spirit of God was hovering over the *surface of the waters.*
Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.”
But people seem to leap all over noah's flood and forget how the Bible says the land was formed.
It's because they *want* to.
Other portions of this series begin with the land being in one place, then torn apart and ripped asunder by the cataclysmic event that caused Noah's flood.
@@kimfleury Fortunately, I don't fall for flimsy presentations such as that.
I had one individual the other day try to "suggest" that the Himalays were "formed during the flood" and that explains why the waters weren't nearly nine kilometers and 15 cubits, let's not forget, above sea level.
It's astonishing, the lengths people will go to, in order to force the Bible to fit their preconceptions.
I have no problem with it.
I do not accept a global inundation, so I don't have to invent "just so" stories about how mount everest got there.
The Bible account of the flood of noah is manifestly dealing with the land the antedeluvians occupied.
But it's interesting to see how people behave.
@@Lucid.dreamer yet you believe e everything came from nothing?
@@Lucid.dreamer you forget how people mention that pangea existed before the flood and it tore apart the continents. But as your idea is equally unfitting, no worries.
@@taylor6618
*"yet you believe e everything came from nothing?"*
No. I do not.
I do appreciate all your hard work, but the only evidence anyone truly needs of a "young earth" is found in the Holy Scriptures.
If someone doesn't believe the pure word of God, even if you convince them of a young earth, unless they accept God's simple plan of salvation and place their faith in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life, then when they die, they'll go to hell for all of eternity.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge : but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Hi. Perhaps you might try looking at your comment from the point of view of the "fools (that) despise wisdom and instruction". BTW many of them are called scientists and many of those also call themselves biblical Christians. Your uncritical blanket acceptance of "God's simple plan of salvation" etc. will strike them as, um, simple. "What? No questions?" Who created curiosity? Why? Why, for example, should "fear" be a necessary starting point for learning? (Mental picture of God as Dickensian schoolmaster!).
OK, I'm sure unquestioning acceptance works for you. No problem there. My view is that religion does not give you the answers. It stops you from asking the questions. And, please, stop the name calling and threats. Your freedom of religion should never affect my freedom from your religion.
5@@alanthompson8515 ...That last part of my post/comment is not an opinion of mine, it's a quote from the Holy Scriptures. For clarity I should've referenced it. So, here it is in context :
Proverbs chapter 1, verses 5 - 9...
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning;
and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck."
Again, the Holy Scriptures are the final authority for all truth, whether one believes it or not. Oh, and to fear the One True Creator who gave you life, and who offers you the free gift of eternal life? Well, yeah!!
@@JOHNch4.v.v.7to10 Sorry, but any god that has to threaten hell, disease and suffering for you to recognise him as a god is nothing but a man-made scarecrow.
And then there's the blatant bribery too. Eternal life? Isn't that an oxymoron?
As Adam Young (The Antichrist) remarks:
“If you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive.”
― Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch.
Rev 18:4
The lack of critical thinking here is truly impressive. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
It reminds that it wasn’t Darwin who said the world is very old-even though he did say it, he was way, way off by hundreds of millions of years. It was actually the Scottish geologist Lyell who showed the earth’s great age as revealed by rock formations. But, since rocks aren’t as sexy as cavemen, Lyell’s discovery didn’t cause the controversy that Darwin’s evolutionary theory did.
As for this guy, any geologist worth his or her salt would blow his bull right into space-okay, okay, right off the flat earth. Better now?
Are you saying that none of that made sense to you?
I don't want to mock anybody's believes. I myself believe in God, the Creator of all things.
Please consider the following:
The Bible doesn't support the theory that the earth was made within 6 days, 24h each.
The Hebrew word, which can be translated as "day", can also mean "period" or "time". In Genesis 2:4 all 6 days are summed up as one day: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in *the day* that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (King James Bible, other translations as well)
Please, my fellow Christians, consider this.
There are some more biblical things that support that the 6 days where 6 periods of creation with an unspecified duration...
That’s just the thing it isn’t a long period of time people just want to insert that so bad. I guess when GOD made Adam it to wasn’t a day he was created over a long period of time / day lol
You are partially right, but ultimately wrong as the word used with the syntax used in the way it was used does not mean period at all. It means a literal day. Without the Hebrew syntax it could mean period, but the syntax exists and therefore it means a literal 24 hour day. Many uses of the word in same book which does mean period.
@@w8stral point is creation days were 24 hr days not long periods of time what so ever. GOD made Adam mature same way he made the Universe then stretched out the Universe.
@@aznation4592 Mate, maybe you should READ before replying. Also, learn how YT works. IF YOUR NAME was not mentioned, then the person is REPLYING to the ORIGINAL post or someone else. Wasn't replying to you.
So Adam's age in the Bible didn't begin with a day but started with a period of time longer than a day. The Bible gives his full age beginning from the day he started to breathe to the day he took his last breath.
this great explanation of fact in science and bible
sorry boys . the cross beds were formed with supersonic winds generating static electricity with lighting and magnetic fields. the clue is the butte shapes , with sharp edges. evidence of sagging rock then harding .
@Richard Fox really
Bs
@@captnb8036 well articulated
More and more evidence, yet people still won't believe. It will always take faith, and the Holy Ghost before any conversion will take place.
What evidence? 2 guys standing there lying to you is evidence?
Believe in a ghost? What conversation could we possibly have that would do any good for anyone other than you (providing you learn anything)?
Earth is young, there had to be a major event of sorts world wide. Here's a theory, in short, I believe the tribulation period has already happened and we are in the time of the war of gog and magog. Many events happened then, to explain these natural conditions. Also would explain the building we can not recreate.
One thing is clear, Yahweh has not abandoned us. I know plenty of brothers and sisters filled with the RUACH HA KODESH
The earth is like a girlfriend , started out young and flat then became old and fat !! 🤪
Fun fact
1. The same applies to boyfriends
I see no intelligent rebuttals in the comments, just people disagreeing without explaining why they disagree. Try giving an alternate explanation for the data found here. "No" & "God doesn't exist" are not viable counterarguments.
@@MrPandoman You can find seashells on top of flat cliffs of the Grand Canyon & whale fossils on top of the Andes and Himalayas, which doesn't prove anything but is interesting to consider. There's also the Morrison formation, mass deposits of dinosaur bones across 13 states in middle America that have their necks back in choking positions, alongside marine creatures, beneath massive volumes of mud and ash, so some catastrophic event indeed occurred which lines up with the geological insights provided in this video.
This video gives evidence for what could be a flood on some grand scale, but thus far neither you or others in the comments have provided any alternate explanation for the data presented in this video, or any rebuttal that goes beyond mere denial of Christian presuppositions. As I said to begin with, "No" is not a viable counterargument to apparent rapidly-deposited masses of sediment from which one could infer a catastrophic flood.
@@MrPandoman Alright, I'll keep looking into these things. I still haven't seen any rebuttal to the case made by Dr. Snellings in this video, not by you or anyone else in the comments.
Short answer there is zero geological evidence that the earth is less than 10000 years old. There are trees a short drive from him that older than the flood.
delusional
Ok so you can tell how fast and how deep the water was yet never mentioned any numbers, aggravating a tad guys.
You are trying to give scale and leave out the very info that defines it.
Did you miss the part where they had measured the angle of slope to determine that these mounds were at a 15 to 25 degree slopes like in water as opposed to the 30-35 degree slopes that naturally occur in air? Or how about the footprints left that show the animal was most likely being drifted around by the current of water? Shows how much you were paying attention.
@@iamtruth6056 Actually none of those answered my question at all which seemed to beg an answer so yes I was very closely in fact, why did you feel the need to offer a useless reply?
@@rhodes6840 well, according to mainstream science, a flood was not involved at all in the formation of this sedimentation that was according to the evidence left behind most likely from large amounts of fast moving water. Just because you want exact numbers to something that most scientists claimed never happened, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. These guys are talking about an event that was of such magnitude that it has never happened since making it extremely hard to put a precise number to it. I applaud them for not making up a bs number that they cannot verify unlike modern scientists who pretend that the universe is made up of 96% dark matter and dark energy even though they can’t detect dark matter or dark energy.
@@iamtruth6056 Snelling himself said that these numbers could be estimated, but didn't even give us an estimate. It's not that his numbers are wrong... he doesn't even have any.
@@iamtruth6056 See that the thing they used the word "calculate" a term speaking of precision in some fashion and yet keep the info closed? Yeah ticks me off a bit
Well it's not done growing yet, if that's what you're wondering... LMAO 😂
In a few words, possibly well chosen, during Noah's harrowing voyage a historical amount of water over ran the surface of a flat earth. 40 days of rain wouldn't do it. So from elsewhere it came. From above and below it came. Like filling a swimming pool it rushed to over run everywhere. Moving all manor of loose matter, making a slurry. Even vast areas of oceanic organic mats. With the sudden onslaught, came the ebbing then the quick draining, having wave after wave of ... you guessed it , new earth.
@@MrPandoman Sedimentary rock shows it all and fosselized rock shows the redistribution of life. And yupper
@@MrPandoman So why exactly view a video that has a totally differing conclusion? Could it be your stance is an old atheistic dogma does not stand up to this scrutney?
No science here, just a bunch of assumptions.
no. Also, there was no worldwide flood either.
Ah yes lets believe this priests words about how hundreds of indepentant scientific papers are just wrong because they do not fit my view because of religion and an old book written by people who had no clue.
Aren’t scientists contradicting themselves when the claim RANDOM MUTATION somehow caused animals to ADAPT to their environment in just the right time to survive? Think about it. Would you RANDOMLY insert code into software expecting the software to be better than what it was, let alone work as well as it did?
@@iamtruth6056 The thing is, those who believe in evolution do not even believe that there was any intelligence behind our creation. They just believe that blind and random natural processes “made” everything.
True simensen obviously their children live on today lol
@@iamtruth6056 Nobody is contradicting themselves, you just got it all wrong. These mutations happend somewhat randomly, but over time, and over time this has lead to the animals with the best mutations over and over carrying forward their genes. This leads to the animals we have today.
The fact that you are denying this shows just how little you know. The farm animals today are specifically bred for the purpose of their meat. How about dogs/cats? Would you say a Pug is a perfect and natural creation of good? An animal that can hardly breathe and serves no purpose other than to be some wierd persons friend while that animal suffers its entire life?
Evolution doesnt happend in 1 lifetime. The climate changes slowly and the animals adapt slowly with the most fitted mutations carrying on while others die out. The fact that the climate is changing so rapidly because of humans right now doesnt give the animals time to adapt and will go extinct, this rapid climate change that has happend over last 150 years has normally taken thousands of years.
@@Keesha_Hardy False. Im not claiming the universe wasnt created by anything at all, nor claiming there is a god or not. I wouldnt know because it cant be tested, and honestly to me, it doesnt matter. I just base my view on the cold hard facts.
Im open to believing some kind of god could have created everything but it wasnt 5000 years ago. We could also all be in a simulation but as far as I know there is no way to know that either, but hey if we are, we technically have a god I guess.
Not one single piece of evidence suggests a young earth..
Particularly if you don't believe in God. But most scientists don't believe in God and are not willing to say anything except what every other scientist says who believes the same things. I've seen plenty of solid evidence for a young earth creation by God, but at the end of the day we are all going on faith, because none of us were there.
@@MrPandoman Watching the video helps. But you probably don't care what it says. And thats ok, you are free to believe in Evolution or a Flat Earth, it's a free country. Evolution has never made sense. It makes far too many unprovable assumptions. It's really a laughable theory, but it was created to try to give people a way to disprove God.
@@MrPandoman An idea which is accepted by science can be considered correct one day and badly flawed the. Flat Earth, The Solar System not revolving around the Sun, just a few instance where the consensus was incredibly wrong. Science must continually "evolve" when new information comes to light which causes the past to need reexamination. But what creation scientists discover which challenges widely accepted ideas is always ignored in the larger secular scientific community. I would call that Dogma, not science at all. I have no problems with modern medicine, but I also know that it did not "evolve", modern medicine is the incomplete sum of thousands of years of human medical practice and experimentation. Monkeys and other animals are often used as test beds because of some similarities but that does not prove anything, just that they can be bipedal and share some similarities with Humans.
Have you ever thought that the continents separated by erosion , not by splitting apart ? Erosion is sediment that moves from one place on the Earth to another place on the Earth. Different sediment layers in the Grand Canyon had to come from some where. If there where great earthquakes durning the flood , Noah and the Ark would have been destroyed by the tsunami's. Remember " And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas; and God saw that it was good ." Seas are not oceans . Oceans are what we see now after the great flood .
There is a theory called "Expanding Earth" or "Growing Earth Theory", which speculates that our planet has always been increasing in size, and as it grew, the continents became farther and farther apart - you can recreate this easily yourself, take a balloon and put two dots on the balloon with a marker... then inflate the balloon. You will quickly see that the more you inflate the balloon, the further apart the dots get... so under this hypothesis, all "faults" are expansion joints, this is no subduction and no plate tectonics with magical movements of continents. For flat earthers, this theory won't work, so just ignore it. I am 100% a believer in spherical earth.
@@asb3pe Good ! Thank you .
@@asb3pe The Spirit of Truth brought this verse to my remembrance KJV Isaiah chapter 40 verse 22 . Enjoy
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
"Is There Geologic Evidence That the Earth Is Young?"
No.
Wrong x10
@@captnb8036 Try again.
To answer the question in the title, NO!
I see no reason for God to make the earth appear old if it it young. Seems deceptive, doesn’t seem like the Christian God. And the Bible allows an old earth so I don’t know why we need to say it’s young
Why do you need to demand the world is old? This question goes both ways, I'm curious what you have to say. I used to think the world is old, but the more I research, it seems it could be young.
@@grapeape3633 It is young. The bible tells us so. May Jesus bless you my friend.
@@grapeape3633 Could be? What percent sure are you? I am just curious. I am about 80% sure the earth is old. I believe that the earth is billions of years old because of the countless datings done by scientists 👨🔬 that conclude a young earth. For example carbon dating. I believe that the universe is 13.8 billion years old because of the speed of the expansion of the universe. If you look at how fast the expansion is going, and calculate how long ago all matter was in one place, (if everything is expanding then it must be expanding from somewhere), then we get 13.8 billion years. The main reason I am not a young earth creationist is because you would have to believe that God put the expansion of the universe in a way to make it look like it happened 13.8 billion years ago. If there is evidence for a young earth, then why are there no young earth non-Christians?
@@minetime6881 this channel has a video of a triceratops horn that still has soft tissue on it. It was found just one foot deep in the ground. It is scientifically impossible for that soft tissue to last 65 million years.
Most people believe in old earth because they assume that science is always right. They never question the scientist’s interpretation of the evidence. It’s 20 years ago, scientists determined 90% of all dna is junk dna. Now, those same scientists believe less than 30% of dna is junk dna. Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. If you have a theory, you will tend to interpret the evidence to match your theory.
Right now, scientists have determined 96% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy even though dark matter/energy has never been detected. Is that true science? No. It’s nothing more than a belief system. Science has become a religion, specifically quantum mechanics because it bears no relation to reality.
I would say that it's not God who is making the earth and the universe look old, it's the assumptions that form the foundation on which theories are built. For example, assuming that the rate of decay of specific isotopes remains steady over time, then age testing leads to the conclusion of very old. But if you tweak that foundational assumption, then the conclusion will be altered.
If you make a comparison of the earth to Adam, you come up with this. Adam is either 1) a young Adam, or 2) an old Adam. He looks old, but we know he was just created. In the same way, the earth is either 1) a young earth, or 2) an old earth. When looking at the earth, it looks old. Did God make the earth all grown up like he did Adam?
You forgot the truthful options
Adam is not real, neither is god.
Is There Geologic Evidence That the Earth Is Young?
No, the answer is no.
Laughable. Let's not mix science and myth.
BIBLE = SCIENCE
EVOLUTION = MYTH
@@biblicus8204 Right. Bible = Science. I suppose that's why we help cure disease by chanting words rather than actually giving a medical, scientific cure. If you truly believe the Bible is Scientific, you certainly do not understand the terms you're using.
Get right with God friends, don't wait another day! About 500 prophecies fulfilled, most of them made hundreds and thousands of years in advance. The Bible is the true word of God, heaven and hell are real! Believe Romans 10:9-10, then repent of your sins and you will be saved.
Beauty? If you like catastrophic events 😄
Hogwash.
If Genesis IS history I can only point out two things. First is Genesis 1:26. “Then God said, let us make man in our image…” Ok, who is this “us” God is referring to? And who are the “our” he is also referring to? Because there are two pluralities in that short phrase. It sure sounds like he is a god speaking to other gods advising them as to the manner they all should make man. And secondly, you need to float down through the Grand Canyon someday and try and wrap your head around that gash in the earth’s crust happening in thousands, instead of millions of years. Not possible.
The term Elohim is sometimes called a uniplural
There's lots of identities in The Godhead
And it's all described more throughout scripture
Too bad our corporations couldn't follow the business model
GODWAS talking to JESUS
Artur Ferrão
True, the Hebrews believed in the existence of “gods”, but to say they were polytheistic is misleading. Their ultimate loyalty and worship was directed to only one absolute supreme God. The scholars who say otherwise are spouting nonsense.
The earliest Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1:26 is that God was speaking to the heavenly host, who He had already created.
The Church Fathers said that the "us" is the different hypostases in the Holy Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. So that's the answer.
LOL
I want to invite all my brothers and sisters who read this to add more truths to the truths that they already have and read The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Thank you
God created the earth the way He wanted. He could have done so with 'evidence' of erosion and petrified trees and bones. I think trying to prove God is a fallacy from the beginning. We can at least be sure that He wishes to remain unseen by the living man.
Kind of throws out the climate change BS. The earth is just changing
My belief is that the timeline constructed for the Bible is off. A slap in the face to an infinite Almighty God. To think you understand him and our true history is blasphemous in itself. Thank the Almighty for the saving Grace afforded to us in the name of Jesus Christ.
This is so wrong it's almost comical.
Could you explain, exactly how wrong they are? With evidence to back up your claim?
@@Keesha_Hardy its wrong just except it
@@Keesha_Hardy Do you know anything about the formation of sedimentary rock ?
I keep trying to present a website but I am being blocked. It is called Arizona Ruins but if I type it as a web address I get blocked, funny that ????
@@Keesha_Hardy Have been blocked from providing evidence.
If by "young" you mean like 2 billion years old as opposed to 4.5 billion years old, possibly. If by "young" you mean 2000 to 6000 years old.... Obviously not... Obvious to reasonable people that is
The Earth is FLAT. Bottom line
Fairytales..... is genesis history?, you'll have to ask Phil Collins