@skiesoceans, Jesus said that "from the beginning, God made them male and female." This is speaking of the creation of the world, which is mentioned in Genesis. It outlines the six days which God took to create the world, punctuating each day with the phrase "and there was evening and morning, the Nth day." Also in the Hebrew law, it says that people should rest on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day of creation. So the Bible says that it took God six days.
@skiesoceans, good question. In the Bible, it outlines the genealogy of the family lines, apparently all the way to Jesus. And these records tell how old people lived, and how old their fathers were when they were born, etc. I personally have not added up the numbers, but from what I've been told, it adds up to 6000 years ago and change. As I've never studied it for myself, I just say "no more than ten thousand"
Look, you can't dismiss something you can't explain or don't know as irrelevant. Not in science, not even in philosophy. To do that is simply childish and is actually worse than bronze age thinking.
@SacredSoul1990, I understand the concept of radiocarbon dating. I liken it to looking at a person and saying how old he is based on appearance. And I show that dating methods do not apply if God created the earth. So indeed I do show how it is irrelevant by a philosophical/logical argument.
So what you're saying is... God intentionally set out to deceive us? I thought the deceiver was Satan? Did god create the fossils as well? The light traveling from the stars? Maybe the stars don't exist - God just created the light to trick us.
@ralph17p, He didn't do it to trick us. We're only tricked by our own assumptions. God could not have created the earth at any point in time without it looking old. Is this deception?
As for fossils, most of the fossils in the ground were laid down in the global flood that was also recorded in the Bible. And as for the stars, after God created the stars, he described them as "good" which implies that they were "working" :) So the creation would have been complete and finished.
@forest51690 Lol! The flood? You don't think perhaps that you're the one being tricked by your assumptions?
The flood myth has been utterly debunked by geological evidence, since around 1700. Most christians (at least those with any level of education) don't believe the flood account is in any way factual - see bringyou.to_apologetics_p82.htm (replace _ with /). The author is an evangelical christian, so is biased against an entirely naturalistic worldview.
You do know there is more than 15 dating methods? Science often uses a few different methods at the same time to confirm the age of something. Did you know they used carbon dating on the dead sea scrolls and it matched historical data? With that in mind you truelly are misinformed by the fundamentalist cunt you listen to! Please research it for yourself and dont hang on everyword your preacher says....
@ATABOFACID, yes there are many different dating methods which test the ratios of different elements. But for the most part, my argument still applies. God created some things to be "old" as the Bible states, so it's not hard to imagine that he created rocks with age as well. Age can be measured in many different ways, but just because it looks old doesn't mean that it is old.
So, when biologists and geologists find so much evidence that points to the earth being billions of years old, it's actually correct, only it's actually part of an "apperarance of age"?
Then why do other creation scientists refute and ridicule all the findings of biologists and geologists that points to this fact?
Doesn't your hypothesis imply that all these creation scientists are deluded or otherwise lying?
Don't drop this, follow the hypothesis to its logical conclusions.
Creationism is what happens when science get too arrogant,
As a man of science I can easily acknowledge the importance of first believing something.....thats what you first do if you want to find out about truth, hypothesize. And that is what religion is hypothesis. very important step.
But in science we don´t stop with "just believing", you want to go further and find out if your hypothesis/religion i correct in order to rely on your belief.
Do you think that God created Adam with scars and pimples and skin rashes and dead parasites? You know, so that it looked like he had gone through 30 years worth of experiences? That's an extra-biblical absurdity, right? Then why would God put fossils in the earth from things that never lived and clues to events which never took place? God made reality, God didn't write the bible. When reality conflicts with the bible, reality wins.
@hugesinker You're right, that would be absurd. God didn't create the earth with fossils in it. The fossils were laid down when the flood of Noah covered the earth.
@forest51690 But not the archaeological or any historical records. It is however predated by the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh and even earlier from Athrahasis. However the Genesis flood, dated at it is at about 2000 BCE didn't happen.
@SidewaysGts Yes. This isn't dishonest. Say God could have either created a chicken or an egg. Either way you could call it misleading. With the chicken, there should have been a past and a childhood. And with the egg, there should have been a mother. So either way it could be called misleading. If God were to create a chicken, tell me, what would be the best way?
So, "A god 'could' have created everything in the universe to look like he didn't..."
Yes.. but why?
Your God was supposed to have declared himself real way before man could understand the many sciences that refute his story! So why bother with the fake universe!?
Sounds like a deliberate attempt to trap the scientifically literate into not believe in him and thus burn in hell for EVER!
A god could make the world look so perfectly evolved we would not believe in him but demand we do?
@KylieTasticUK The universe does look like God created it! (Not so much now because of sin and corruption)
It's not about IF the universe looks like it was created by God, it's about WHEN the universe looks like it was created. And we can't conclude anything based on that observation, as I talk about in my video.
@FiverBeyond Plants get a lot older than that. trees in norway go to 10,000+ years, Pando (a quaking aspen) in Utah is 80,000+ years old. look up 'list of long living organisms' on wikipedia. There is some crazy stuff.
Actually, we are: the oldest living trees are around 4,000 years old.
But dendochronology goes further back than that. By taking dead-but-preserved tree segments and lining the ring patterns up with known living tree patterns, we can form a chain of core samples dating back accurately to over 11,000 years. The method addresses both missing and extra tree rings and, of course, these results can then be double-checked using carbon dating. They match!
@forest51690 "Surely we aren't dating trees to be thousands of years old..." norway spruce-up to 9000+ years old. bristlecone pine up to 5000 years old. etc.
So God created a world 6000 years ago and made it to appear like it has been around for billions of years and had the full evolutionary history to arrive at that point of creation?
Okay, that's a coherent argument, but basically you're calling God a liar and a fraud, so better don't let the other fundamentalists hear it
What a sneaky god, making everything just appear as though its old, just to confuse those silly scientists. Making dogs descended from wolves and making their genetic separation just appear as though it happened 15,000 years ago. He made the light from the stars, that are billions of light years away, already in transit, rather than it taking all those billions of years to get hear on its own. Man he is good, and now the humans have pretty stars to look at when the sun goes out of the firmament.
@damianhoward So God is sneaky and the scientists are just misled. Not really, the scientists are misled by their own presuppositions and biases. (Most scientists, I should say).
@forest51690 based on your creation model, the population density calculations leaves the planet with 750 people in the year 2500 BCE. That means those the able bodied members of the 750 people (200-300), built the great pyramid of giza moving 2,300,000 blocks weighing 2.5- 50 tons each, moved them from quarry to the site and erected the 480ft pyramid in 20 years. In the year 3700 BCE there would have been 14 people, they sure were busy establishing cultures, moving around, and then repeating.
@forest51690 That's not archaeology, it's population demographics. Archaeology refutes any young earth creation by providing artefacts and remanants from prior to said 'event'. It also handily refutes any global flood, gardens of Eden, Towers of Babel etc. It does however provide us with a nice potted history of the redactions of the bible and even supports concepts such as Asherea and Jahweh being a minion of Marduk. That's archaeology.
it has always puzzled me, where in the bible did it ever state the time god took to create the universe.
skiesoceans 1 month ago
@skiesoceans, Jesus said that "from the beginning, God made them male and female." This is speaking of the creation of the world, which is mentioned in Genesis. It outlines the six days which God took to create the world, punctuating each day with the phrase "and there was evening and morning, the Nth day." Also in the Hebrew law, it says that people should rest on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day of creation. So the Bible says that it took God six days.
forest51690 1 month ago
@forest51690 uh huh. so how does 6 days sum up to those creationist view of 6000 to 10000 years?
skiesoceans 1 month ago
@skiesoceans, good question. In the Bible, it outlines the genealogy of the family lines, apparently all the way to Jesus. And these records tell how old people lived, and how old their fathers were when they were born, etc. I personally have not added up the numbers, but from what I've been told, it adds up to 6000 years ago and change. As I've never studied it for myself, I just say "no more than ten thousand"
forest51690 1 month ago
@forest51690 thanks. very informative.
skiesoceans 1 month ago
Look, you can't dismiss something you can't explain or don't know as irrelevant. Not in science, not even in philosophy. To do that is simply childish and is actually worse than bronze age thinking.
SacredSoul1990 1 month ago
@SacredSoul1990, I understand the concept of radiocarbon dating. I liken it to looking at a person and saying how old he is based on appearance. And I show that dating methods do not apply if God created the earth. So indeed I do show how it is irrelevant by a philosophical/logical argument.
forest51690 1 month ago
So what you're saying is... God intentionally set out to deceive us? I thought the deceiver was Satan? Did god create the fossils as well? The light traveling from the stars? Maybe the stars don't exist - God just created the light to trick us.
Nice theory, lol.
ralph17p 2 months ago
@ralph17p, He didn't do it to trick us. We're only tricked by our own assumptions. God could not have created the earth at any point in time without it looking old. Is this deception?
As for fossils, most of the fossils in the ground were laid down in the global flood that was also recorded in the Bible. And as for the stars, after God created the stars, he described them as "good" which implies that they were "working" :) So the creation would have been complete and finished.
forest51690 2 months ago
@forest51690 Lol! The flood? You don't think perhaps that you're the one being tricked by your assumptions?
The flood myth has been utterly debunked by geological evidence, since around 1700. Most christians (at least those with any level of education) don't believe the flood account is in any way factual - see bringyou.to_apologetics_p82.htm (replace _ with /). The author is an evangelical christian, so is biased against an entirely naturalistic worldview.
ralph17p 2 months ago
You do know there is more than 15 dating methods? Science often uses a few different methods at the same time to confirm the age of something. Did you know they used carbon dating on the dead sea scrolls and it matched historical data? With that in mind you truelly are misinformed by the fundamentalist cunt you listen to! Please research it for yourself and dont hang on everyword your preacher says....
ATABOFACID 4 months ago
@ATABOFACID, yes there are many different dating methods which test the ratios of different elements. But for the most part, my argument still applies. God created some things to be "old" as the Bible states, so it's not hard to imagine that he created rocks with age as well. Age can be measured in many different ways, but just because it looks old doesn't mean that it is old.
forest51690 4 months ago
great explanation bro.. never thought about that.... good thought... liek to watcht ur videos.. and touched by ur testimony...
blessenyt 1 year ago
So, when biologists and geologists find so much evidence that points to the earth being billions of years old, it's actually correct, only it's actually part of an "apperarance of age"?
Then why do other creation scientists refute and ridicule all the findings of biologists and geologists that points to this fact?
Doesn't your hypothesis imply that all these creation scientists are deluded or otherwise lying?
Don't drop this, follow the hypothesis to its logical conclusions.
johanneswiberg 1 year ago
Creationism is what happens when science get too arrogant,
As a man of science I can easily acknowledge the importance of first believing something.....thats what you first do if you want to find out about truth, hypothesize. And that is what religion is hypothesis. very important step.
But in science we don´t stop with "just believing", you want to go further and find out if your hypothesis/religion i correct in order to rely on your belief.
Its a question of safety really...
crangdaniel 1 year ago
Do you think that God created Adam with scars and pimples and skin rashes and dead parasites? You know, so that it looked like he had gone through 30 years worth of experiences? That's an extra-biblical absurdity, right? Then why would God put fossils in the earth from things that never lived and clues to events which never took place? God made reality, God didn't write the bible. When reality conflicts with the bible, reality wins.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker You're right, that would be absurd. God didn't create the earth with fossils in it. The fossils were laid down when the flood of Noah covered the earth.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 What flood was that?
falchion49 1 year ago
@falchion49 The global flood of Noah. It's recorded in the Bible in Genesis 6:1 - 9:17
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 But not the archaeological or any historical records. It is however predated by the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh and even earlier from Athrahasis. However the Genesis flood, dated at it is at about 2000 BCE didn't happen.
falchion49 1 year ago
So am I jumping to conclusion or are you basically stating that god made the universe APPEAR old, when in fact its only 6000'ish years old?
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts Yes. This isn't dishonest. Say God could have either created a chicken or an egg. Either way you could call it misleading. With the chicken, there should have been a past and a childhood. And with the egg, there should have been a mother. So either way it could be called misleading. If God were to create a chicken, tell me, what would be the best way?
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 The egg was quite obviously first!!
psychobartus 1 year ago
@psychobartus Well didn't there have to be a mother hen to make the egg??
forest51690 1 year ago
So, "A god 'could' have created everything in the universe to look like he didn't..."
Yes.. but why?
Your God was supposed to have declared himself real way before man could understand the many sciences that refute his story! So why bother with the fake universe!?
Sounds like a deliberate attempt to trap the scientifically literate into not believe in him and thus burn in hell for EVER!
A god could make the world look so perfectly evolved we would not believe in him but demand we do?
KylieTasticUK 1 year ago
@KylieTasticUK The universe does look like God created it! (Not so much now because of sin and corruption)
It's not about IF the universe looks like it was created by God, it's about WHEN the universe looks like it was created. And we can't conclude anything based on that observation, as I talk about in my video.
forest51690 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Plants get a lot older than that. trees in norway go to 10,000+ years, Pando (a quaking aspen) in Utah is 80,000+ years old. look up 'list of long living organisms' on wikipedia. There is some crazy stuff.
BathTubNZ 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Surely we aren't dating trees to be thousands of years old...
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690
Actually, we are: the oldest living trees are around 4,000 years old.
But dendochronology goes further back than that. By taking dead-but-preserved tree segments and lining the ring patterns up with known living tree patterns, we can form a chain of core samples dating back accurately to over 11,000 years. The method addresses both missing and extra tree rings and, of course, these results can then be double-checked using carbon dating. They match!
watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q explains.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond The last I heard dendro had been tied pretty securely to 23 000 ybp. I'll check that though.
falchion49 1 year ago
@falchion49
Wow... seriously? That's impressive...
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Which does beg the question: why did Forest's god not only give the appearance of age to artefacts but a specific age?
falchion49 1 year ago
@forest51690 "Surely we aren't dating trees to be thousands of years old..." norway spruce-up to 9000+ years old. bristlecone pine up to 5000 years old. etc.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
So God created a world 6000 years ago and made it to appear like it has been around for billions of years and had the full evolutionary history to arrive at that point of creation?
Okay, that's a coherent argument, but basically you're calling God a liar and a fraud, so better don't let the other fundamentalists hear it
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH I'm not saying that he laid fossils in the ground. That would obviously be questionable. God didn't make it look like anything evolved.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 Then where do the fossils come from? 'Cause a few hundred tons of bones *do* suggest evolution, not to mention genetics.
garouHH 1 year ago
What a sneaky god, making everything just appear as though its old, just to confuse those silly scientists. Making dogs descended from wolves and making their genetic separation just appear as though it happened 15,000 years ago. He made the light from the stars, that are billions of light years away, already in transit, rather than it taking all those billions of years to get hear on its own. Man he is good, and now the humans have pretty stars to look at when the sun goes out of the firmament.
damianhoward 1 year ago
@damianhoward So God is sneaky and the scientists are just misled. Not really, the scientists are misled by their own presuppositions and biases. (Most scientists, I should say).
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 based on your creation model, the population density calculations leaves the planet with 750 people in the year 2500 BCE. That means those the able bodied members of the 750 people (200-300), built the great pyramid of giza moving 2,300,000 blocks weighing 2.5- 50 tons each, moved them from quarry to the site and erected the 480ft pyramid in 20 years. In the year 3700 BCE there would have been 14 people, they sure were busy establishing cultures, moving around, and then repeating.
damianhoward 1 year ago
@damianhoward I'm not an expert on archaeology, so I can't say anythigng about that.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 That's not archaeology, it's population demographics. Archaeology refutes any young earth creation by providing artefacts and remanants from prior to said 'event'. It also handily refutes any global flood, gardens of Eden, Towers of Babel etc. It does however provide us with a nice potted history of the redactions of the bible and even supports concepts such as Asherea and Jahweh being a minion of Marduk. That's archaeology.
falchion49 1 year ago