easymon said 1} STM, are you saying you think "Noah's Flood" is the only catastrophic event of those proportions to slam humans, contrary to the broader scope considered by the presentation? studentofthemarkets said: Yes. The Bible describes people living for hundreds of years before the Biblical Flood under very different living conditions. For one thing, it never rained on the earth during that time, but there was only a mist that came up each evening to water everything. Soon after the flood people's lifespans began to shorten. The Flood at Noah's time was likely the first major global catastrophe. All the "evidence" for other catastrophes is very likely related to the Flood or came after. For example, the changes the Flood brought about likely resulted in the Ice Age. I know this is so far contrary to what is currently taught and accepted among secular scientists, but that alone is not a good reason to dismiss this view. There is actually quite a bit of scientific evidence that can be interpreted to support a young earth with a catastrophic global flood as the catalyst for many other disasters following, including the possibility of the dividing of the continents after the global flood. I kinda wish someone would ask questions about the disconnect they see between the Biblical view and the Evolutionists view rather than dismiss it. The things that seem like they support someone like Randall Carlson's beliefs can often be interpreted SCIENTIFICALLY to align with the Biblical account. For example, Randall Carlson included the Ice Age as one of the disasters. Well, there are scientists who thing the Biblical flood presents a tighter scientific explanation for the Ice Age, as well as reasons for why it happened much more recently than secular scientists believe. The Ice Age has always been a problem for science. While abundant evidence has been found for continental glaciation, the cause has remained enigmatic. Scores of scenarios have been proposed: global cooling, decrease in the sun's intensity, rampant volcanic activity, etc., but none are truly able to bring about such profound changes—none except the creation proposal, that is. First, let's talk about the nature of the Ice Age and clear up various misconceptions. To start with, the Ice Age was a time when great sheets of ice built up on land. As snow accumulated in extreme northern (and southern) latitudes, its own weight packed it into ice. And then, because ice is less than rigid, it can flow out from heavy snow accumulation areas into lower latitudes. The glaciers never covered more than a minor portion of the globe. In North America, ice covered much of central Canada and as far south as Kansas. Weather in the rest of the world was affected, but the areas were not under ice. Some propose that there were several ice ages—from four to sixty such ages—each lasting for long periods and separated by vast ages, but the evidence for multiple glaciers is poor. The obvious requirements for ice build-up are more snowfall and less snow melt. But how does this happen? No scheme, shackled by the constraints of uniformitarianism can alter earth's conditions to that extent. And besides, if things get too cold, the air can't contain much moisture. And it doesn't snow much. And so the puzzle remains. A key to more snowfall is more evaporation, and the best way to achieve that is to have warmer oceans. We would also need somewhat warmer winters in polar latitudes to allow for more snowfall and intense weather patterns to transport the evaporated moisture from the ocean to the continents. And then we need colder summers to allow the snow to accumulate over the years. Everyone agrees that these conditions would cause an ice age, but uniformitarian ideas can't allow the earth's systems to change that much. Many creationists think the Flood of Noah's day provides the key. As the Flood ended, the oceans probably were warmer than today. The pre-Flood world had been uniformly warmer, and during the Flood, the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) would have added much heat, as would the tectonic readjustments late in the Flood and following it. This warmth would be a continual pump of warm moisture into the atmosphere—thus warm, wet winters. Furthermore, the land surface at the end of the Flood was little more than a mud slick, and would have reflected solar radiation without absorbing much heat. The large temperature difference between ocean and land and coupled with strong polar cooling, would cause intense and prolonged storms. Finally, the late and early post-Flood times witnessed extensive volcanism, as the earth struggled to regain crustal equilibrium. This would cloud the atmosphere, bouncing incoming solar radiation back into space—thus, colder summers. More evaporation, warmer winters, more intense storms, and colder summers: The result? An "ice age" which would last until the oceans gave up their excess heat, the volcanism lessened, and vegetation was re-established. This likely would take less than one thousand years following the Biblical Flood. https://www.icr.org/article/was-there-really-ice-age easymon1 said: 2) What would you say qualifies as ancient humans? About 6,000 years. easymon1 said: 3) The figure above contains the following: "150 - 160,000 BP earliest modern human skeletal remains", which sounds a lot like human skeletons 150,000 + years ago. What would you say to those who make that claim? I believe that the ancient civilizations are dated too long ago and that the earliest humans were created about 6,000 years ago, possibly 10,000 years ago. I don't think this contradicts SOUND scientific research. I think the evolutionists use circular reasoning when determining dates. They date fossils found in rocks according to the supposed age of the rocks and they often will date the age of the rocks according to the fossils found in them. In addition, they use unreliable radiometric dating. There is actually quite a bit of creation science work on this topic. They exclude any evidence that points to God, and so by ignoring key observations they come to wrong conclusions. The problem is that secular scientists refuse to acknowledge the possibility of God intervening in this world, so they automatically discount the evidence that supports the Biblical account. By assuming that God has never intervened, when the Bible shows that God has consistently intervened with people, the Big Bang theory appear to be the best theory. Excerpt from the article, "Radiometric Dating and Proof," with links below to more articles: ....In our three article series on radiometric dating, we discuss in depth the assumptions that scientists must make. For example, it has to be assumed that all the daughter isotopes found in rocks today have been derived by radioactive decay of the parent isotopes. It also has to be assumed that the rate of decay of the parent isotopes in the past has occurred constantly at the same rates measured today. There is absolutely no way any scientist can know whether these two assumptions are correct, because the evidence only exists today in the present, and we can’t go back to test the past millions of years and check that the rates of radioactive decay were the same then as they are now. Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-and-proof/ easymon1 said: BTW, had multiple conversations over time with a cat who was a successful businesman who amassed enough resources to do whatever he felt like. He felt like writing a book that was in the final stages of manuscript distillitation prior to publishing, the premise being that the planet Earth was around 6000 years old. 4) STM, would you say that your views align more closely to the views of the businessman or more closely with the views presented by Randall Carlson? I definitely agree with the businessman that the earth is about 6,000 years old, based not only on the Biblical account but an abundance of supporting scientific reasons. Below is an excerpt from the article, "Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth." https://www.icr.org/article/six-biological-evidences-for-a-young-earth/ While the evolutionary story is just naturalistic speculation, the Bible gives a fairly complete history and timeline that provide the basis for what is often called a young-earth creationist view. But do the scientific facts demonstrate a young age for Earth? This article will show that a young earth is well supported by the biological data. 1. Soft Tissues and Biomolecules in Fossils Soft tissues and decay-sensitive biomolecules that are still intact and not degraded shouldn’t exist in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old—but they do. The most famous case of this evolutionary enigma was the discovery of soft, stretchy tissue in the bones of a T. rex, along with visible blood vessels, blood cells inside the vessels, and bone cells with delicate finger-like projections called osteocytes.3,4 Collagen proteins were also found in the T. rex bones. Similar finds have been discovered in other dinosaur fossils, including a hadrosaur and a Triceratops.5,6 ICR research scientist Brian Thomas has compiled a list of 41 different journal papers describing the amazing soft tissues and biomolecules discovered in the fossils of many different types of land and sea animals and plants.7 Many of these findings were made and documented by secular scientists. Some of these discoveries involve fossils alleged to be 250 to 550-plus million years old. Because it would be impossible for these highly degradable compounds to last for more than a few thousand years, the evidence clearly points to a young age for Earth and to the global Flood that produced the fossilized remains, burying them quickly in sediments about 4,500 years ago. 2. Ancient Microbe Resurrections Since the mid-1990s, scientists have isolated and characterized more than 1,200 ancient microorganisms extracted from fossils found in amber.8 These amber fossil finds include nine ancient yeasts, four of which are brewer’s yeasts that were patented and used to commercially brew beer by one of the scientists who discovered them. These amber-extracted microbes were thought to be up to 40 million years old. But the most amazing microbe discovery came when scientists were able to revive bacteria extracted from salt inclusions in rock strata that were alleged to be 250 million years old.9 A salt inclusion is a pocket of salty water that became trapped as the sedimentary rock formed, a phenomenon that would have occurred during the Genesis Flood. Based on an evolutionary perspective of the rock strata, scientists dated the salt inclusion layer as early Triassic. Needless to say, these ancient resurrected microbes shouldn’t have been present if the rocks were actually that old. Their existence points to a young earth and a recent global flood. 3. Degeneration of the Human Genome Contrary to popular evolutionary dogma, the human genome is actually degrading over time. It’s devolving, not evolving. At the beginning of creation, Adam and Eve’s genomes would have been pristine, with no errors. Then they both fell into sin and brought a curse upon creation, causing increasing amounts of DNA decay and progressive loss of genetic information in successive generations of their offspring. This degeneration is due to multiple slightly harmful mutations that occur during each generation, and the accumulation rate of these genetic alterations is indicative of a human origin in agreement with the biblical chronology of about 6,000 years. In fact, as I have documented previously, empirical genetic clocks determined by both secular and creation researchers indicate a beginning point of human variation associated with degeneration starting about 5,000 to 10,000 years ago.10,11 This recent time frame also fits closely with a pattern of human life expectancy that quickly and continually declined after the global Flood. 4. Evidence for Mitochondrial Eve and Recent Origin of Y-Chromosome Adam Outside the nucleus of the human cell, small organelles called mitochondria act as energy factories. Each mitochondrion contains a small piece of circular DNA that is typically inherited only through the mother. Scientists have studied mitochondrial DNA in people groups around the world and discovered the data are consistent with a single origin of all humans less than 10,000 years ago.10,11 Creation scientist and geneticist Robert Carter reconstructed a consensus mitochondrial DNA sequence for the original ancestral “Eve” and published the results in a peer-reviewed secular journal.12,13 An individual’s biological gender is genetically determined by inherited sex chromosomes—XY for males and XX for females. At conception, a male embryo gets a Y chromosome from the father’s sperm cell and an X from the mother’s egg cell. A female gets an X from the father and an X from the mother. The Y chromosome stimulates the development of male traits. As it turns out, there is a very limited amount of variation in the DNA sequence for the human Y chromosome across the world’s population. This is consistent with an origin of humanity only about 6,000 years ago.14 In fact, the same recent origin of the Y chromosome followed the same pattern of variation observed in the mitochondrial DNA sequence. This matches the human history found in Genesis. 5. Unchanged Living Fossils (Stasis) Coelacanth Creatures like jellyfish, graptolites, horseshoe crabs, coelacanths, and many more are living proof of a recent creation.15 How could so many types of creatures remain so unchanged during the alleged millions of years attributed to evolution? Called living fossils—a term coined by Darwin—they form discontinuous fossil sequences in that they appear suddenly in the fossil record without any evolutionary precursors, disappear and apparently go extinct, and yet are still living today. For example, horseshoe crabs show up in the fossil record 450 million years ago (according to evolutionary dating) and then disappear for hundreds of millions of years but are alive now. Evolutionists like to call this a “Lazarus effect.” One living fossil tree, the Wollemi pine, supposedly first showed up in the fossil record over 200 million years ago and not only still exists but has living specimens dated at less than 1,000 years. The lack of evolution observed in living fossils, combined with their sudden appearance in the fossil record and then absence for millions of years, doesn’t support the evolutionary paradigm. Instead, the fossil record shows that a global flood occurred only thousands of years ago and progressively buried ecosystems.16 Living fossils are more evidence that Earth is quite young.
El Studente, What do you find inappropriate about this video stm? "1. not suitable or proper in the circumstances " Anything specific?
According to the Jews, nothing existed before Genesis was written. And from all accounts, it was written 5700 years ago or something. That's when they said Life started. So you have to work forward from there, space telescopes and fossil records notwithstanding.
That's absurd -- even for you. If Moses wrote Genesis, a lot existed before then (e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc.). If you meant Jews believe nothing existed before the accounts in Genesis, that's also not true. https://reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/torah-commentary/did-god-create-world-one
I did not suggest Moses wrote Genesis. I am suggesting that the writers of Genesis think that nothing existed befire Genesis was written. That is why the Jewish calendar, year zero, starts when they think the universe came into existence. Which is something like 5700 years ago. Or whatever the hell that number is.
Is Moses a Name or a Title? reference? https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/was-moses-name-egyptian
%% Dr jack Hayford had a good comment to the question of ''where was God"" ''A better question is ,where were the people?'' I've had Jesus Christ heal me more than once+ answer plenty of prayers.