It would be great if you can edit in pictures to illustrate what you are busy talking about. It would make it easier for the simple-minded to follow the discussion 😉.
The Kurt Wise lecture on the flood of Noah completely demolished any thoughts if the millions of years rubbish in my mind. This Man is 100 percent correct.
@@globalcoupledances While I don't know whether Kurt Wise has published in any main stream geology journals or not, the probability is very, very high that he has. Most creationist PhD's do publish in the main stream journals.
Interesting, but you missed some questions. 1) Where did all the water come from? 2) If the flood covered everything, how did very different cultures develop so quickly? Noah's passengers racing across the world to become Maoris and Greeks and Nepalese and Yanomamis and Cherokees just doesn't make sense. Not even if you invoke the ten lost tribes. 3) Is there any sort of evidence to substantiate a single event, rather than 'normal' flooding as we see in the news from time to time?
I recommend visiting creation.com. There is more material on this topic then could over be addressed in a 40 minute video, but the video is a good place to start. For your 1st question: creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf
I guess you haven't read the Bible? There was no rain before the flood. And the atmosphere was different. The water came from the firmament and the fountains of the deep. Then, man sometime later collaborated to build a massive tower to heaven. God knocked the tower down and spread the peoples across the earth. Made them speak different languages so they wouldn't do it again. I know it sounds fantastical. However, archeologist think they have actually found the remains of that tower.
@@michaelrobinson1059 Once you refer to the bible as your source of authority, then you need to make a few small editing changes to make everything true. Following your initial phrase ending in "...bible?", you need to insert the tiny phrase "I believe that..." in front of every assertion you make. Now, your statements will be airtight and undeniably true.
@stevepierce6467 Ha, ha, ha. If you have done the 50-year research that I have done. You would realize that we actually are finding more proof daily. Thermodynamics, physics, archeology. The more we look, the more the secular theory looks wrong. Mathematics alone proves evolution impossible. So talk down all you want. If I'm wrong. I live a life of love, kindness, and faith. If I am right, non believers will wish they were never born. And not because your punished, but because you choose not to be with Him. It's because you choose faith, but faith in man. Scientists has never been wrong, right?
These interviews are incredibly informative and are a blessing to God's children. Knowing that there are many great minds that stand on the authority of God's word and provide irrefutable evidence supporting biblical timelines, stories, etc is fantastic. Thank you CMI..
@@sjl197 There are no contradictions. You fail to understand the text. God is light. Also, perhaps you do not understand that you can have a morning and evening if you are just looking at time itself. There can me no light on Earth and 24 hours can still go by.
@@sjl197 that’s pretty arrogant to think that because you don’t understand the Bible, it must be wrong. Try this go back and read that scripture and assume that you’re not understanding it and ask God to explain it to you and then watch what happens.
@@vhawk1951kl "You are a religious jew presumably becuse declaringhe Bible is 100% correct *makes* you a religious jew. Welcome aboard." Huh? The "Bible" is the collection of books comprising the two sections titled the Old Testament and the New Testament. A "religious Jew", unless he is a Christian, doesn't accept the New Testament.
@@vhawk1951kl "You clearly struggle with language but forget that go sand ask a grownup to help you set out whatever you want to say for you plainly have no idea and your servant here present is not psychic." That is complete fiction and abuse. "Are you areligious go-to-synagogue Jew or not and if not why suppose a book which is *not* a book of your religion to be magic?" I'm not a Jew, and I'm not supposing any book to be magic. You're the one not making sense.
Pagan gods were based on Noah and family. The Tower of Babel was a shrine to Mt Ararat. Pyre amid means “ fire in the centre”. Pagan temples are shrines to the ark and Noah. There are thousands of early shrines across the world made from soft flood sediment wich petrified.They are called dolmens, chromlechs, menhirs, pagodas.Hindus called Noah ma- no. Visna is another of his many names.
In New Zealand we have a river the Manawatu River that runs through the Tararua Ranges to the west coast rather than to the east coast that it has easier access to as the land also tilts to the east coast where I had a dairy farm that was not very far from the Manawatu Gorge that has a road access along the Gorge for road traffic
I can see if you have long rivers without rapids it make sense that we had a surface that was entirely covered with water and wet sediment that quickly drained.
"In general English, evidence is always uncountable. However, in academic English the plural evidences is sometimes used" - Oxford Learner's Dictionary 'Evidences' is just as grammatically correct as 'pieces of evidence', it's just not as commonly used. 'Evidences' is an appropriate word, and conveys the correct idea anyway.
@@patricka.crawley6572 Actually, it is supplied by the Oxford University Press, a department of the University of Oxford, the oldest English speaking university, which is based in England. I seriously hope we are not now discounting information purely because it is accessed via an American owned browser. You said, 'evidences' is not an appropriate word in this context'. However, it is appropriate, just perhaps not as popular. I'm not arguing against your personal preference for something else, you're welcome to that. But the use of evidences is appropriate, and conveys the correct implication of evidence in plural.
This would be an awesome video if some photos and diagrams were included… this was more of a podcast. Still a very good presentation that just explains Genesis😇
These explanations need to meet with computer model experts and develop a global flood that creates a large percentage of the features observed today and compare them to the best secular science model. The one that best explains the most in an accurate manner is usually the right explanation.
That would be an incredibly complex model. But as a partial answer, Dr. John Baumgardner has created a computer model of plate tectonics which Scientific American (I think it was) described as the best computer model of plate tectonics in existence. And Baumgardner has said that the model works better as rapid event (e.g. during Noah's Flood) than as a slow-and-gradual event. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?
@@vhawk1951kl What "loon"? And what is insane about the idea? Mainstream scientists have proposed a global flood on Mars, despite no liquid water being found there, so what's so crazy about they idea that there could be one on this planet that is two-thirds covered in liquid water?
@@vhawk1951kl "but first what do you suppose just "flood(no 'global') to mean?" Per the dictionary: "an overflow of a large amount of water beyond its normal limits, especially over what is normally dry land." "Do suppose it possible to "flood" an ocean, a swimming pool or a bath?" I have already answered this. A flood is where water covers land, not where it only covers other water. "You just*cannot* get it can you?" Cannot get what? Your false ideas? No. "You do not have a degree or any kind of higher learning, do you?" I do in fact. "And Yes, it *Is* that obvious." In your imagination.
I can attest dr. Ron statement that Creation site it's a great source to study science, i read a lot of material in this site and the reliability of it's gorgeous, non-christian sources barely can discuss with these information
Just looked at that website. It is so wrong. Mutation can create new information. To be precise 1/64 of mutations creates new information. Webpage didn't mention that, because they can not deny that!
@@globalcoupledances How can you show your claim Bro? For example, can you show a mutation that makes a plant grows a eye? Or can you show a human shows a mutation that gives him feathers? If you can, then i believe in you. The drosophila experiment and back there in Mendel experiment demonstrates that your claim its out of The park. Just CREED.
@@MarcelinhoTheRock You really don't want to understand, right? Here I show you: ACGTACGTACGTACGTetc 1000x. Is that information? If yes then what is the information. If no then which mutation creates information?
And the Lake Missoula floods occured during the Ice Age, which occurred after The Genesis Flood. So if we take samples from the area. The rocks would only be less than 4000 years old?
I don't know a lot about plateaus but I don't think all plateaus are flat and have suffered little erosion, for instance Monument Valley in the USA is a plateau but yet is has been eroded to form those immense 'monuments' often seen in cowboy films.
Nobody said that all plateaus are flat and have suffered little erosion. And if I'm not mistaken, those monuments are the remains of a plateau, given their flat tops.
@@vhawk1951kl i'm a Combat Engineer, Demolition Sergeant & explosives specialist. Recipient of Army Achievement Award medal for designing a better way to clear land mines. Master's degree in Architecture & owner of my owm design/build General Contractor Company these past twenty years. I just Trademarked a new idea THIS year & expect it to be multi million befor this year ends. How about you, smart guy? Why should anyone care what YOU think?
Excellent interview of a legitimate scientist, fluvial geomorphologist, Dr Ron Neller, discussing the vast amount of geological evidence supporting the global flood of the Bible. The video would be even better if it had included pictures and animation of each of the processes. Thank you! -- 2 Peter 3:3-7 KJV - 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
@@vhawk1951kl "For"fluvial geomorphologist,"simply read raving lunartic" Why? Because you don't like him and think it's legitimate to call him names? Sorry, that damages your credibility, not his. "How would you go about "flooding the Atlantic ocean or the pacific ocean, or just your own bath if you have one. Do yu suppose it possible to " flood" a swmming pool?" How is that a legitimate question? Nobody is claiming that bodies of water were flooded, but the land! Duh! "Beginning to get the idea?" That you don't know what you're talking about? Yes, I am getting that idea. "that ozzy fellow is not the full shilllingand clrarly has the wits and learning of garden furniture," Sure. That's how he managed to hold down a job as a fluvial geomorphologist for 30 years, at various universities around the world, including teaching at them. Clearly such employers like to hire people who are not the full shilling. "...a nd is entirely inocvent of any kind of semantic understanding or facility- the man's mad." Oh, you've been looking in a mirror, have you?
@@vhawk1951kl "You agree with me that those that suppose the earth to be flat are raving lunatics?" No, but I agree that they are wrong. "Yes, goood, now wherein lies the difference between hat that suppose the earth to be flat and those that suppose that eveything in our jewbook is literally true..." One difference is that the claim of a flat earth is about _now,_ whereas the claim of the history in the Bible is about the _past._ We can observe things now, but we cannot observe the past. "...suppose that the Noachian fairy tale is indicative of whatever the loon means by a "global flood" which is not only a semantically null term but a physical impossibility." It's history, not a fairy tale. I have already explained to you why it's not semantically null. And you've provided no evidence of it being a physical impossibility. "The essential or fundamental proposition is that believe what no sane person wold believe... *Only a raving lunatic could possibly suppose a that there was whatever the loon means by a " global flood", because it's not a *sane* thing to suppose." But there are plenty of sane people who believe in the flood, including both the founders of science, and some current scientists, which therefore disproves your contention. "I can detect no essential difference between the loon and those that believe in fairies or that the earth is flat..." Given that I have pointed out an essential difference, all that says is that you couldn't detect a fairly-obvious difference. "...to say nothing of being incompatible with the fairy story(itself not a paragon of internal and external consistency,..." What incompatibility? What lack internal consistency? "...as *all* religions stupefy..." Evidence please. And explain how it is that Christianity has done a lot of good for the world-including founding the university system, universal education, and science-if its so stupefying. "...anyone that supposes everything appearing in the jewbook to be literally true is a raving lunatic, or one that is not amenable to reasoned argument." And yet, you have not produced evidence of that, and as I have been pointing out, plenty of sane, sensible, intillegent people believe it, showing that your claims about who would believe it are clearly false. "Commons sense would tell you that a "*”global*" flood is a semantic impossibly-or just semantically null as well has a physical impossibility." Except that common sense does no such thing, and I've already shown you to be wrong by citing mainstream scientists. But it seems that you ignore counter-arguments and just repeat your original claims as though repeating them somehow makes them true. "There is*Nothing* in the jewbook that speaks of a "global" flood ..." "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that *all* the high mountains under the *whole* heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And *all* flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, *all* swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and *all* mankind. *Everything* on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out *every* living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out *from the earth. Only Noah was left,* and those who were with him in the ark." Clearly you are wrong to claim that there is "nothing" that speaks of a global flood. "...because the rabbis that wrote it..." What makes you think rabbis wrote it? On the contrary, its attributed to Moses (not a rabbi), and there is evidence that he compiled Genesis from even older documents, with the flood account probably being written by Noah's son Shem, who was also not a rabbi. "..." global" being a form of universal can*only*be imaginary. " Because you say so? You make a lot of claims, but little evidence. "There is a very simple reason why there is no evidence for whatever a " global flood"is supposed to mean..." What makes you think that there is no evidence? Especially given the *EVIDENCE* presented in this video by an experienced geologist who specialises in water-shaped landforms! "You know that and I know that and the world, his wife, her dog and all the dog's friends know that." Except that I *don't* know that, and neither to many other people. Again, you are clearly wrong. "The live question is, from where did the ozzy loon get the what-can-only-be-called*insane* idea that the even *might* have been any such thing?" FROM THE EVIDENCE that you pretend doesn't exist! He was getting this *from the evidence* before he even associated it with the biblical account. "I have to tell you that those that believe what they *want* to believe are not only liars, but insane."' What can't that be a description of you? "...what is little more than the almanac of an obscure ae Arab tribe as magic." Evidence for that please. If evidence actually means anything to you. "but if you are*not* a Jew why seize upon the book of religion that is*not* your religion as ... of special significance? -where is the sense in that?!" Because it's true! It's a book of _history,_ upon which a few religions are based. It's not a "book of religion" in the sense that that's how it started.
@@vhawk1951kl "There is no.... such... thing as a " fluvial geomorphologist",..." If there is no such thing, then I guess that there's no such thing as fluvial geomorphology either. And yet, on Science Direct, you can find an article titled Fluvial Geomorphology which says "Fluvial geomorphology is the study of river process and form." Ergo, you are both wrong, and silly for not checking before making such a false claim. "He is simply a *Liar* " Says the person who has no idea what he's talking about.
@@vhawk1951kl I also note that: a) You previously made a number of claims. b) I have challenged you to support those claims. c) You completely failed to support those claims, instead simply making _another_ false claim. Clearly you have no argument, but argue anyway, from ignorance.
What a load of crap. This guy knows nothing about geology, hydrology or earth processes 1. He claims tfe single great modern flood created all the deep sedimentary deposits and eroded them. Simply not true. He claims the rivers such as the Colorado do not have enough flow to carry away eroded slopes. Well actually they do. The Grand Canyon is still eroding every day and the river Carrie’s away the debris. The slopes erode slowly. The Colorado was a meandering river and as the entire area was uplifted by tectonic forces, the river maintained it corse and kept cutting down. The sides eroded and the chassis V shape was formed. Other valleys with the classic U shape were originally cut by slow moving glaciers and now the very bottoms are becoming V shaped by river erosion. I could go on for hours. But then I have traveled the world and looked at many deposits and seen erosion in action. And yes floods do occur and they can have significant impacts on erosions but the majority of sediments are carried by normal processes every year.
"This guy knows nothing about geology, hydrology or earth processes" How can that be the case given that he is a geologist who has studied these things professionally for 30 years at numerous places around the world? "1. He claims tfe single great modern flood created all the deep sedimentary deposits and eroded them. Simply not true." Ah, okay. I see your point. He knows nothing about it, simply because you disagree with him. Sorry, not a valid reason. "He claims the rivers such as the Colorado do not have enough flow to carry away eroded slopes. Well actually they do. The Grand Canyon is still eroding every day and the river Carrie’s away the debris." No, he claims that such rivers do not have enough flow to carry away all the material that has been eroded from the valleys and canyons. He's not saying that they can't carry anything away. "The slopes erode slowly." They do now. But it doesn't follow that they always have. "The Colorado was a meandering river and as the entire area was uplifted by tectonic forces, the river maintained it corse and kept cutting down." That seems terribly contrived. If the area was uplifted, that would have caused the water to flow uphill. So why wouldn't it have found a new course? "Other valleys with the classic U shape were originally cut by slow moving glaciers and now the very bottoms are becoming V shaped by river erosion." How does that apply to valleys where there were no glaciers? "I could go on for hours." Yes, you probably could. But simply citing an alternative view does not show that he's wrong. You're basically arguing that view A is wrong because it doesn't agree with view B. But I could equally argue that view B is wrong because it doesn't agree with view A. You need to cite hard evidence, not an alternative view. "But then I have traveled the world and looked at many deposits and seen erosion in action." As has he. So what's your point? "...the majority of sediments are carried by normal processes every year." Yes, and those normal processes can't explain the evidence we see of what happened in the past.
Interpretation of evidence with the Biblical world view is natural and full of easy correspondence. The Materialist interpretations require constant linguistic torture and cooking of the books.
Good video, but lacking images, a professor of many universities should know you need images to describe what you talk about when it’s not common knowledge
@@vhawk1951kl "Ithink one must take the profesor bit with more than a grain of salt for the poor creature lis clearly labouring under a sisability or handicap," What disability or handicap? And what is "clearly" about it? "Not only is a " global flood" aphysical impossibility, ..." What is physically impossible about it? "it isemanrically null or simply gibberish" I've already shown you to be wrong on that. Why are you repeating a debunked claim?
@@SheridanFalkenberry ok, thank you! On quick read, this is the natural method that really are sped up in labs doing research to replace dwindling oil resources, and then adopted by many creationists... But then there's the theobaric model for the god-created pristine oil, proposed and also adopted by some creationists. Could there be any more models proposed and adopted by creationists so it can fit the genesis narrative?
@@rollysj384 Not sure what you mean by "dwindling oil resources". That sounds like something you would hear on the news. I work in a small sector of oil & gas and they are booming like crazy right now. The oil reserves that are tapped are measured for volume to estimate production and profit. Their estimates are usually wrong, and sometimes (maybe frequently) the oil reserve runs low, they quit mining it, and then find it is loaded with oil again later. It appears that some oil may actually be generated in the earth in earl time. More importantly, you should realize that "pristine oil" and deep time don't go together. Bacteria destroy crude oil at a very fast rate. If the oil were millions of years old, we wouldn't have any usable crude left. Oil in a can doesn't even last very long. It will break down and become unusable. Furthermore, untapped oil wells are under huge amounts of pressure. This should not be the case if the oil were millions of years old. Tectonic movement, earthquakes, and settling should have released all of the pressure a long, long time ago. But oil drilling is very dangerous specifically because of the pressure that is still present. Most models have plankton as a primary source for oil. Put it under a lot of pressure and heat, and oil will form from it. Chemical changes don't take millions of years. They don't even take thousands of years. Ultimately it doesn't matter what model you have for oil formation, it just can't include millions of years.
I could listen to this if the interviewer would not crackling and snapping with his mouth in the mic. You guys can prevent these triggering sounds by positioning a shotgun type mic 2-3 feet above the person, 1-2 in front of them with the mic pointing towards their stomach. It also gives a better production dialogue sound. but you have the mic pointing directly into the interviewers mouth not even 6 inches away. You guys know nothing about sound.
I am not an expert which is I like to see argument followed by a rebuttal argument if it exists. That is a proper scientific discussion as I can accept the arguments in favor of the biblical flood (I do believe that is the truth) but facts and opinions are too closely related for me to gain distinct facts that are indisputable.
"I am not an expert which is I like to see argument followed by a rebuttal argument if it exists." This is a rebuttal to the naturalistic videos and television shows and online videos putting the other side, which never invite a rebuttal from flood geologists.
@danpaulson927 So you are a probable believer that Evolution is a fact. The only part of Evolution that is a fact is called Natural Selection. Natural Selection has been known and used by humans prior to Darwin by more than 1,000 years previously. Mutation comes no where close as 99% causes death to the organism or biologic system and the so called 1% that are termed beneficial break part of the genome and do not create any new info. Every single major theory and so called breakthrough finding concerning the origin of life has been proven bogus. No primordial soup creating life, no lightening strike hitting loose chemical compounds causing basic life structures, no hydro vents under the sea and even the origin of life in the sea is impossible. No Meteors carrying life compounds to create any basic structure of a possible biologic compound and 98% of DNA holds useful genes and not junk DNA that has been the bedrock evidence towards random chance creating life.
A good interview. The interviewer was actually more informative than the interviewee! One thing that you didn't mention is that when vast volumes of mud, as in Mount St Helens, are laid down, they are actually laid down in layers simultaneously. The other evidence of a worldwide flood is the millions upon millions of fossils. Fossils are only formed when fauna and flora are buried very rapidly and deeply in mud in the absence of oxygen -- a very rare occurrence.
"One thing that you didn't mention is that when vast volumes of mud, as in Mount St Helens, are laid down, they are actually laid down in layers simultaneously." I'm sure that he did mention that, albeit very briefly.
@@samburns3329 "Big problem with that reasoning is there is no evidence all fossils were buried at the same time by the same event and a huge amount of evidence they weren't." Except that there is, some of which is shown in this video. One example is polystrate fossils, which go through multiple layers showing that each of those layers was laid down either at the same time, or in very quick succession. What is this "huge amount of evidence they weren't"? I think you'll find that it's mostly evidence that is _interpreted_ in a naturalistic way.
The flood layers do it for me. How do you explain the continent-scale fossil-bearing miles-deep hydraulically-sorted layers of sediment that cover the whole earth if not from the obvious worldwide flood?
YEC claims that the Tapeats Sandstone is the first sediment of the Flood. But that was 508-507 Ma! And there was no life on land. Terrestrial plants were the first appearing in Silurian. 443.8 ± 1.5 - 419.2 ± 3.2 Ma . Fossils are only marine animals
@@globalcoupledances : _"But that was 508-507 Ma! "_ Don't just naively believe what you're taught. LOOK at the layers. If they had been laid down slowly over millions of years, how could they have become sorted? How is it that they're somewhat consistent across most of a continent? How could so many fossils have formed with such a slow deposition rate? Look at them! Think!
@@globalcoupledances : _"But that was 508-507 Ma! "_ Don't just naively believe what you're taught. LOOK at the layers. If they had been laid down slowly over millions of years, how could they have become sorted? How is it that they're somewhat consistent across most of a continent? How could so many fossils have formed with such a slow deposition rate? Look. Think.
How could thousands of continent spanning layers of sediment be built up without a global flood? Even if there were a billion years given for every layer of rock, how would any thick layer of sediment form? It's really good to have well documented examples like Mt. St Helens to see what forms in a natural disaster.
@@globalcoupledances "I can advice you the video "Every Layer of the Grand Canyon, Explained" " You can, and I decided in this case to take your advice. Now, can I give you some advice? If you want to argue against the biblical account as understood by flood geologists and other biblical creationists, you really should understand that view before you start critiquing it, else you make yourself look like a fool. Both mainstream scientists and creationary scientists have the same evidence, such as the evidence of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon. The difference is in how those layers are explained. Both groups come up with a story to explain the layers. The question is, which story makes the most sense, or which story _better_ fits the evidence. The video you suggested _told_ the mainstream story. It didn't do _anything_ to show that the mainstream story is correct. I'm already quite familiar with the mainstream story. As such, the video told me nothing that I didn't already know. This CMI video is giving _reasons_ why the flood story fits the evidence better. The Grand Canyon video does not do the equivalent. It's _just_ the (mainstream) story. Can I give _you_ some advice? Have a read of some (quite a few) of the articles on the CMI website and watch quite a few of their videos, _without_ trying to critique them, but just simply to get a decent _understanding_ of the creationary viewpoint. Don't look just at geological articles/videos, but also ones about worldviews, of why people have these very different views in the first place. Once you have that good understanding, _then_ you will be in a better position to critique them. I'll just add that most creationists are already very familiar with the mainstream (naturalistic) view. Dr. Neller, for example, was a mainstream scientist who accepted and taught the mainstream view for most of his career (until the _evidence_ caused him to change his mind). We creationists get taught the mainstream view in school, in university, in the mainstream media, etc. etc. That is, we have already done what I'm recommending you do.
Read the Bible, and trust its words. See 2 Peter 2:5 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly. 2 Peter 2:5 "flood on its ungodly people" God had no reason to kill animals in lands with no people, 2 Peter 2:5 makes it clear the flood for "ungodly people". YEC always twist the World of God to fix their strange worldview and not read the whole Bible. According to the Bible, the laws of physics are unchanging see Jeremiah 33.
This is the standard go to for YEC. Name calling. And 2 Peter 2:5 was written in Greek. No YEC reads or like 2 Peter 2:5 . YEC do not read the Bible. They confuse the death of animals and the death of mankind. Man sinned so God makes animals death? This is sick and not in Bible. Romans 5:1-21 " Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men" Death came to all men!
Petroglyphs often contain flood motif including rainbows floodwaters serpents, rainbows etc.many are carved into soft mud flood sediment with a human finger.
When a flood covers a large area to a depth of a mile would it still have erosion effects at its basis or does it need to be shallow to trace channels from higher areas to lower areas?
@@vhawk1951kl " "a flood covers a large area to a depth of a mile" is what sane people call an ocean is it not?" Not if it's temporary, no. "Now let us see if you can pas this simple test: Can uou understand why the following is true:If it is *All* right then *Nothing* is right? No. Think of a witness in court, asked a series of questions by the prosecutor. The prosecutor then says to the judge, "All that the witness said is right. Therefore nothing he said is right". That's utter nonsense. So can you explain why it's wrong? I'm guessing you simply cannot. "What do suppose the term " global flood" to mean?" Water temporarily covering the entire globe, i.e. including the land.
For him to be right, every single major university in the entire world, every single major research institution, every single major astronomer, archaeologist, historian, chemist, geneticist, biologist, geologist, astrophysicist, paleontologist, anthropologist, volcanologist, zoologist, botanist, nuclear engineer . . . ALL OF THEM . . . would have to be wrong. Even all but a tiny minority of Christians in the world know the Flood story is only symbolic.
You grossly overstate the case. For example, a Gallup poll in the U.S. showed that one in twenty scientists took a biblical creation view on the origin of mankind. That equates to 100,000 scientists in the U.S. alone. Also, I don't for one moment believe that "all but a tiny minority" of Christians believe that the flood story is symbolic. Besides, even if it was that many, so what? The majority (scientists or otherwise) are not always right. Jesus Himself believed it, and that's what counts. Also, the point is that the evidence supports the flood, as Neller explained in this interview. It was this evidence, in his own field of expertise, that changed him from a deep-time-believing atheist to a flood-believing Christian. The evidence is what counts, not the majority view which, as well documented, is based not on the evidence, but on the belief in naturalism.
Why cant you guys convince graham hancock to use biblical evidence/facts, to make his theory probable and support sone of his findings. He is so close to the actual earths age.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people who see major holes in the narrative of mainstream science, but they are unwilling to take that step toward acknowledging that the Bible records real history. (Either for the reason @deepcosmiclove mentioned, or for other personal reasons.)
It is so easy to see scripture fulfilled in actual science. Romans 1:18. Men suppress the truth because our sin nature desperately needs company. Knowing this, people suppress the truth to trick others into believing what they believe. Sinful man does not want God.
Every 12,000 years at the alpha Omega millennial equinoxes when Earth's orbits eclipse the nucleus of the Sun's Oort cloud magnetosphere for a 1,000 years. NOW!
The Oroville Dam channel was cut by water dropping a huge distance, with phenomenal kinetic energy. This occurs naturally over a narrow width and is well known to engineers. 8:18
@@steveOCalley So you have no actual evidence to present I take it? I'm a chemical engineer. I am confident your argument is informed by an ignorance of chemistry and physics
The ocean became a massive volcanic fountain, the heated ocean expanded, the rising flood waters caused the Earth's crust to collapse, that initiated subduction, Continental break up and mantle flow beneath the Earth's crust and that caused contents to move and massive mud tsunamis. Then after all that chaos subsided, the oceans cooled,: the water began to recede and isostacy made the mountains rise.
@@globalcoupledances "That tectonic plate was mostly under water." Yes, flood water. "Read Wikipedia "Geology of the Grand Canyon area" " Why? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and favours the naturalistic view in any case.
Keep telling yourself that. How deluded do you have to be to believe that two of every animal were shoved into a single boat, survived a global flood and then spread across the earth and repopulated. Documented history 😂 good one
@@nikorn24 "Keep telling yourself that." We will. We like to tell the truth. "How deluded do you have to be to believe that two of every animal were shoved into a single boat, survived a global flood and then spread across the earth and repopulated." Given that you've not shown any problem with that belief (actually documented history), how does that make one deluded? "Documented history good one" Yes, it's good that he got that right, isn't it? It is documented in a book of (largely) history, mostly (if not completely) recorded at the time of the events, i.e. by actual witnesses. And a book that archaeologists have said is very reliable.
@@nikorn24how deluded do you have to be to believe that everything came from nothing. That’s the most illogical thing I’ve ever heard. To make it even more illogical how deluded do you have to be to believe that humans and consciousness came from lifeless chemicals over billions of years. 🤦🏻
@@nikorn24 wait, you believe in evolution don't you? According to evolution the ark wouldn't even be required, the earth could have been repoulated from a single-celled organism 🤣🤣😂😅😄🤣 An ark full of animals is a much more plausible reboot for life 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Was that supposed to be a valid argument? If the flood didn't happen then the earth wouldn't need to have been repopulated 😂 You thought you were being so clever. The ark makes absolutely no sense, it's clearly a fabrication and you have to be incredibly naive to believe that it's true.
My question is, and I hope someone has a good answer, if it was a global flood why are there all of these stories from other cultures as well? It seems that they would have survived the flood as well which calls into question Noah and his family being the only survivors. Help me out brothers and sisters!
The fact that there are other stories should be enough to suggest that there was indeed a global flood ... the different cultures formed when the language diversions happened at the Tower of Babel
Because these other peoples are descended from the sons of Noah. They kept hold of the history of it in their respected cultures. The Chinese in particular have a story of the flood very similar to the Bible's. But Jesus bore testimony to the flood destroying all accept Noah and his family in Mathew 24:38. At least believe Him.
@@scottb4579 That's the whole point of the arguments .... They don't want to believe in Him (Jesus) .... Because that would mean giving up on most of their sinful ways ... so they try to prove that the Bible is a fable
@justaguy328 It should be obvious that the stories came after the Flood, not before. If 8 people survived the Flood, then 100% of the earth's population had 1st hand experience with it. 2, 3, even 4 generations, the survivors were still telling their descendants about it. Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. Once those descendants started to disperse across the globe, they all had knowledge of it from the direct eyewitnesses. That would propagate for years, decades, even centuries. Just like today when people tell stories that have been around for centuries. The thing that confuses many people is that secular dates put some of those civilizations as being older than the 4,300 year time line allows for the Flood. Those dates are what you should be questioning. They aren't based on anything concrete. They are based on a combination of incomplete, second hand Egyptian records that are known to be faulty, as well as some other methods like C14 dating, and so on. No reason at all to put any stock in the secular timelines for the history of the world.
Thank you. It's good that there is someone here to reject the claims of this video, and with such high authority that they don't even need to provide any evidence of why it needs to be rejected. How can we possibly believe the person being interviewed here, when the only authority he has is that he's a fluvial geomorphologist (flood expert) who has been employed in six universities around the world and studied landforms in multiple countries? Your authority obviously outdoes his by orders of magnitude! Again, thank you for rejecting this professor. Your rejection is very revealing.
@@globalcoupledances "For me Wikipedia "Geology of the Grand Canyon area" makes more sense." Why? "Why doesn't Dr Neller publish in those journals?" Wikipedia isn't a journal! And it's well documented that journals in control of naturalistic scientists won't publish material from creationists (or Intelligent Design scientists either), simply _because_ they are creationists (or ID scientists).
@PJRayment @cfl8476 - "journals" which are mentioned in the footnotes. If the paper is solid then they publish it. Don't forget that those journals want to keep their reputation
He refutes geologists without giving them the opportunity to discuss the assertions, instead giving a video press release. Erich von Däniken said that alien astronauts built the Ark of the Covenant. Do you believe that? If you just watch his video interviews, nobody refutes him so he must be right?
"He refutes geologists without giving them the opportunity to discuss the assertions, instead giving a video press release." How many mainstream geologists give a flood geologist the opportunity to discuss their assertions? Do you think that they should? If not, you have a double standard.
@@steveOCalley "The question you asked? *Yes, they SHOULD talk.* Better?" No, but I'll try and be clearer. My point, if it's not obvious, is that mainstream geologists _never_ invite a flood geologist to discuss the former's assertions outside of a very rare planned debate, so it's a double standard to expect a flood geologist to invite a mainstream geologist to do that. Have you ever commented to a mainstream geologist that he should do what you suggested? Sure, it's easy to say that they "should talk", but why criticise this video for not having a mainstream counter, when no mainstream geologist ever invites a flood geologist to counter?
Sunday means Sun is the closest planet /star/plasma to earth, Monday means the Moon is the 2nd closest planet /star/plasma/Satellite or Self illuminated Light to the earth.then Tuesday for Mars,the 3rd closest to the earth, Wednesday for Mercury, the 4th closest to the earth, Thursday for Jupiter, the 5th closest to the earth, Friday for Venus the 6th closest, and Saturday for Satern the most distance from the earth. Saturn means Satan and that's what Saturday is Sabbath means God is Good and he won't work during a Bad day. If we work, all we did becomes Negative,even the Food can manifest as the sicknesses because the day belongs to the Prince of the world the Devil. Also The Moon is situated BEHIND the sun ,From the Sun to the Moon distance is 1 light Day, So how could the moon blocks the sun light when it never comes front of the sun? NASA EVEN DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MOON IS SITUATED IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM 😂
