PhD Christian Scientist Exposes the HUGE Faults in Cosmic Evolution 

God isn't a liar but some of his followers have a Pinocchio nose extending around the block.

Can’t be a liar if you never existed in truth

@@cs5250 You're not smart enough to be an Atheist, an Agnostic maybe, but you need not be without knowledge, just do some homework, and stop believing human liars. I don't get paid anything to say I believe God, they get paid to conjecture anything, and everything but God. Better to investigate fully than to mock.

This is one of the best summaries of the attitude of humans

@@cs5250 You are not smart enough to be an atheist, maybe an agnostic, but I wouldn't revel in just claiming lack of knowledge. Do your homework, and realize that humans lie, and make conjectures based on assumptions, that doesn't make God a reality, but it certainly doesn't rule out a Creator. You don't know if God exists. I have amassed more than enough data to believe that He exists, but I am overjoyed to know that Divine Justice will prevail, and that Gods Plan is Perfect. it is sad that you wish to mock God rather than put forth the effort to thoroughly study the matter. What if our eternal destinies are bound up with Him, what will you have missed?

Absolutely correct and never will happen. That’s equivalent to a human being dying but taking their life back. Absolutely impossible.

You people are hilarious....the vile arrogance to think you know more than the experts while believing in talking donkeys and snakes and people living in whales etc....hahahah

@@ChrisFerguson-zm4gtsomething to consider with your argument is that the experts we are supposed to believe don’t agree. Professional, peer-reviewed journals have become a joke, and there is no place that the common man can go to find objective truth. “Scientists/science educators will take a hypothesis which have not been objectively proven or disproven and run with it just to have to walk it back when the next idea comes along. Just my thoughts, I don’t want to argue, but these very real problems in the field of academics have to be addressed. Until they are, people will continue to believe what they see as a reliable view of existence.

@@thurlravenscroft2572 bs

@@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt deep thoughts 🙄

An amazing package I find myself going back to over and over again.

You can thank Zoroastrianism in Persia for the construction of that concept. It's considered the earliest religion. Christianity owes a lot to preceding religions.

i love that one...

You are very wise.

@@iamall964 I don't get how parroting words that describe a fantasy is "wisdom".

Hugh Ross doesn't believe in evolution or a naturalistic origin of the universe, so if this video confirmed that he does, you have been mislead.

Ross tailors Genesis to the current fads in evolution.

@@seaknightvirchow8131 NONSENSE! Why do you spread gossip?!

Why does he keep saying "evolutionists"? Evolution theory is about biology, not astronomy

@@MutsPub It is not gossip, it is fact. Did you watch the video or have you ever read HR’s interpretation of Genesis 1? Evolutionary assertions are constantly changing and what was considered fact yesterday might not be fact tomorrow. Accommodating so called science which might be in error to the interpretation of Genesis is poor exegesis if you are teaching scripture. Science is about what exists not about how it came into existence. As far as time, the geologic columns are about an event, a global flood, not millions of years of time. HR believes in a day age interpretation of Genesis but this is not only unnecessary, it is ridiculous. Ross and so many others in the end, are intimating that God does not know how to express himself and that we had to wait for 3000 years for a correction. If you agree with HR that’s up to you.

where is god first hand account? Where is god to begin with? tell him to come and show himself. If he has something to say about the origin of the universe, that's interesting. Tell him he his welcome. Bring him. Got some beer for him.

You have the lying clergy's man-made Yahweh and all the fictional accounts of his life and numerous "facts" the clergy conjured. The clergy wrote the Bible, including "And God Said...." All religion is mythology. People don't lie for no reason. For the clergy, religion is a con game. Always consider the clergy's motives.

You ask him yourself if you are so brave.

We can know and we know. Just cause you don't know, doesn't mean that experts don't

Science doesn't deal in " belief " CMB, cosmological redshift (expansion), uniform matter distribution are all observable evidence for the big bang. Initial state, evolutionary law, observable universe. Big bang is an extension on the theory of general relativity. And evidence for evolution is undeniable the scientific community supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. Theory is the highest praise in science, In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as best to explain things that have already been substantiated by data subject to change with new observations to always fit the data. If you want to believe in your GOD then that's fine by me, bless u. But at least try to understand what science is all about, and the evidence that supports it. Science is a study of how nature works and interacts. Not a belief system. Don't deny what u did not study or understand. Your GOD is all yours, cheers.

amen.....

What would God have to say anything that don't even make sense

God's did not write to Bible, his disciples did.

And your point is?@@Laurie-eg8ct

@@jasonlogan5765 Gen 3:1 the serpent ask Eve “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The meaning being is God’s Word true. Which would include all of Scripture. It’s either yes or no. If you say no then your understanding of the world made by God will always be subject to error. He gave use His Word to understand Him and His creation.

He doesn't stand for the truth.... Only for his personal beliefs.

The consistency principle doesn't account for that which we don't know. Matter can obviously be created, as God did so. It could be that God operates entirely outside of the laws of our universe, or it could be that we simply haven't discovered all of the laws. The law of conservation may or may not be valid. Let me put it this way, had we used some of our current science today, 1000 years ago, they would have said, "That violates the laws of consistency principle, therefore it must be of God" What we don't know is more important than what we do know. In this case at least. I'm not atheist, mind you. I just don't necessarily believe that God operates in ways that are impossible for humans to comprehend on some miniscule level. The Big Bang theory isn't incomprehensible to me, nor do I find it contradictory to the Bible. But again, what do we really know? As Dr Mortenson said over and over, "We don't really know." I don't know either. I'm just not operating under the assumption that what we know today is all we will know.

@@nyestrovicpenchkofferberge3407 If they said "That violates the consistency principle, therefore it must be God" they would have been correct. If Creation can occur through Natural phenomena, in any way, then humans would be able to manipulate those natural phenomena and force it to happen in accordance with our own will. We would become Gods, and Lucifer would win his Rebellion. Creation is, and can only be, the unique power of God. I'm not guessing.

@@nyestrovicpenchkofferberge3407 "Matter can obviously be created, as God did so." The Law of Conservation is property of the universe and as such, applies to natural processes. God isn't constrained by physical properties within His creation so it doesn't not follow that because God can do it, natural processes can as well.

I tend to imagine what a goldfish could determine about reality from his bowl. Suppose he believed that he was somehow capable of knowing all things. He would be a very foolish goldfish.

@@jamesstrawn6087 You're right, I guess I should finish my thought. If Creation is a natural phenomenon, (and not the unique power of God) then the first humans to discover how it works will be able to bend it to their will, become Gods, and Lucifer shall win in his Rebellion. So maybe thank God that we're not goldfish.

A vast majority of America hasn't believed the gospel since America was birthed. Nothing has changed. Just because someone calls themselves a believer, doesn't mean they actually believe.

God is not a puppet master,, he sent us to school with a free will.. we are responsible for our actions,, like your parrents don't cotrol you life,, blaming God is pathetic.

@@donaage6303 Check out Romans 9:18, and then compare it with Joshua 11:20.

@@daygrindmike8913 haha so u think 🤔

@@donaage6303 God is always in control

Even here we have comments of individuals claiming God to be nothing more than a fairytale. I feel sorry for them because I know there will come a day when their hearts will sink when they stand before the Lord. Hopefully many of them will see the truth before their time is up.

@@lukebryant6523well said!!

​@@lukebryant6523that's funny, maybe if your truth was remotely true people would have an easier time believing it. Personally I've died before and your Jesus certainly wasn't there nor was whatever blood thirsty monster you worship as god. I hope when you go you aren't too regretful of wasting your life in servitude to an archaic idea of a monster designed by wicked men to subdue their followers.

I can't think of any way I would live my life differently whether God existed or not, so I really don't worry about it.

@@lukebryant6523 so how do u think works...u believe in Jesus and all ur sins will be forgiving and given eternal happiness.....sounds to me like a bunch of people making themselves feel better for all the crappy things they do ..want to cheat on ur wife...its all good cause jesus will forgive u in the end. give me a break.

Gravitational pull. How is the sun and gas planets different. Look at sun - a great ball of gas.

In an environment that's a vacuum and has no gravity the gas would cling together by its gravitational pull. All mass attracts mass. Please elaborate how it is a problem to any law of thermodynamics

Apparently there remains significant confusuion, why gaseous masses do not gravitationally collapse. First of all, according to Newton's laws of motion, if you dispense particles into the void, these particles will move randomly in all directions. Second, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases and never decreases. Meaning the particles will continue to drift appart. Third, even if the mass between two particles would be sufficient enough to attract each other to cause a collision, the particles are not deformed and no kinetic energy is lost during the collission. Imagine two balls thrown at each other: They bounce off of each other and don't clump together into a larger mass. This is all based on observations, so any model must be able to account for these phenomena. And since we are not talking about an isolated and closed system, the idea of gravitaional collapse doesn't hold ground.

Um, you do realize that the Earth's atmosphere is surrounded by a vacuum too?

@@d3m3n70r The repellent force of a gas varies indirectly by the radius squared of the gas cloud. The gravitational force on a cloud of gas varies directly with the cube of the radius. Hence, if the cloud of gas is big enough, it will condense. Also shockwaves and electrostatic forces seem to enhance star formation.

Remember that the earth is moving too. IF they were traveling in roughly the same direction and speed it could enter the orbit at a near circle. This is how the lunar missions get into an almost circular orbit with the moon without expending a lot of fuel to slow down. See Low Energy Transfer Orbital Maneuver.

@switzerlandful That's an interesting idea. But all of the deep time hypotheses have problems that relate to the circularity of the lunar orbit. That is, no matter how the orbit started out, it should have turned into a perfect circle long, long ago. Kind of like a magnet orbiting another magnet. They invariably start out elliptical, but are forced into a circle with relatively few revolutions. So, ironically, the out of roundness that the lunar orbit does have is strong evidence that it hasn't been there for millions of years, let alone billions.

The key is Saturrn

@@j.pershing2197 Isn't Saturn the key Ring?

@@gregoswald7723 Our 0² molecules match only those found in the rings of Saturn. Saturday is named after Saturn. Some of this will sound unbelievable but Saturn with her axial tilt belonged to a family group. This group all have the same axial tilts. Saturm was a brown dwarf star that was captures by a larger main sequence star, the sun. For a time there was a celeatial alignment of planets after Saturna system was pulled into the new hybrid system. This appeared in space for a long time forming "the cosmic wheel, lotus, squatterman and many other peteoglyphs foumd around the world. The Eye of Ra, osiris etc. When this formation broke up Saturn had a nova event and was pushed back. Venus was born and flew by on its way to the current orbit. But it was known as the Wondering Star, Morning Star and at times dragon or serpent. This depended on the ionization of plasma. Our ancient ancestors left us evidence all over earth. If u want to know more plz ask. I will send u reference points. Gotta go to work. Have a nice day

The most apparent bias in biblical creation models is the assumption two individuals can establish a long-term genetically viable population.

​@@jasonborn867that's funny because DNA evidence shows that our current human population did come two individuals

@@jasonborn867 ??? Did you not realize that ALL genetic research has validated the young earth timeline with only one potential exception. The Neanderthals, who were just a group of humans, had many more mutations, although we have no example have their mutation rate

@@mikeb1596 Correct, but scientific Adam did not live in the same generation as scientific Eve, and these African ancestors lived hundreds of millennia before recent bronze age Mesopotamian shepherds and farmers. But based on the biblical story Eve was formed from Adam's rib, so roughly what percentage of genes do you believe they shared?

@@Austin1990 Biblical propositions such as humanity descending from two individuals and human parthenogenesis is supported by faith in unseen evidence. There is no observable scientific evidence of these notions and also explains why Bigfoot isn't real.

its truly amazing how scientific understanding gets attacked cause the people attacking don't have the knowledge and mental ability to understand and keep repeating...'no one saw if happen so u can't prove it.'.. then say everything was made by the invisible man in the sky with absolute zero proof...but thats ok ...cause someone can twist the bible "written by man' to justify...ignoring anything in the bible they don't like.

You can't get something out of nothing

Evolution doesn't explain away Creation. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution is the scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet. I think your argument might be with the hypothesis of abiogenesis which is a hypothesis that seeks to explain how life got here. Arguing from ignorance about evolution is no way to try to prove a god exsists nor does it bolster the assertion a god created anything

​@@irvingmitchell6986 "you can't get something out of nothing." So you don't believe like other faithful religious believers in Creatio ex nihilo? The assertion that your god created matter out of nothing?

​​@@RobertSmith-gx3miYep. No issue whatsoever. God would have to be eternal and outside of the physical laws that He creates. We have faith that He exists, you have faith that He doesn't. Why do you need to argue with believers?

@@rayspeakmon2954 The special pleading fallacy that makes god immune from all the laws of physics that you cannot prove exist outside the bounds of time and space, Nor can you prove this? So called law of cause and effect exists so outside the bounds of time in space but You just assert it does. Why I argue? Mainly so the beliefs of believers don't infect my government. That's why I must push back on this utter nonsense

Nobody ever saw a God do anything.

🙌🏽😭🙌🏽

Asking questions is good, but then you have to accept the answers. Most scientific claims are well supported by evidence.

Space is fake, CGI . The Earth is flat with a firmament and waters above the firmament. Wake up!

@@dinfast"nuh uh" -dinfast

@@jockyoung4491like life coming from not-loving material? Like material coming from nothing at all? Those theories are supported by evidence?

@@jockyoung4491you are, of course, correct. Most theories do have evidence to back them up. Just not the ones we are asked to believe in that are contrary to Gods Word.

Pretty sure we can predict both... a good thousand years out. Read Genesis. It clearly explains what everything in the heavens is for. Too bad curing smugness isn't it.

😂 nope there's design alright, you are made in the image of God. Earth is the only known planet that both has liquid water, and is the perfect distance from the sun. Earth is the only planet that has lunar eclipses. The universe has laws, which cannot be changed. Laws need a law maker. We discovered the laws, God created the laws. The main problem with the big bang theory also, is that you assume that matter always existed, that it was condensed into a small point, which then exploded. No one recorded or saw that happen, no one has replicated it in a lab. Evolution is full of assumptions and holes.

Ridiculous.

Obviously, you evolved from an ape.

Firmament not sky

This sounds "off" to me. It reads beautifully in the King James Bible.

He knows nothing,

fairy tales lol

Pay attention to symbols and you'll find out its not something you've imagined as a comedian. Those princes are re-emerging and they're gaining followers.

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 No, the Bible has been found to be historically and scientifically accurate even thousands of years before modern day scientists confirmed observations chronicled in it pages. For instance...at the time of Moses...GOD provided laws on human hygiene...well before modern microscopes were around to confirm germs. Louis Pasteur who authored the process of pasteurization did so because milk was contaminated by germs making it harmful to drink. God thousands of years prior commanded what man should eat and what to refrain from. He gave medical advice on diseases such of Leprosy. And even told those obtaining metals like bronze, gold or silver as the spoils of war were to heat them in fire to sanitize them. The Hebrews knew this because God revealed it to them.

We have very good evidence of how stars form and how life evolves.

@@jockyoung4491 And what would that very good evidence be?

That's wonderful! God bless you ❤

No, it means it's a foolish theory and has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS

@@vld7850 So when Tom Abel plugged his "foolish theory and has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS" into his virtual observatory & got celestial bodies matching what we observe in other galaxies & solar systems, I guess that was just bunk science.

Amen 🙏

The Bible points to a 6-day creation AND a single day creation. The accounts in Genesis 1 are not the same as Genesis 2. So, if the Bible isn't sure how long it took, how did YOU decide you knew the right answer?

@@saintmalaclypse3217 Genesis 2 is a more detailed view of day 6 of creation. Nothing different at all.

​@@IAMhassentyouYou just admitted you didn't even read the first chapters of the Bible lol. The stories ARE different, but keep lying. Your god would love that.

@@fohrum4757 no they aren't. You've just admitted you are lying and deceiving. Typical atheist.

...been able to complete a cogent thought?

You have never what?

@@Dr.Ian-Plect😂

@@tommysonnier9848 I had never given it much thought - correct me if I'm wrong but didn't this guy say the big bang was wrong just like their time line , evolution , etc ?

@@jimbailey490 😎

You don't understand the definition.

The reason big bang is more accepted than plasma cosmology or electric universe is that the big bang model (like the other models) make predictions and the big bang models predictions is better and more in line of what we observe.

which is why science searches for a unified theory!

Right, nothing beyond the past couple of hundred of years or so has been observed. Everything beyond that point is extrapolation, or more simply stated - guessing. Observation and Measurement? No, Guessing.

"Right, nothing beyond the past couple of hundred of years or so has been observed. ...ment? No, Guessing." Not true, we receive light from every point in time backwards so we can on daily basis see what happen million of years back

Not even close. Terrible lecture if you are someone who understands science.

What are you saying?

Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared. That is how the ejection of energy can create mass. Gravity is what usually pulls thing together after.

@@tone9358 At the moment before the explosion the entirety of the universe was supposedly a singularity. Something that does not take up space, ther was no time as time is a dimension of space and space did not exist, effectively there is no mass ( no matter) there was no space nor time. So How did a timeless construct 'explode' or expand ?

Big bang happened it is a point of Creation and is easily attributed to a prime mover we cannot see. This is easily God. Science is confined to nature it isn't unexpected that it does not see the supernatural if such phenomenon can't be codified by us.

i will try to answer your questions. 1. How does an object that is singular explode? By this, I'm assuming that you are asking how a planet could explode. Planets are not rigid objects, like a boulder would be. They are, from a cosmic perspective, like balls of sand. If you were to go outside and pick up a rock, you would be holding a small piece of the earth in your hand. You were able to separate that part of our planet from the rest of it, and quite easily too. This is because gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces of the universe, so it can easily be overcome by other forces. So, when a massive force is applied, such as a planetary collision, there is enough energy for a planet to explode; its gravity cannot hold itself together any longer. I highly recommend watching a simulation of planets colliding. They almost look like water droplets! 2. How does the ejection of energy create mass? I'm not sure what you mean by this. However, mass cannot be created or destroyed. 3. How do the masses created begin to form [together] unless there is some logic and order that causes it to happen? Yes, there is an order that causes it to happen! It is the fundamental force of gravity. 4. How does logic exist in us unless it preexists in nature? This isn't scientific, but I agree with you. I believe that our system of logic was built around how our universe works.

yep. total freedom to not stray from the dogma and to submit our thought to traditional beliefs. i'll pass the authoritarian claim, thanks.

No one has seen unicorns or fairies, either.

Agreed. We will all have our theories and therefore everyone thinks their own is right. I have listened to Hugh Ross and a lot of what he says resonates with me But then again I have heard some sound arguments for young earth...and even a different shaped earth. I will stick to what I know. Jesus came to die for my sins so that I can enter the Kingdom of God.

​@@dinfastno, that's pretty much it in a nutshell

@@dinfast It’s almost like you are so blinded by your religion you will say or do anything to maintain your illusions.

@@dinfast It's true though as evidenced every day by the science denying creationists here.

There's no dogma in science :)

@@bennyb7067 try earning a science degree in the American education system and you'll soon learn otherwise.

Nobody ever saw Noahs flood happen either

The entire geography of the world indicates that, at some point, it was under water. Even a secular scientist would admit that.

​@@WooporActually, it was the flood that occured during Noah's life (he did not cause the flood), and at least 8 people survived it. Everyone who died during the flood outside the ark saw it.

@@mr.dennis5503 Not at the same time. and the story of Noah and the flood comes from the story of Gilgamesh anyway. so the :Noah flood is simply a retelling of another story.

Epic of Gilgamesh = around 2100 BC, the account of the global deluge in the Bible is MUCH older! Try again...

That's because there isn't a singular moment like turning on a microwave. What we do have is images of millions of proto stars and accretion disks forming on thousands of Stellar nurseries on dozens of Nearby galaxies. Any honest person would say that we know how stars form because we see them forming.

​​@@Gek1177"isn't a singular moment?" 😅 Oh man. You guys sure like to stretch this out, don't you? You have no idea. You have no idea if stars are actually "born." Seeing as it has never been observed, what you propose is not observable science. Therefore it is not science at all.

@@Gek1177 #1 I don't believe I asked for anything from the atheist peanut gallery. #2 we don't listen to you guys anyway. So why bother? #3 like NCIC said, it's never been observed so you can't even call it science. It's a fantasy that you guys have come up with in your minds. Good day.

@@newcreationinchrist1423 hey NCIC. God bless, brother

@@newcreationinchrist1423 You've no idea what 'observable science" is or means if you're refuting @Gek1177

"That is why Christ had to die." There is NO reason why Christ had to die, if God is all-powerful. Whatever results came from Christ dying could ALSO have been achieved by God willing it to be so. If I was all-powerful, then said "the only way I can accomplish X is if I first do Y", then that would show I'm NOT all-powerful, since I'm constrained by rules I cannot control. If God IS constrained by rules, and could only redeem humanity if he had his son killed first, then he is NOT all-powerful. If God is NOT constrained by rules, and didn't need a blood-sacrifice, then it makes you wonder why he insisted on blood anyway.

@@saintmalaclypse3217 well seeing as you claim to be all knowing yourself we should all just take your word on the matter, eh? 🙄 How much pride it must take to think you know better than an omnipotent God. Utterly meaningless and utterly ridiculous. Nobody here is going to think you have a better idea than God did. You may convince your own brain, perhaps. Lol

@@IAMhassentyou Cool. I'm stupid. So educate me on why Christ HAD to die.

@@saintmalaclypse3217 Genesis 1 and 2 we see that God had a special relationship with his creation. Adam and Eve, in particular. When Adam and Eve sinned it broke that connection. Mankind was no longer in relationship with God. Not because of anything that God had done but because of the choice Adam and Eve made. The sacrifice of Christ would bring those who believe in him back into a relationship with God. It goes to show us the very personal nature of God and how much he truly does love us.

@@saintmalaclypse3217 p.s. I never said you are stupid

When you see the Earth’s Shadow depart the moon, take a look at the arc of the shadow…It’s somewhat larger than the moon. This is the size the Earth should look from the moon.

​@annieoaktree6774 🥱

Projection, eh?

​@annieoaktree6774 Oh no not intelligent people! Cause we all know the world works better when people are ignorant and barely read one book yet thunk they know it all is better than educated people who realize they still have much to learn.

In recorded human history, we've observed stellar collapse in the form of a supernova. One specific star got very bright for about a month and then very dim until it wasn't visible. The reason why we don't see stars "pop up" is because proto-stars also give off light. Odds are that many of the "stars" you see in the night sky aren't really undergoing stable fusion, and thusly are not quite stars yet. Stellar formation takes place over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. It's likely that, for the entire couple hundred thousand years humans have been making fire, we've never observed a gas cloud collapse into a star from start to finish. Though we do occasionally see stars go supernova, far more regularly than we watch stars form

I feel compelled to inform you that all the stars you can see with your naked eye are incredibly close and compose an insanely tiny fraction of our own galaxy. As in there are stars being born and popping into existence all the time, we can't see them without telescopes though. Buy one maybe?

Protostars goes not give off observable light. In order for us to observe it with the naked eye, it already needs to be doing fusion. And quoting you: "Though we do occasionally see stars go supernova, far more regularly than we watch stars form" Okay. point me to one of these stars that we have seen born.@@xXMACEMANXx

okay. give me the coordinate and telescope used to show me a star birth. Give me before and after pictures, the name of the star, it's coordinates and the telescope used.@@kevinhank17

​​@@stickman-1If we were recording stars forming from a supernova (the quickest way stars are formed) from the dawn of written language (6000 years ago) to now, we would barely notice a change from the gas and plasma beginning to coalesce. This takes place over tens of millions of years, we haven't been around to see one through from start to finish. However, we've witnessed supernovae, we've seen protostars in the process of forming, we've seen newly formed stars, and we've seen dying stars, all in a variety of stages. Granted most of the imagining is infrared, so it's not exactly visible to the naked eye, but after adjusting to account for our visible spectrum, we've seen dozens of "newly born" stars. One of the most recent (and most clear) images of a newborn star was named HH 211, captured by the James Webb Space Telescope

All CGI. The Earth is flat with a firmament and waters above the firmament. Space is a satanic HOAX.

@@jesus4400 & how many people are in on this conspiracy?

LOL. If he disgused every thing in the universe the video would be very long.

@@jamescole3152 He said we don't know how stars form. I believe we have imagery from the Hubble Space telescope showing protostars being formed within gas clouds and now with the James Webb Space Telescope we can peer into said gas clouds. Either way, the heavens declare the glory of the Lord.

@@richardbryan6349 astronomers know how stars are form

So basically God of the gaps

Scientists do NOT agree on the captured moon theory. So I guess they are all Morons? And I’d like an explanation of why comets which are basically icy masses don’t dissolve when they pass near the sun again and again. Yet more comets are in space. The naturalists say there is a comet factory which spits out new comets. I’m not buying that crap.

So in your opinion, God does not exist.@@dinfast

Explanation of how something works doesn't explain how it came to be.

True indeed! Those are few words but it says a lot.@@jackreacher3499

2006 RH120 is not comparing apples to apples. It's tiny, it isn't captured in any planetary orbit, and it is moving a tiny, tiny, fraction of the speed that any supernova ejecta would be moving. No one has ever seen any solid debris (or molten debris) coming off of any supernova. If such a thing could happen, the escape velocity would be way too high for any planetary formation, or for orbital capture.

He's not being deceptive, he's just wrong.

Are you implying that Ross isn't a Christian or that a Christian can't be a scientist? Science is what we use to describe what God has created and encouraged us to discover.

​@@douglasjacobs882I think he is referring to him being called a "Christian."

@@douglasjacobs882. Science is what we use to describe the natural world. The claim of a “supernatural” realm has NOTHING whatsoever to do with science. Science deals in reality, NOT Biblical fantasies!

Well put!

God is the ONLY JUDGE of who is a believer, not us. I don't doubt that he is a Christian OR a scientist. But I DO doubt, or rather I KNOW that he is wrong! Far too many Christians bow their knee to the atheist evolution crowd, to try to find a compromise between scientism, aka evolution, and the Bible. There is NO compromise! The Bible is literally God's spoken word, just read 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and also 2 Peter 1:12-21 where it is clear that it IS God himself who spoke through the prophets and the leaders. From Moses to the Apostle John, God directed the words to those who wrote God's word. Here is what Peter wrote in verses 20-21: "20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (Notice, "carried along" by the Holy Spirit LEST ANYONE say he was talking about prophecies, Jesus called Moses a prophet AND the historical books were ALSO called prophetic books! The division of the OT was thus: The Law, Prophets and Psalms as the first of the poetic books. The "latter" prophets were the historical books because they wrote about God's work AFTER they occurred, while the former prophet wrote before God's work in the affairs of men.

All evolutionists think that guesses are facts!

@@seraphimdunn You evolved from the procreation and gene exchange from your parents! The common cold evolves which is why there is no cure! Evolution is a fact. This does not mean that man evolved from bipedal primates. There is NO fossil record of any bipedal primate physically evolving before they ALL went extinct! Denying science for Folklore theology is not necessary. You are plagiarizing the term "guesses" from someone! That is not your own. Don't listen to pseudo scientists as they ask if you were there!! That is naive and weak at best.

All evolutionists attack Theists with ad hominem attacks and lies, not facts

Coming from someone who thinks nothing exploded and pond scum created life, doesn't mean much.

@@Zaaxun ignorance is not bliss. what on earth are you talking about?

You don't understand Genesis or science.

indeed, the fear of god, even in heaven you won't have a second of respite, you'll be a lobotomized blob... but you're not going to heaven, because you can't stop coveting... enjoy.

Well would be an after thought to those who wrote the Bible as thousands of years ago stars were thought to be mere points of light, not object comparable to the Sun, This is one very good reason why its complete bunkum to view the Bible as a historically or scientifically accurate text book. It isn't, those who think it is are deluded - its a religious text book, for the use of, those who adhere to that religion. It has no relevance for those looking for knowledge of astronomy, geology or history, nor for those who aren't Christian (which may surprise Christians, especially those of American persuasion, means around 80% of the world's population...) You wouldn't use a cookbook to learn car mechanics, and so you shouldn't use a thousands of years old religious text to learn about astrophysics in the 21st Century.

@@roydodds3693 true, even the exile in Egypt and the Exodus was just made up... they thrive on being the persecuted underdogs...

William Lane Craig. He says lots of good stuff... but like so many of the, shall we say, "intellectual" defenders of the faith... compromises on Genesis.

WLC is a false teacher. Definitely don't follow him.

Wrong. You still don't understand what a scientific theory is: it's a model for explaining a natural phenomenon. It holds much more value than believing in religious myths.

​@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Seriously, if you were born centuries ago, you would proclaim phlogiston as the fact in the name of science. Apparently, so-called "scientists" are surprised to find out "now" that gender is actually spectrum. "Trust the science" they say. Could not even get the fact right on the origin of covid. Actually fooled many people, while enriching others pocket.

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440....riiiiiigggggghhhhhtttt! How about some very specific refutations of the contents of this video? I think none will be provided....as per usual.

​@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440The only model that can explain creation is the Creator. No other model can even hope to begin to suffice. To not understand this is to not understand the nature and utter complexities of existence, as well as and especially of life. To say that NYC could have been formed by natural processes doesn't even touch it. It takes excessively simplistic thinking. It takes a tremendous lack of comprehension of the nature of things, and likely a real desire to enter into the mass delusion of denying God's existence. In the final summation, it is inexcusable.

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Religious myths? You do realize that Peter and Paul were real people writing about current events, right? How do you know that stories in the bible aren't true? How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Sources? Evidence? Were you around at the time and can personally testify that they didn't happen? How did you come upon this information?

science is about testing hypothesis and their reliability. There is no absolute certainty in science. Religion is about dogma. it's about wiggling enough room to shove a god and pretend that the job is done. Theory of evolution has been modified quite a few time since Darwin. Bringing the name of Darwin to evaluate the theory's current value is like bringing the name of the inventor of the very first train to evaluate if current trains are energy-efficient. This video here is all about showing that scientific knowledge is not perfectly reliable. But science never pretended to provide absolute certainty. You say "even though most of their facts are theories". this is a classic mistake. a word can have various meaning. It simply happen that the word "theory" has a completely different meaning for scholar that it has for the average dude. there is one meaning for "theory" in the scientific community and another meaning for the word "theory" for the common language. In the common language "theory" is synonymous of "hypothesis". in the scientific community "theory" is synonymous of "this shit seems very very likely to be correct given how deeply we have tested it and seen it still hold"

"even though most of their facts are theories" Tell me you don't understand the definition of words without telling me. Please for the love of your non existent god look up what a scientific theory is. the general population uses the word "theory" when they mean the scientific equivalent of "hypothesis"

I wonder if there is anything in the Dead Sea Scrolls that matches closer to the Septuagint or the Masoretic. Also the Samaritan Pentateuch.

You do realize that it’s nonsense- the lifespans in the Bible are ridiculously high. 6000 years is a tiny amount of time for the formation of the earth and the drift of continents and formation mountains etc how can it be close to fact. You need to wake up and read something other than fantasy books.

​@@22190971 Of course. It doesn't make sense from a human point of view, but it does from a biblical one.

@@22190971 oh yeah? Can you explain away the mathematical impossibility of abiogenesis? Can you explain the statistical necessity that even given the best evolutionary considerations in favor of beneficial mutations - including the unproven assumption that new genetic information can be spontaneously acquired in an existing genome, which is an action that had NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION - the amount of time needed just to get from the genome of an ape-like ancestor to the genome of a human with less than 1% difference would take about the current estimated "age of the earth"??? Can you explain why the strength of the earth's magnetic field - a measurement which is directly correlated with the age of the magnetic field and follows an extremely consistent and predictable degradation function over time - indicates that it has only been in existence for at most 10,000 years? In fact, can you explain why all the planets in our solar system that have had their magnetic field measured all measure much higher strength than what they should be? Indicating they are all also only about 10,000 old at most? Can you explain why the earth's moon is BY FAR the largest moon relative to a planet's size that has ever been observed? Or why it's orbit is nearly circular and stable? considering the only possible ways that scientists can figure out that earth acquired the moon, with orbital equations of motion and computer models with very generous assumptions, are that the earth had to have acquired a moon of that size from wildly catastrophic circumstances that would have resulted in an extremely elliptical orbit? Or how this would have also likely caused an irregular earth orbit? Or how this would have almost certainly would have caused an irregular tilt of our axis, or irregular speed or direction of rotation, or a dramatic procession (wobble) of our axis? Can you explain why all the major layers of sedimentary rock are present over the entire globe, and are consistent with a fluid dynamic precipitation pattern of being laid down by a massive amount of turbulent water all around the globe at the same time? Can you explain how the Bible - the oldest book in the world, written over 1500 years, written by at least 40 different authors, which has been more critically examined with the intent to disprove than any other writing in history - could have withstood thousands of years of attack and criticism without ever being disproven to be historically accurate? The correct answer to all of these questions, and many more like them, is "no I can't"... Because nobody can answer these questions from a naturalistic uniformitarianism world view. Every "answer" secular scientists give to these types of questions just begs even more questions, and kicks the proverbial can further the road and further back in time. Everything makes sense (aside from the oldest monuments and cultures) from a biblical world view that sees the Bible as historically accurate. If you factor in the Septuagint genealogies that I mentioned in my original post, the time table for the emergence of the earliest cultures and monuments coincides perfectly with the time several hundred years after the global flood. There is so much data from every field of science that points to a much younger earth than what had been sold to us by the accepted narrative of mainstream science. Like these guys have said, "it's not a head problem, it's a heart problem." The evidence is there for anyone to see the truth, but not everyone wants to.

@@shayalynn the dead sea scrolls, Josephus, and the Samaritan pentateuch, all agree with the Septuagint. The Septuagint is also at least 1,400 years older than the maseratic text. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint, as it was the most widely available translation of the old testament circulated during this time.

You are correct: Scientists do not believe in ***MAGIC***.

Faith is something they will never have but their knowledge will grow leaps and bounds changing even your life while you keep your faith.

@Who_IsLike_God no, truth can be determined in other ways that don’t require an “experiment”, as the guy was suggesting. And mathematics is science. Shouldn’t truth conform to reality?

OK, let's try this one for starters: A man predicts that he'll die and be dead for 3 days and then he'll rise from the dead. And he does. With eyewitness accounts - so much so they're willing to put their lives on the line without any compensation/money or power or fame in the offing whatsoever. If you can trump that, then come and we'll talk.

@@kevinrtres You don't have any eyewitness accounts. You have a book with the unverified claim there were eyewitnesses. I do wish you guys would learn the difference.

The challenge is that the energy, matter, and timescales are too great to simulate astrophysical phenomena in the laboratory. We can't create a neutron star or black hole in the lab because we just can't get enough matter into one place. We just have to rely on passive observations of the skies.

@stevenbatke2475 I think the key point here is that the definition of science says that it must be observable and must have a repeatable experiment to be considered science. Science has many limitations by its very nature. Some limitations are: science cannot prove a universal negative, science is often forced to deal with models rather than reality, science can only deal with the physical world, etc. Even experiments that were done by someone else are not science to me. They are science to that person because they did the experiment. They are not science to me because I did not do it. I have to believe that they did it. I believe the experiment is true because I believe the personthat conducted the experiment. At some point, I have to believe that someone else is telling me the truth. For example, I believe the experiments that Madame Curie did really happened. But I don’t believe them through science because I was not there. I believe them because they came from a trustworthy source. However, science books are often overstepping the very definition in claims. Science has rules about how we know something to be true through science. Science is not the only way to explain things that are true (reality) History is another way to make truth claims. For example, I cannot prove Abraham Lincoln lived through science. However, I can know he lived through historical evidence. Knowing something is true, through history has its own set of rules. The Bible does not claim to be science. For example, if Jesus really did rise from the dead this cannot be proved through scientific means because it can neither be observed over again (though there were eyewitnesses at the time ) physically or repeated. However, this does not mean that there is no evidence to support this claim. An example of historical evidence would say that the apostles had everything to lose by, claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that they were his followers. In spite of this, they claimed he was God, and that he had risen from the dead. Almost all of them became martyrs because of this claim. People don’t risk their lives for a lie, or a crazy person. (See Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis). We know that they believed this to be true by the price they were willing to pay. In the end, if Jesus is real, and he actually did rise from the dead, then we must listen to what he said. We will face God on judgment day and pay the price for our sins. if we have ever told one lie, we are a liar before God. If we have ever looked with lust, we are an adulterer and a fornicator at heart. If we have ever stolen anything, no matter what the value, we are thieves. When we stand before God on judgment day, we will be guilty not innocent. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord “please consider this. If you have any questions, I would love to try to answer them. I don’t claim to have all knowledge, but I have studied science for a long time and have been a teacher of the sciences for many years. I believe what Jesus said for many reasons. Prophecies of the Old Testament, that came true, the change Christ has made in my own heart, and so much more. Sincerely ask God to show you if he is real and if Jesus is really the Messiah. Read the gospel of John.

it's ok to be displeased by blatant misrepresentation and dishonest arguments. The video is just about presenting science as stupid and scientist as morons. it never try to delve in the math. instead it just throw list of surprising things and tell the viewer to think that it's proof that discredit the science. really a sad sight. All it has to offer as a counterpart is a vague hunch that there is a design. Can't prove he is right so he tries to prove there is no sound alternative by showing bad examples.

Don’t bother. AIG doesn’t count any simulation they toss it out because it’s “bias”

If you continue to deny the truth and proof of God’s magnificent creation, you will remain in scientific darkness.

"nobody ever saw" is another fave. Well, you could say that about many of the events in Genesis too, or many things we take on faith. God is not opposed to seeking answers about the world He created, and the Church has always patronized and supported scientists.

The gentleman likes saying Nobody ever saw it happen, these things take time, often millions of years. Surprising how the "PhD" doesn't know that science is the best possible explanation of known facts while religion is unflinching faith in claims of scripture. One invites inquiry and correction and another killed ancient scientists for claiming that the earth orbited the sun not the other way around. Idk where his PhD is from but I'm sorry for his professors.

And simulations have presets that are programmed for the digital experiment, which can be input based on assumptions and desired results. Simulations give a good idea, but they shouldn't be taken as proven fact because it's just a simulation. We're taught the scientific method is the base for discovery, research, and gaining new knowledge about the world. You have a question about something, you form a hypothesis about it based on what you already know, then you run an experiment to test it and see if you were right. A computer simulation can never do that in the same way as physical experiments because computers can have bugs, mistakes in the input presets, and can be programmed based on bias. Whereas the laws of nature and physics cannot be tampered with like that, nor can they ever work incorrectly or make a mistake in how they operate. Yes, simulations work to create better hypotheses, but it should not be taken as proved fact. And that's alright, because it's unrealistic to think that we'll ever learn everything about everything. It's fine to guess, just don't teach it as if you've proved it, cause you haven't, and with some things you never will.

Please 🙏..tell me something that you learned from this video. (I am a Bible believer)

​@@paulgarduno2867It's not about learning. It's about doubting real science and reinforcing the faith of believers so they don't leave. Oh and of course, money!

@mehallica666 if you don't learn from other people, you must be a sorry human being . Doubting without answers is worthless .

That the picture of the star being birthed was simply a computer generated model. In one of my grandson’s space books, it states that there is a place in the universe where stars are born and they make it sound like it’s a fact. I can’t wait to share this with him. This reminds me of the textbook I had to buy for a college biology class, where most of the pictures and diagrams were simply artists’ renderings of what dinosaurs looked like. I remember thinking that I had paid good money for a comic book!

@@MAGAsnotAcurse did you expect to see photographs of dinosaurs in those textbooks?:-)