I'm from a family of charismatics turned Southern Baptists back when they were the sing song types. Anyways my parents erroneously thought smart = rich so as a kid I was forced into the sciences. Naturally as a little boy the only thing of appeal is dinosaurs and Jurassic Park came out soon afterwards. That being said I got really into paleontology but realized it didn't pay many bills and instead became a chemist but remained an enthusiast. STAY with me please. SO while chemistry kept me on the team because we can't bail out the origin of life through biochemistry I had never dove into how carbon dating worked. I never thought to ask myself why certain layers would be missing in some parts of the world (meaning millions of years were eroded away), and I never noticed almost all fossils come from flash floods. Even the more I studied evolution the more you realize for it to work as Darwin said you needed near supernatural interference or you get punctuated equilibrium (which is the atheists way to explain why a Allosaur exists say 10 million years and then just disappears without finding the in-between species and then poof the next descendant just appears perhaps even a continent away). The more I dug into genetics the more I realized for evolution to work you need changes to be quickly, in a certain specific area, and for them to change across multiple animals all at once - again supernatural even if true. Oh and of course we have to ignore where almost every version of humanity believed in some sort of dragon like creatures and again we ignore that no matter how odd it is that from Romans to Native Americans you can find dragon like creatures in all cultures. OH and then paleontologist Jack Horner (the guy Alan Grant from Jurassic Park is based on) finds soft cells in dinosaur bones meaning our theories on fossilization are wrong and dinosaurs are likely much younger than ever imagined (the scientists now are blaming chemistry as being wrong but good luck with that one nothing organic like a cell should survive millions of years much less mineralization). It was at that point I was heavily leaning YE and then I saw Walter Veith's defense of YE and I am sold. The earth is 6000 years old give or take and dinosaurs likely never existed long and were likely what inspired our ancestors to speak of dragons. This would also explain the beliefs in sea monsters as well and how some of them lived on to the modern day like giant squid which we all assumed was silly nonsense from the Middle Ages.
But if the earth was 6k years old there'd be soft tissue and DNA in every single dinosaur fossil!! The idea that dinosaurs existed within the last 6k years is absolutely barmy, especially if you're trying to frame yourself as some kind of pseudo-palaeontologist.
Op my story is similar to you. I came across Answers in Genesis and I know they didn’t deceive me because they told me what I already knew, they just reconnected the dots in a way that made more sense. But I think you’ll find fascinating the book After The Flood by Bill Cooper (not the terrorist you’ll find on Wikipedia, someone else). You can find chapters online which is how I first read his analysis of saxonese and Beowulf. He came to the conclusion that Beowulf was a dinosaur pest exterminator and Grendel was a common name for the species tyrannosaurus in saxonese. The titular Grendel was evidently a juvenile T. rex because he was able on the one have to east men whole but on the other hand, Beowulf mortally wounds him by pinning him against the wall of the mead hall underneath his jaws and tearing his arm out of socket, even off. Imagine that a nobleman would have had the access and free time to develop huge muscles from exercise and nutrition and Beowulf was likely a Nordic Strong-man in physique and ability. The author goes into detail explaining why the story is not to be considered fictional but a historical narrative. Really worth the lookup. This shows dinosaurs were in Europe in the dark ages period
@@cosmictreason2242 Preserved remains wouldn't even be fossils after only 6k years - once more, you immediately display the limits of your understanding!!
@@cosmictreason2242 You "know they didn't deceive [you] because they told [you] things [you] already knew" - do you know what confirmation bias is?? P.S. laughable to read Beowulf as literal history, hysterical to imagine him fighting a small T-rex! Dinosaurs in Europe in the dark ages?! LMAO! Fantasist.
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47
@@cosmictreason2242 Yes, I'm sure everyone who disagrees with your world view is going to hell. XD Typical Christian online. Why not let God settle it? I've seen Him do a bunch of things! We can both pray and see what God does. I'll keep in contact and you with me and we'll see if He wants to do stuff. :0 Edit: I had to Google YEC. XD I am not going to delete this because it's my own folly as a "typical Christian" online. XD
Bruh, those last lines got me. Only Doug Wilson. Never would I imagine that I’d hear of Gabriel surfing event horizons, much less that it would be tied in sensibly to a larger point
On the way home from the Creation Museum today. What a slice of heaven on earth. Good people, thoughtful conversation, and hope for the future in word and deed. It all starts with the authority of the scriptures and uncompromised proclaiming of the truth. Highly recommended for any family weary of all the places the world would have you go on a family trip.
I've never understood people who can believe God created stars, but then find it impossible that He could also create the light. HE CREATED STARS! Let that sink in.
They think you can’t have light without stars, while typing on a LIT SCREEN, and not realizing they’re just as superstitious as the silly people who thought that the greatest proof one isn’t a ghost is that you can eat food.
In Christianity as well as Science we use corroborating information. We know Jesus rose from the dead because we have historic, social, biblical revelation that are corroboration with each other. If we apply the same method, we have geology, astronomy, chemistry and many other fields that all paint the same picture of an old earth/universe I'd recommend the organization that I'm promoting: "Reasons to Believe" We don't believe in evolution (monkey to human) but we agree with the science consensus that the earth is old
@@The-DO Using the tools* that only* exist within the realms of space, time, and matter is a flawed method when hypothesizing how space, time, and matter went from not existing to existing. Think about it.
@@The-DO You choose to believe in the resurrection despite there being no sources or documents outside the bible corroborating it. At the same time you choose not to believe in evolution which is corroborated many times over by scientists all over the world. The human mind is truly fascinating. Btw, “monkey to human” is not what evolution says. It says we share a common ancestor.
Once again, Mr. Wilson has "hit the nail on the head." Fundamentally, this is an issue of, "which presuppositions do we use to interpret the data around us." Thank you.
If your presupposition is that God created his creation "good" -- i.e. reflective of himself, knowable, etc. -- and has created man with the capacity to exercise dominion over that creation as he commanded, shouldn't we be able to trust the data that the good creation is giving us? We do this all the time in other fields of knowledge, such as forensics, and we don't have a theological crisis over it. I'm not saying accept the atheistic conclusions of the secularists or agree that they have handled the data properly, but if we apply analytical tools that have been shown effective in the understanding of one part of God's creation -- and see that as evidence of God's Providence -- shouldn't we fearlessly apply them elsewhere without falling into an either-or trap?
@@JonJaeden However my friend, the good creation that God made has been corrupted by Man's sin -including every aspect of our nature. Our bodies, minds, wills, especially our ability to reason is subject to that corruption (Romans 1:18ff). Even secularist's recognize this (e.g., Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution wherein the accepted paradigms of today are completely overturned tomorrow). Think about this, a significant amount of the "evidence" used in the Scope's Trial, has now been rejected by modern evolutionists. So what the reason of early 29th century scientists, stated, under oath, as trustworthy evidence, is now known to be false. We have to start with some presupposition; the question is, "Whose?" God or Man's?
@Sterling Falls Productions You are failing to take into account the literal 'act of God' in repopulating the world after the flood. If evolution cannot account for the post flood world that is a mark against evolution... not the flood.
@@therealkillerb7643 Yesterday, I put my granddaughter on a plane for her high-school trip to Washington, D.C . I was able to do that because God created the laws of physics in the Creation, and because men like the Wright Brothers, following the dominion mandate, discovered and applied them. Despite every aspect of man's nature being corrupted by sin, time and experience convince me those laws of physics -- hidden from us at creation -- are trustworthy. In their discovery and application we have have thought God's thoughts after him. We have obeyed the mandate. We have testified his Creation is good. Despite what we have obtained, our knowledge is not exhaustive. We still live in a fallen world. The search for what is true still requires the sweat of our brow. Planes crash. There are always new situations. There are always unknowns. There's always a frontier where uncertainty and failure are the price to pay to extend dominion. There, "facts" and paradigms are born to die. Some survive and, given time and generations, prove themselves true and dependable. We all live our lives in deference to the ones that survived, without questioning them or giving them a second thought. As I suggested previously, if there are analytical tools and time-proven facts that have been shown effective in understanding one part of God's creation -- all of which are evidence of God's Providence -- shouldn't we fearlessly apply them elsewhere without falling into an either-or-presupposition trap? In 1973, a massive explosion of munitions -- headed for Vietnam -- sent train cars in the Roseville, California, railyard flying in all directions. In the civil suit that followed, one of my professors was called as an expert witness because of his photogrammetric experience. It was important to establish the disaster's sequence and this was done by noting where train cars ended up and which cars contents were found on top of, or beneath, the wreckage of other cars. He used facts and analysis we would all accept to reconstruct the accident without comparing it to the Bible. It was basic forensics. He also was a professor of geology where he used the same kind of facts and analysis to reconstruct the physical history of the earth. The same methodology accepted previously is now dismissed because "sin has corrupted creation." To be clear, not all conclusions from the same set of facts are correct. All facts can -- and often should -- be tested. Presuppositions are used to both select and reject facts in order to create or protect paradigms ... sometimes ignorantly ... sometimes intentionally. Welcome to the fight for truth and God's rule in a fallen world. The Bible told us it was never going to be easy.
For the first 1,800 years of the church, it really wasn't that controversial. It only remains controversial by those who want to explain Genesis away by infusing outside ideas into the Biblical text. I think it's quite natural to trust the revelation of the Bible. All the internal evidence of scripture seems to indicate that the Lord Jesus took Genesis as history too. Imagine trying to share the gospel without relying on the history presented in Genesis?
When you say "outside ideas" are you referring to reality? REPLYING HERRE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN CENSORED @Cosmic Treason What testimony of the flood? The only testimony I'm aware of is Ken Ham's attempt to build a replica of the Ark and how he couldn't fill it with live animals because the methane they produced would have suffocated all of his guests without millions of dollars worth of vents and forced air circulation. That's why Ken filled it up with stuffed animals instead.
@@cosmictreason2242 What testimony of the flood? The only testimony I'm aware of is Ken Ham's attempt to build a replica of the Ark and how he couldn't fill it with live animals because the methane they produced would have suffocated all of his guests without millions of dollars worth of vents and forced air circulation. That's why Ken filled it up with stuffed animals instead.
I just want to say, I think Blog & Mablog may be the best RUclips channel name I’ve ever seen. The double entendre and the pun in one vicious line. Absolutely love it man.
Um, we can predict weather 2 weeks in advance, maybe in your red-neck trailer park area of the US you can't read weather maps. We know what happened 6 billion years ago because the sun wasn't even around then.
Millions of years guys would be comedy relief if their misdirection wasn’t so tragic, and false. God could’ve done everything he said in Genesis in a microsecond. The days were for our benefit.
Yeah, I have a well thought out post as to why Doug is wrong, and he just deleted it. He forgets Jeremiah 4 or the fact that Yom in Hebrew doesn't always mean day. Or the fact that the Sun, Moon, and stars were made on the 4th day. But hey, why let things like the Bible get in the way of your pet theory?
The reason the left can’t meme is shown here. It’s not that they’re too dumb to understand what you meant. It’s that they’re unwilling to acknowledge the point of anything you say, because if you are able to make a meaningful statement then that could lead to you eventually proving them wrong and causing them to have a worldview crisis. So they must ruin every joke, intentionally misunderstand everything you say, because their goal is not to prove you wrong but to destroy your ability to communicate effectively. They’re being intellectual terrorists in other words
@@aallen5256 if nobody knew you were one such atheist, they would now, because you’ve just fulfilled the very thing i was describing. Great job exposing yourself
@@cosmictreason2242 Don’t be silly. You know you’ve just described the fundamentalist position exactly; “unwilling to acknowledge the point of anything you say because … proving them wrong [would cause them] to have a worldview crisis”.
I want a reaction video to Willie Lane Craig's crazy ideas of a millions years old earth and neanderthals being our first ancestors (before adam in some talks, and adam was one in others). And he believes wholly in macro evolution. Would like to get a biblical christian, like Doug, in a Doug Reacts/ Responds video! Thank you brother Doug, and all at Canon Press
It's clear Craig does not hold to innerancy in the same way that Doug does and most evangelicals do. His "mythological" interpretation of Genesis gives him license to interpret the text in a very loose manner. I suspect that Doug has a similar view of Craig to James White.
@@philblagden Come on, you should at least, read WLC writings on the matter before saying he doesn't believe in inerrancy. His usage of the word 'Mythos' isn't what you think it is. There is a book by WLC about the defense of a historical Adam and Eve.
Excellent point bringing up Matthew 19 : 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that *at the beginning* the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ Another verse saying the same thing is Mark 10 : 6 “But *at the beginning of creation* God ‘made them male and female.’
I would push back that ANIMAL death isnt inheritantly bad since God has given us dominion over the animals to consume their bodies. If death of animals was morally wrong, then all Christians today should be vegetarians, upholding God's "original design". I believe death entering the world because of the fall is talking strictly about humanity's spiritual and bodily death, not animals.
I agree. There is no reason to think the death that came thru Adam isn't talking about death to men. Talk about special pleading. Why separate plants and bacteria and mosquitoes from other life?
While pre-Flood, it appears vegetarianism would have been the prescribed mode, but post-Flood, God explicitly gives everything that moves as food for man. "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Gen 9:3. He changed the "original design," and there's no biblical reason for Christians to return to it. If it ever was, post-Fall-pre-Flood, "morally wrong" to kill and eat animals, it's not wrong going forward. It should be noted that God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve while they were in the Garden and it was the animal sacrifice of Abel that pleased God. It might be interesting to consider the purpose of the Tree of Life in the Garden. God said Adam and Eve could eat anything in the Garden except the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That suggests continuous eating from the Tree of Life was what gave immortality. Were all the animals also being kept alive by eating from the Tree of Life? Keeping fallen man from gaining access to the Tree of Life after Adam was driven from the Garden was important enough that God set cheribim up as guards to prevent further access (Ge 3:22, 24). So was loss of access to the Tree of Life the means by which "death entered the world"? For man and animals?
@Jon Jaeden of the design changed thrn how can you dogmatically say the old design was good and what it meant to be good. If it isn't good that animals die, then it isn't good either way.
@@steveschlichter4500 The creation was good because God declared it so. He judges his own work. He's God, we're not. Pre-flood, God slew an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. He showed his pleasure at Abel's animal sacrifice and rejected Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables. Death for animals -- pre-Flood -- was not off the table. And, during the Flood, God himself wipes out every animal and human on earth, save those on the Ark. What changes post-Flood is that, whereas he had previously given Adam and Eve every plant, except the Tree of Life, to eat, he now gives Noah every animal. God thought that was good.
Now this is what I call a good teacher of the Word. Some so called bible teachers fall so hard when it comes teaching the age of the earth. They separate Gen 1: 1 and Gen 1:2. Just to accommodate millions of years age of the earth.
The Bible is a flat Earth book from Genesis to Revelation. On the other hand, there are numerous incidental phrases as well as entire passages in the Bible that support the conclusion that its authors believed the earth to be flat. Take the phrase “the ends of the earth,” which arose among people whose creation stories easily illustrate their flat-earth beliefs, a phrase just as ubiquitous in the Bible as it is in Mesopotamian literature. Deuteronomy 13:7 speaks of “the people that are round about you…from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth.” Isaiah 40:28 says, “[the Lord is] the Creator of the ends of the earth.” Job 28:24 states, “He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.” Also note the use of “the ends of the earth” in Job 38:12-13, in which God asks Job: “Hast thou commanded the morning…that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?” God is comparing the earth to a blanket or garment picked up at one end and shaken. The dawn grasps the earth by its “extremity or hem” (Hebrew, kanap; see Numbers 15:38 and 1 Samuel 15:27) and shakes the wicked out of it. This is immediately followed in the same chapter of Job by the depiction of the earth as a piece of clay (presumably a clay tablet, something flat and stationary) whose surface is changed by the impression of a seal..." The Christian Delusion (pp. 125-126). Globe Pequot. Kindle Edition.
Good job. You eventually covered the dilemma of time, which poses many issues to all sides of readers. Many conservatives (including myself) are too soon to hold that the earth is exactly 6000 years old; when in reality the concept of time in regular intervals may even have been foreign to Adam or in the garden of Eden. There is simply too much unknown to accept one way or another. But neither does holding to views loosely denies the authenticity, validity, and authority of the Scriptures.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
I realize this is something of a deflection and doesn't get to the heart of the issue, but I think it is very important to follow the through line where the materialist, "rational", and "science based" world views have taken us. We have come full circle to the point where academics are rejecting the idea of biological sex. Where people say things like "some men menstruate", and "That man is going to give birth." etc. Some academics have pushed back against this and said that it's not "real science". They are desperately trying to hold the tide back from their sand castles, but it is futile. Sometimes a false world view can seem fairly convincing when it has only strayed a "little" from the truth. Give it a little time and it will become apparent how weak the foundation really is.
Not at all. You're living in it right now. God created an impossibly huge fission reactor in space that sprays a continuous stream of visible radiation at exactly the right distance from you so as to be enjoyable with the least amount of danger - a little thing simpletons like me sometimes call sunlight. Every day we get to go out and frolick in it, as free as you like. These are things which the angels desire to look into.
If you've ever taken a class in designing and building digital databases, one of the first things you're taught is that you first create the form (i.e. structure, relationships, etc) of the database, then you populate it with objects or data. That is very much what I see in Genesis 1. It begins by telling us the earth had no form and it was empty; it had not been populated with objects because there was no structure to hold them or intelligence to define relationships among them. So, on Days 1 -- 3, God creates forms: Light, Waters Above and Below with an Atmosphere, and Dry Land with Vegetation. On Days 4 -- 6, God populates those forms with objects of his creation: Sun, Moon, Stars; Creatures of the Sea & Air; and, Land Animals and Man, respectively. Days 1 & 4 are paired, as are Days 2 & 5 and Days 3 & 6. Gen 1:2 - Earth formless and empty Day 1 - Light Day 4 - Sun, Moon, Stars Day 2 - Waters, Atmosphere Day 5 - Creatures of the Sea & Air Day 3 - Vegetated Land Day 6 - Land Animals, Man This form/object understanding of Genesis 1 is similar to Plato's focus on form and idea vs Aristotle's focus on objects and empiricism. It echoes the philosophical concept of the One and the Many. And this does not require a commitment one way or the other to whether the days are figurative or literal or to Young Earth or Old Earth Creation. Speaking for myself, once I see the pattern, I can't unsee it.
@@steveschlichter4500 Well if you believe the Word of Moses, Genesis itself was written by Moses, in order to believe in Jesus you must believe in what Moses wrote, including Genesis, without modifying what was written. "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47 "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2 “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." - Deuteronomy 12:32 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." - Revelation 22:18-19 You also cannot believe in the word of liars and thieves who rob from God as the children of Satan in foolishly trying to destroy Him, because they are enemies at war with God, there is no neutral ground, do not use man's wisdom to interpret what God has given. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." - Deuteronomy 29:29 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8 "Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?" - Isaiah 2:22 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones." - Proverbs 3:5-8 The world can only be interpreted by what God has given, but if you do not regard in every detail of your thought first, you cannot understand that which He has already given to us and you will be made blind and immature. But for one to mature they must put full trust not in their wisdom nor the wisdom of man but what God has already said. The reason of our faith (not the faith itself, but the reason after our faith) must extend from this wisdom, not taken from some other source. Do not be deceived by what the world wants to feed you, Satan has devised many outlooks of the world to fool man, if we are taken captive then it is to devalue God by our nature and not value Him by His. A full cup cannot be filled any longer but not to the empty cup, do not be filled with that which is of little worth before you are filled fully in God's knowledge. A fool will be made wise but to he who thinks he is wise he shall be made a fool by God, do not trust those who are themselves a fool to God before you trust God only. Once you have found these things I'd suggest checking out Answers in Genesis, especially their Ice Age talk, for it especially gets into the details through a Scriptural lens for which rational judgement of science make sense after we follow God, not before.
The fact that you can see a pattern doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also clearly say what it says. 144 hours is how long it took to make the world and it was made 6000 years ago
One caveat' that is always overlooked in any discussion of origins - a precise biblical definition of what sort of "death" Adam introduced into the world.
Thesis 1: Excellent. Thesis 2: Also correct, but since it's so easy to claim to believe in biblical inerrancy, this is somewhat meaningless. The proof is in the pudding-can a person show that his interpretation of Scripture is consistent? Thesis 3: Absolutely excellent. Thesis 4: Another way of saying this is that it isn't only Genesis that teaches a young earth, it's the consistent message of Scripture. The authors of Scripture assume the basic narrative of: perfect world, fall, redemption. So you can't have your old earth evidence and have a consistent view of Scripture. This is also why old earthers hold to a local rather than global flood. Thesis 5: Brilliant. If death and suffering precede Adam, then "good" becomes meaningless, and the implications are lethal for any belief system that holds to that. Thesis 6: Another argument for biblical consistency. Thesis 7: Excellent.
As an Old Earth Creationist I appreciate Doug’s arguments and his desire to get the text right. He should really debate someone from Reasons To Believe. It would be a great conversation!
I think that's point of these brilliant thesis - for example "God created the Stars and the entire rope of star-light in-between" - think about it - meaning, why wait billions of years for just that portion alone of creation to play out? So --- an Old Earth Creationist and a New Earth Creationist, if affirming their debate should consider what is measured scientifically to be accurate but at the same time consider in the same context of creation to be a literal 6 days sequence as well - i.e. under the same one authority, The Lord, the Creator himself. I think the interesting part, would be checking if there is in fact corroborating natural science to validate that the two periods are in fact correct, the measured and what actually happened.
@@thecrypt5823 Uhmm not quite! They NOT both held in scripture because the Bible plainly says six days of Creation, going as far as affirming literally "...there was evening and morning..." of day X. Here is the conundrum, what we measure now, versus the state it was created in. Meaning, the Word of the Lord is still perfect, but we humans, trying to extrapolate backwards, expect our measurements to be asymptotic to some initial point of time, working backwards. The points of light, meaning the stars, on day four, shone already, hence even at that point, the universe to a physical observer "measured" billions of years old already, although it was created on day four. But again, this still conjecture, because we still don't know except starting by trusting the Word of the Lord, as being a good place to start testing all things...
@@thecrypt5823 But does it? What does one mean by "Old Earth Creationist"? Do they not understand that you are starting off trusting the fallen man's presuppositions in order to read the text. What then would Jesus had believed?
@@drsproc It seems to have taken 13.8 billion years for the light to get to us from the edge of the observable universe, according to our time. According to the time of the photons taking that trip at the speed of light, that time is instantaneous. Age of the universe from the perspective of the photons: Zero. Just something interesting to think about.
Can anyone tell me if Doug has done a video or blog post on why he thinks we're going back to being a Christian country? We're so far gone, I have very little hope for that.
It astounds me how we Christians go on about believing the Bible as the infallible Word of God, speaking absolute truth on matters even when it comes to science, but we ignore what the Bible says in terms of the ancient Hebrew understanding of cosmology-which was based on scripture. According to this monologue it is appropriate to exclude people who do not believe the Bible from the debate about the age of the earth, but then assumes we should be deferring to those same people when it comes to the "solar system" and "space". Neither NASA nor the scientific establishment accepts the Bible's thesis on the origin of life or the age of the earth. They think we are literally insane for believing a sky man magically created everything out of nothing. We are skeptical of the corruption and lies of government, with many examples cited by Doug himself. Yet, we trust them blindly when it comes to cosmology; based on what? The same *admitted* CGI and fanciful made-up equations Doug mocks in this very monologue. Many Christians may be surprised to find out that you cannot agree with the Bible and NASA when it comes to where we live.
People believed the earth went around the sun for hundreds of years before nasa. But nobody believed flat earth theory until a nasa engineer made it up. That’s a fact
You are absolutely correct. Try to find a church that teaches Biblical Cosmology. I’ve been to dozens of churches many denominations & never have I heard Genesis taught correctly. Genesis 1 contradicts what most “think” they believe. Earth day One, Sun & Moon Day Four. Earth had no Sun to revolve around. But completely ignorant of Copernicus..
I have a problem with “Christians” who reject the miracle of Creation in 7 days because of “science”, but they accept the miracle of Resurrection. Because?
I accept the miracle of the Resurrection and AN OLD earth because of corroboration information. I must be consistent in my interpretation - That's why I agree with "Reasons to Believe" To argue that there were 24h-days in Genesis is to misinterpret the passage (based on the Chicago Statement) Same as saying the earth has 4 corners and not moving in space - is to apply faulty logic to make the bible say something that it doesn't say, like the earth is flat and in the center of the universe Genesis is all about "Who Created" NOT: "When He Created" Babies are a miracle from God, they take 9 months to be born - Just because there's a process that does NOT mean God is not responsible for it, or is in any way less of a miracle. Just because there are long "yoms" / "days" in Genesis that does not mean in any way that this event is less of a miracle from God Hope my response helps
They like the miracle of resurrection because it makes them feel good, but the miracle of 7 day creation goes against their big brain science they worked hard to learn in school, which makes them feel bad. It's pride, basically. They hold their own thoughts as a higher authority than God's Word.
Interesting video! I love Doug Wilson and watch him all the time, but I am an Old Earth adherent. Nevertheless, none of us should be smug about our view of the age of the earth because problems can be found in both young and old earth views. Did the Fall trigger a major re-creation of the carnivore species? Did Adam understand what God meant about dying if he was disobedient prior to the fall? Is the Genesis creation account actually about this earth? Was the Scientific Revolution not a product of Western Christianity? It is true that some "science" is "so called science." Darwin's "science" was and is based upon his atheism. But does that mean that all earth science is wrong? What about Geology and uniformitarianism? Is that not based upon the teachings of Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 and indicative of great age? I would be very curious as to how many young earth believers accept the notion of Copernicus that the earth actually moves despite the fact that Psalm 104:5 reads that the earth shall not be moved? I know that Martin Luther did not accept Copernicus. And yet, Martin Luther remains one of my heroes.
@@ifeawosika966 do you consider the technology you use every day to be a fairy tale ? Do you have any idea how a wireless signal works ? It may a well be magic to you. Any science you use is ok just if the Bible says different. There are not two scientific methods just one
The temperature at the centre of a star is solidly worked out from physics. Its not conjecture. Secondly I’m a Christian who holds to an old earth persuasion but accept biological evolution as pseudoscience.
@@manager0175nope, no evidence. If youre talking about natural selection and variation due to genetics then sure. Cant add info, only take away. Unless its a mutation, but thats not a good thing.
Solidly? Nothing is solidly worked out until we actually went and measured it for sure which no one has done. Why is it the chemists always have to remind everyone that the theory has to be proven in the terra firma to become law?
@@darthbigred22 You cant have a solar surface temperature of 5700C without a nuclear fusion process deep within its core. Those reactions require temperatures of the the order of 10^7. How else do you propose the sunshines? Burning coal perhaps?
Which of the following is the best way to measure the age of the Earth? Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago.
Just wanted to recommend a book presenting a positive case for a 6-day view from the scriptural evidence. In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2 by Cornelis Van Dam.
As a Christian who will stand on the inerrancy of scripture forever and will affirm a 6 day creation timeline i do have to say Genesis 1 poses an interpretive challenge for me. The language of the chapter or the layout can be seen as a narrative of events or in my opinion a word play analogy with narrative aspects included. Adams cpming from the dust since it is affirmed in the curse of chapter 3 should be considered literal. But where do you draw the line? "Day" is also up for debate sonce according to Hebrews the 7th day rest never ended thus the 7th day never ended. I truly belueve the most important question when interpreting the scriptures is what did the original audience affirm to. I must and will conform my interpretation to that. Whoever reads this understand i am new to this debate having been a literal translation believer since recently. Im not about to go liberal. I just think t it does seem both sides of narrative or literary analogy have valid points to make. Afain however how does the rest of s ripture and the original audience understand this passage? Any comments i ask for references to scholarly works not personal opinion.
It gives the lifespans of all patriarchs Adam through Joseph and when they were begotten by their father, so we have a nice, very specific age of the earth.
@@YayGrr1 You are confusing the age of humanity with the age of the earth! They are not synonymous! Secondly, Hebrew genealogies tend to only list the highlights of the essential people in the lineage and not the entire list.
Why don’t you read the Urantia Revelation? It’s so much clearer and simpler. You won’t lose your ‘religion’. Such a wonderful view of the cosmos and our place in it. We are being trained for a glorious service as we move on. Daune
"What does day mean in the days of creation? The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” As it is clear that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11,12 and 17 for such a usage. The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis.” - Francis Schaeffer (Genesis in Space and Time)
"And there was evening and there was morning" repeated for each day in the account explicitly indicates definition (1): twenty-four hours is the one used in Genesis 1. God left no wiggle-room.
@@gunstonerocks1427 The way you phrase that comment seems to imply the 7th day is peculiar, so just to make sure: you grant the first 6 days of creation are explicitly noted as calendar days, regardless of whether the Hebrew word translated "day" can have other definitions in other contexts?
@@gunstonerocks1427 it wouldn’t make the other 6 days longer than 24 hrs. And we are not still in the 7th day otherwise Exodus 20 would be saying you are to work for one week and take the rest of your life off. Also the 7th day was blessed but how is it blessed and very good if God cursed the whole creation on that day? The fall took place on a different day. The 7th day ended just like the others, it just wasn’t necessary to spell it out. Jesus says “my father is working even to today” so he’s clearly not still resting. Repent of your foolishness
Time was most certainly constructed for our benefit, I say benefit because like everything else about the world we live in it is singularly attainable only here.
I reject debating cause how can two people do that when one person is being dishonest. It is dishonest to say that the word yom/day can be a metaphor without having a comparison. For instance: she is the day to his night is a metaphor or Colin swam with the speed of a dolphin. But not only that they misuse the term literal and figurative which has nothing to do with whether Adam is real or not or if events in Genesis are historical. They are how we build narratives whether their historical or fantasy and help us describe events in all genres. The first of Genesis if it was in any other book would be seen as literal and not figurative but because it's the Bible and people would rather believe scientists they would rather believe the word day is a metaphor. My question is if you were God why would you wait a billion years for humans when you can just do it in 7 days. I would want to get right to it.
The language of the Bible is pretty clear when it says, "Morning and evening was the first day." Why would you use the phrase "Morning and evening..." when talking about millions of years? Also, since disease and death entered the creation AFTER Adam sinned, how could there be dinosaur bones with evidence of disease, if dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before man? Consider the fact that God gives us a model for working six days and resting on the seventh. What is the model; God creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. We don’t work for six million years and then rest for a million years. Also, while there are clearly metaphors in the Bible, such as Jesus being the bread of life, or the rock of our salvation, we can't just assume a particular verse is a metaphor because the clear meaning doesn't fit our particular denominational theology. In other words, do we adjust our understanding of scripture to fit what science says, or do we adjust our understanding of science to fit what the Holy, Infallible Word of God says? In this day and age many professing to be Christian are adjusting what they believe to fit what society and "science" claim to be true. The Bible calls homosexuality a sin and that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God, yet many denominations are saying our thinking needs to come into the 21st century and realize that what the scripture says about sexuality just might be outdated. Hence, when God says He made humans male and female, He was not quite right; there are really many more genders. When God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, He was actually mistaken. Even though every atom of a man's body may say he is a man, society says science is wrong IF this particular man "identifies" as a woman. I think the danger is this; if we deny that "morning and evening was the first day..." means what it says, then we can, at least in our thinking, begin to change the meaning of what the Bible says about gender, about marriage, about adultery, fornication, drinking, pornography and a whole host of other things including, is Jesus REALLY the only way to be saved!
One of the big errors with old earth and evolutionary (hand in glove) interpretations is that they discard the plain meaning in favour of purely typological interpretations. It is no wonder those camps never have a unified understanding of creation and need to keep producing new ideas. Typology when it is not anchored to the text is a springboard for much futility if not serious error
@@spacemanspiff9773 literal doesn’t mean literalistic. We use language the same way today. Sunrise, sunset, “The White House ordered..” hey, houses don’t order things!
@@spacemanspiff9773 No, and we can have a straightforward interpretation of Genesis without having to do that. What you just did is a subtle form of strawman.
Idk if it’s due to the speed at which he delivers his points, but this is another lecture that went in one ear and right out the other. He doesn’t seem to really say anything other than the Bible says so. And thats fine. But it would be more helpful to keep it pithy if that’s his only argument. Maybe I just need to listen to it again.
So, if I were to take everything literally as Doug suggests, did God create snakes with legs on Day 6 and then because of one snake they all lost their legs? And when Laban pursued Jacob for 7 days (Gen 31.23) he actually and literally ran 168 hours after him non-stop?
Yep, that's the fundamentalist position: Noah literally lived for 950 years, Laban literally ran for 168 hours, the first human female was literally created from a rib.
Why doesn’t Wilson accept the “prima fascia” evidence in the text for a dome over the earth, pillars under the earth or the earth being a circular disc?
I agree with Doug’s starting point, that all knowledge is subject to revelation. He isn’t taking into account basic hermeneutics. If we are to take authorial intent seriously, then it is an assault on scripture to ask questions of it that it’s authors didn’t intend to answer. Yes, let us make dogmatic statements based on the meaning of scripture. You cannot make the case that Moses in the Torah, or any other biblical author of any other book, was ever intending to teach us the age of the earth. Therefore, we cannot make dogmatic statements about it either old or new. Theistic macroevolution would contradict Genesis, as I think cosmological and human origins are not outside the bounds of Moses’ intent in writing Genesis even if they are not his express concern. When was the earth created? “In the beginning”. That’s all that matters. Trying to divine age from the implication of genealogies doesn’t take into account the intent or function of genealogy in scripture. IMO, Ken Ham’s enterprise hinders people from actually READING the Torah. The answers are indeed in Genesis, when we ask the questions that Genesis is intending to answer.
If we have Jesus, our God and Creator, telling us Adam & Eve were created at the beginning of creation, then it's easy to see creation is not billions of years old.
“But *at the beginning of creation* God ‘made them male and female.’ (Mark 10 : 6) “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that *at the beginning* the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (Matthew 19 : 4) This lines up perfectly with *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."* (Genesis 1 : 1) Since Jesus is the Creator (John 1 : 3), then I'm going with his testimony that the creation of the heavens, the earth, Adam, and Eve were all at the beginning.
@@EyeToob when did I say he didn’t make mankind in the beginning? You might want to re-read my comment and examine what assumptions you may be making about my position.
@@EyeToob Why did you list said verses in reply to my particular comment? I mean, thats a really odd response. It doesn’t come across as completely honest. Also, how do any of those verses give you an age for creation? none of the verses tell you how old creation is, they just say, as I said, that it was “in the beginning”. The reason they don’t tell us how old the earth is, is because none of the biblical authors ever cared how old the earth is. The age of the earth is not a matter of special revelation. Its not a matter that matters at all.
@@JefferyHunt The reason I listed those verses in reply to your comment was that it felt like you served up the perfect opportunity for them to be presented. You wrote, "You cannot make the case that Moses in the Torah, or any other biblical author of any other book, was ever intending to teach us the age of the earth." but we do have Jesus teaching us that creation is the same age as mankind. It was like you were pitching an easy to hit, slow, underhanded ball for someone to swing at ... so I took a swing and hit a home run. Any Christian who claims the universe is billions of years old must also show why they believe mankind has also been around for billions of years -- based on what Jesus, our Creator, taught in Mark 10 : 6 and Matthew 19 : 4. I'm not saying you're claiming what the universe's age is, but your initial post should cause the reader to think, "Well then, what's the closest thing in the Bible about the age of creation since none of the authors in the Bible intended to teach directly on the age of the Earth?" Thus my post to your post points us to the age of creation is the same age as mankind's age.
Jesus said that God made them male and female from the beginning not billions of years before. Paul points out that "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Well, who was seeing them from the creation or was it billions of years after?
One of the arguments here that I have a hard time agreeing with is the argument that death was brought into the world through Adam. I've always taken the passage to mean the death of humans and not speaking to animals. After all the parallel to Adam bringing forth death is Jesus bringing forth life. That life is not promised to the animals and seems to be only for humans. I will admit that there does seem to be some redemption for animals considering the Lion will lay with the Lamb ect. But it seems difficult to understand how death would not be a feature of the pre-fall oceans. I'm not opposed to answers that contradict what I am saying here but I am being honest that I am not sure the text is saying what Doug is saying that it is saying. I think Lewis's discussion of this in the Problem of Pain and subsequent letters is a good investigation on the subject (regardless of Lewis's views on scripture, which I would maintain are far more conservative than he at times lets on.) I get the argument that Doug here makes on God's goodness and death before the fall. But the solution that I am struggling with is does the text verify the theory. Is it possible we could be missing the correct theory on how God's goodness could be justified with the death of animals?
I agree with Augustine that the book of Nature does not and cannot contradict the book of revelation. Both of these books needs intelligent interpretation and we can fail on both. What is sure is that when one reading of both is inconsistent then either both are wrong or at least one is wrong. Scientific mode of thinking are not the same as theological mode of thinking and both are difficult and fallable.
Gabriel, actually gets around. He appears to David, at least twice. He visited Mary to tell her she would be visited by the holy spirit. That makes God, a quad, or family.
This is a good opportunity to start teaching of the evolution of ancient language and civilization. Languages before the 8th century BC have really interesting and consistent representations of ancient nouns and name-places. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. ... And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. ... When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground- then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The creation account isn’t about origins. It’s about the source. The source is yhwh and that’s the point. The Bible is not about geology, zoology, or biology and if you make it something that it’s not it becomes a self defeating prophecy. This is why young earth creationist lose in debates 100% of the time. It’s embarrassing.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
I think the real question I have is "what do you mean by Old Earth Creationist?" Because you have to actually define what that means before I can address it, if you say it is evolution, there are addresses I can give, but if you merely say it is an old age of Earth, prey tell where this age comes from and where it lies? I can address with many questions, but few every consider the presuppositions and axioms they already accept to make their arguments, often they accept some else's claims without question and then say "it just must make sense" without considering perhaps that your presumptions of reality themselves are founded on liars and thieves? I am more disturbed by the Christian's willingness to lean into the liars presuppositions and be deceived by man's philosophies and the elemental spirits of the world, does no one remember Colossians 2:8?
@@aallen5256 Because natural selection divides the genetics so as to reduce the information within the genetics, they were already of different kinds, what Ken Ham's people calls an Orchard of Life instead of a Tree of Life, many Orchards were given to each their own kind, and then with this full information of every animal in their genetics, they interbred and would lose genetic information in their offspring in order to develop into many varieties which could shift according to the environment, we can most especially confirm this by interbreeding hybrids, with this we know the spotted cat, house cat, leopard, panther, and lion are all of the same kind. This does not always work, some factors can disturb this work, but if you can also use morphology for this too, like for example the Cheetah is also related to the cat kind, as it carries all the traits related to a cat in its morphology, but it cannot breed with any cat because its so inbreed that its genetic information only allows it to breed with other Cheetahs. Many species already existed, and with God's providence through the full spectrum of genetics information that the creatures had, the kinds could develop into more distinct appearances. But God does not judge by appearance as man does, so too those who care for truth must not observe by appearance. Simply put, true natural selection is the antithesis to evolution, for evolution requires adding spontaneous genetic information, but natural selection removes genetic information from each generation that becomes more specified. I suggest you look up Answers in Genesis' Ice Age talk where it goes into massive detail about all of this. That is if you truly care about how we deal with this Biblically.
@@Spartan322 This is too much confusion for me to engage with, but Ken Ham thinks there were dinosaurs on the ark!! And he totally disregards the fact that all obligate carnivores from house cats to t-Rex would need to eat meat to survive. His explanations only convince fundamentalists!
@@aallen5256 "Ken Ham thinks there were dinosaurs on the ark!!" Why wouldn't dinosaurs be able to enter the Ark? "And he totally disregards the fact that all obligate carnivores from house cats to t-Rex would need to eat meat to survive." And do you know what the Earth was like in the time of Noah before the Flood? Do you know what animals he had? The Ark Encounter already got into this explanation but you make up claims to try and make it sound foolish. For example, how do you know that in Noah's time he had to bring a T-Rex? See thing is we don't know if it was a T-Rex, it could be of the same kind as the T-Rex, we don't even know if its kind was one that was only ever a carnivore, we aren't even sure if that's strictly true, and it would be a juvenile at the oldest anyway. (less food consumption, less waste, smaller size, more potential to reproduce) Answers in Genesis have already answered this. Besides they didn't start as carnivores anyway, in the Garden there was no death, so one could not consume flesh. Why do you assume then that they could only exist as to eat flesh? Maybe that's the case or maybe after the Flood the ones on the Ark could also develop as to eat flesh, we don't have anything on that. And its not just Ken Ham, I don't even get why you're so hateful, spiteful, and rude about this, do you not realize that your engagement with me is itself sinful? As is the way you refer to Ken Ham. I wonder of your understanding of the Biblical text if this is how you respond. Am I not a brother in Christ? Do you accuse me of being a heretic? Do you judge me as a false follower of Jesus? What of the judgement upon another and divisions in the Church? Do you say that a fundamentalist isn't saved? What do you even mean by fundamentalist? Is not the Bible itself fundamental to truth? If it is not, then is the Word of Moses not fundamental to the ministry of Jesus? Then what of John 5:45-47? Would you reject Jesus to be glorified by man? Would you be taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit, by the traditions of man, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ? (Colossians 2:8) What is a fundamentalist that you think they are of so little worth? Are they of less value then God's Word? The greatest virtue being love, yet where does it reside? What itself is love?
@@Spartan322 I won’t say it’s demonism, but with many unbelievers there’s this kind of uncontrollable “mask-off” spitefulness where they can’t help themselves and always reveal their true nature (which only the naive can’t discern)
“Once we have limited participants that way …” -> Meaning: once we only discuss with people who accept our own standpoint, it is easier to reach a “consensus”. What a revelation!! BTW: When people discuss “the age of the earth” of course they mean the age of the earth counted from today. Please do not give us this phony excuse at the beginning of this video :-O
So here’s my question: Admittedly, I don’t have time to do all the research into the science of archaeological dating and whatnot. And I’ve heard from believers and nonbelievers that there’s issues with this process. But, how do YEC’s make sense of supposed civilizations that existed before 6k years ago? Some say Sumeria existed in 4500BC, which itself would put the clock back to 6500 years. And for a civilization to have been around 6500 years ago, that would obviously imply it was more than just 2 people, since it was a civilization. I find this harder to debate than the age of the Earth itself. If people and other humanoid creatures had been around much longer than 6000 years, then what do you do with that? Sincerely, A Christian who would have no problem with believing YEC, but if evidence suggests there were civilizations more than 6k years ago, acknowledges the potential implications of the entire Gospel story given Jesus himself pointing to Adam and Eve and the numerous references Paul makes to them, how sin entered the world, and how we now are saved. Thanks y’all 💙
You people are geniuses! Never mind that the great flood was written about first in the The Epic of Gilgamesh. Hmmmm? Plagiarism? Not an original idea, hmmmm? Myths ripped off from other myths, hmmmm?
@@Lombokstrait1 Or you know other people experiencing the same super natural event and putting their own ethnic spin on it. We already see what Muslims did to the Bible. Moses was black with a huge dick for example. Jesus killed and revived little birds for fun as a child. Oh and depending on if your are arab or persian determines if you are Sunni or Shia. You're the one who thinks chemistry will eventually prove the origin of life (and we're nowhere near that STILL after almost 70 years of experimentation). What Francis Crick said about a tornado hitting a junk yard to make a 747 is the same as atoms forming the first living cell just needs to be ignored right? You think Carbon 14 decays perfectly, whether I heat a rock up, blast it with light, or soak it in radiation the Carbon -14 decays the same because reasons. You have no explanation why newly formed magma can't give it's correct age either. You actually think Plateosaurus evolved into Stegosaur and that all the biological software along with all the genes for the physiological traits all came by luck. Sure is lucky that a bird not only has wings but understands the concepts of flight and even evolved lungs to handle higher altitudes. Say where are the in-betweens of those animals at? Oh right I know Punctuated Equilibrium! Amazing how the starving homeless guy in the middle of winter spends his last dollar on a lottery ticket and wins everytime isn't it? Because that's what Punctuated Equilibrium is saying: life doesn't evolve until a crisis event and then kicks it into high gear in times when you wouldn't even know the outcome of the crisis event in the longrun. Your geological nonsense requires you to believe the layers are all millions of years and yet when some parts of the world are missing a layer that's millions of years old that was erosion. It only effects certain layers cause reasons. You confidently held our ancestors believing in sea monsters like giant squid was nonsense. Until we found them. You confidently held fossils had mineralized to the point no soft tissues were in them. Until we found them. You claim then that chemistry got it wrong and the fossil is still millions of years old because reasons. AND all of this is because deep down you want to be a hedonist and not out of any real desire for the truth which is why your kind have conniption fits when "the science" undoes one of your tenants. I'd rather your crowd drop the "yay science" act and just say you want to butt fuck kids it's more honest.
@@Lombokstrait1 You do realize every civilization has a great flood with a man who built a boat to preserve him and often the species of the world. The records for that are much older then the Epic, could it not possibly be that it happened and merely everyone is writing about what actually happened, corrupting and missing elements but speaking to other similar elements. Much like how a witness may describe some details and miss out on others, if we have even two independent witnesses who corroborate the same event with non-contradicting but distinct details, we already know that account is fact, how much more do the many people all independent yet to have corroborated such an event? This doesn't demonstrate anything and is in reality a fallacy. It doesn't even demonstrate plagiarism because they could all be describing the same event. And facts aren't something you can plagiarize.
@@Spartan322 Not true at all!! If there really had been a cataclysmic global flood, archipelagic nations like Japan would have such a myth - they do not. If it happened, why did developed civilisations that would have been apocalyptically effected make no record of it, neither in history or legend?
Remember, God created a tree that bore fruit that was ‘pleasing to the eye and good for food’ and ‘desirable for obtaining wisdom’ and this was the fruit He told us not to eat-why didn’t God make it more obvious that it was deadly and horrifically catastrophic to our condition? Because God tests us. God wants to prove (to us) what we will do when forced to choose between His word and our logic. The serpent and the woman approached the fruit with a step-by-step adherence to the scientific method. They questioned, observed, hypothesized, and tested, and it killed all of us. Science and the wisdom of man are abysmally insufficient to survive as a creature subject to God’s judgement.
I come in peace. I think this is pointless, because it will always come down to a critical point the Lord Himself once made in the inspired-oh yes, and infallible and inerrant Scriptures-that have been so faithfully attested to and handed down to Believers in Jesus Christ since the dawn of the New Testament: Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?” That’s in the Gospel according to Luke at 10:26. Go ahead-look it up in any and every translation available and language (I speak, read and write three major ones.) My background is Biochemistry and Geology and Creative Writing. I grew up on what was available on the question of Origins, put out by John Morris, before Ken Ham materials became available to me. Now it’s all wearying-because all it appears to be is a word game. There are philosophical presuppositions involved a priori. The Bible speaks all the truth about Physics and every other branch of the Sciences (it provided the framework for the Scientific Method in the first place!) but I think its point is Metaphysics, not Physics. One last point: The Christian Establishment should stop playing at gatekeepers by insisting on YEC while labeling everyone else misguided. Just lay allow for all to examine all the data.
"And behold, a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28 NASB) What relevant point you are reading in our Lord's words here?
Yes! I will ever be grateful to my youth pastor who said that just as God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, with the appearance of age but not actual age, so He also create the Earth with everything in motion for it to continue. If that requires a universe that has the appearance of age without actual age, so be it. Therefore as a young earth creationist I have no problem w/ an actually young universe appearing old. Some of my brethren expend great efforts to make an old looking universe appear young. My efforts are placed elsewhere.
@@mkd4life40 That bats are birds, insects have 4 legs, the mustard seed is the smallest seed, and leprosy can be cured by sacrificing birds. Too many to mention...
So your approach to science is to decide on the outcome at the onset and then work out the details. I don't think science means what you think it means. Good luck ignoring the evidence.
@@M3MAX so your approach to knowledge, is that an obviously flawed book says it's true. Let me give you a syllogism. 1) The Bible contains laughable myths. 2) The flood and creation myths are laughably false. 3) So quit pretending the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Any more evidence free assertions?
@@chuckyfarley9465sure while I'm at it.. You are unregenarate sinner that will spend an eternity(much longer than 6K years) suffering in nonstop torment. Turn from your oh so mature and scientific pride before its too late. Turn to the only one that can save you.
The Bible actually states that God "stretched out" the heavens, so He created the stars and then stretched them out which is how we see light from stars millions of light years away: Isaiah 40:22 (NIV): "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Isaiah 45:12 (NIV): "It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." Psalm 104:2 (NIV): "He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent."
😂😂amen! Psalms 1:1-2 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Dear Dr. Wilson, 4:51 There is a theory that no one on either side considerers, and that, I think, resolves the issue without compromising the plain language in Genesis, and makes the time issue moot, at least for me. Where in Genesis does it tell us how fast clocks were turning at the moment of creation? I am assuming that the laws of physics came into being along with the physical universe, but no where does Genesis say so, but if the laws did, which I see no reason to think otherwise, then Einstein’s theory of relativity means that time moves faster in relation to gravity. If God held all the matter in the universe, in the palm of His hand, for the millisecond that it took to put it where He wanted it, how much gravity/time distortion would that generate? Even if it was only for a millisecond, then time would have sped up beyond anything we can calculate, if we accept Einstein’s theories. A million years could pass in a second. What conservative Bible believing Christian would argue that God did not create matter, all in one place, in the beginning? I would hope no theologian would be so presumptuous. All the matter in the universe is less than a speck of dust to Almighty God. Psalm 8 describes God placing the heavenly bodies into their places with His fingers. This would indicate some moment of creation for which we have no way to know the effect on time. E=MC2. Think about it, and tell me why I’m wrong.
Search for Walter Veith, his one hell of a scientists and attacks from a scientific standpoint. Impressive work. BTW Jesus affirms the Flood (Luke 17:27)
@@darthbigred22 “attacks,” what? I am not attacking. I am asking how relativity affects time, and if this has been considered, theologically. If in fact relativity affects time, how did the moment of creation affect time? This is not an old age vs young age question. This makes that question moot. I believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God, and the Westminster Standards to be the most theologically correct expression of Biblical Theology. I am a reformed, Calvinistic, covenantal, preteristic, postmillennial, follower of our Lord Jesus Christ who created the world and everything in it, and through whom the atoms holds together by His will.
I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I’m not sold on young earth. It’s not an issue of whether or not the scripture is correct. It’s obviously our understanding of it that we disagree upon. Understanding of scripture varies greatly between other topics as well. Earth age is a secondary issue.
Time isn't really that complicated though? Time is simply motion. Particle A is in Location 1 at Moment X and in Location 2 at Moment Y. "Time" is simply an observation of the rate of change. It's an emergent phenomena caused by energy and matter in motion. And when Particle A bumps into Particle B which then goes on to affect Particles C and D, well now you have Causality. See? Simple enough.
I believe that the Earth is relatively young - created by God much more recently than 4 billion years - but still quite a bit older than 6,000 years. Every bit of evidence to be found in the physical world screams that the Earth has some age to it.
The whole discussions are useless, it clearly says 7 days, so the earth and everything else was created in those 7 days. And often in the bibel it even mentiones that as god rested on the 7th day so shoupd you have the Sabbat... So it basically compares a human 24hr day to a creation day that also had only 24 hrs. And the whole thing is not mentioned in the bibel to be proven by us but more in order for us to believe in it without knowing the how. Thats what believe is about you trust in a fact that you are not sure of, yet we end up being sure that god exists and that what he says is truth. He gives us faith that grows day by day if we want that.🙏🏻
@@dewaldt8104 hi there. Outside of Hebrews, where else would a person go in order to support this idea? btw, I'm not at all looking to debate. A rarity, I know, on Doug's channel ;) I'm genuinely curious if you could point me to a few other places which you think teach this. Thank you.
There is a great deal of flexibility in the interpretation of Genesis, and little reason to be aggressive about any of them. As Douglas Wilson says at the beginning the key is the glory and sovereignty of God, and the validity of scripture. Certainly the "day" of Genesis can mean more than a 24-hour day, especially since that is an artifact we developed once the Sun was put in the sky, which is several "days" after God started creating, and the 7th "day" of God resting from ex nihilo creation is, shall we say, inescapably longer than a 24 hour period. That said, I am fine with a strict 24-hour interpretation as well, it might very well be true. As long as you get the gospel right, I'm flexible with other stuff. And yes, I very strongly agree that scientists are definitely making extraordinarily sketchy guesses and theories about things they know virtually nothing about. I am reminded of science from the 18th century, where they have a few sketchy new concepts about things like electricity, and were guessing wild, outlandish, and ridiculous things because they had too little data to make proper conclusions
Sir, if you are on the team search Walter Veith and his little 10 part series. I'm a chemist and it brought me around. He's a biologist and well frankly if you are still Old Earth after him I'd be shocked he's not nearly as wonky as the Ark guys in Arkansas. Doug was being generous... Jesus affirms the Flood so the most odious event must be taken literal.
I tend to say the earth is 6k years old. But if we take the Bible literally, is it MAYBE 6 days old? On the 7th day everything is very good. Is everything very good? Was everything very good in the garden? No, it was not good that man should be alone. And Adam did not yet have knowledge of good as he had not yet knowledge of evil. Everything was not yet good. But in the 7th day everything was very good.
I agree with you on many biblical teaching but not on this one. The Bible doesn't teach literal 24hr days but Yom or periods of time. If you have an objection it's not with me but with Walter Kaiser.
Every time Yom appears with the word evening, morning, or night, or a numeral, it always means a 24 hour day. Every single time, across thousands of uses in the Old Testament.
The times when the word Yom is used with a number is referring to human history. Genesis 1 is referring to natural history. If context is King, then technically 24hr days do not begin until day 4.
So if God made the light between the distant stars and us then there is no reason to believe that those distant stars actually exist if I believe the universe is young. He could just be sending light to us that makes us "think" it is a galaxy or star, but in this view it doesn't actually have to be there. This feels like deception.
Seven theses, seven comments. 1. If you say that the issue is always what God says, not how old something is, then you are not debating a scientific issue, but a theological one. Theology does not belong in science class. 2. If you accept that this is an internal debate between Christians, then you should keep your internal debate out of public schools. 3. Indeed, keeping the internal Christian debate truly internal *_would_* simplify matters considerably, especially for all the people in public school systems who get pestered with Christian young earthers trying to get them to teach theology in science class. 4. Wait what? Mammoths and Tyrannosaurs will be resurrected, raised, restored in the end of days? Wow... 5. If the fossil record shows that death predates humans, and you cannot agree with that scientific insight on theological grounds, then you should admit you are not doing science, and your theology should be kept out of science classes. 6. If Jesus was fully human, then it follows that as a first century Jew, he did not know that the origin stories from Genesis he believed, were not actually true. Jesus also does not know when he will return, so there is good precedent for this explanation. 7. You may reject scientific insights because of your religious dogma, but you may not pretend that doing so is scientific. So keep your religious dogma out of the public science curriculum. Please.
Well no. We need Christianity in public schools. I know that offends non Christians, however since we've taken Christianity out of public schools, the public schools have suffered.
@@dewaldt8104 You said: _"We need Christianity in public schools."_ Not in science classes we don't. Secondly, I understand you may feel this way because you yourself happen to be a Christian, but if your local public school were to listen to you, should they then not also listen to Muslim parents demanding Islam be taught, Hindu parents demanding Hinduism, etc. etc.?I hope you can see that this would be both unworkable as well as unreasonable. You said: _"I know that offends non Christians, however since we've taken Christianity out of public schools, the public schools have suffered."_ I don't know if that is true at all. I would like to see the data on that, please. As far as I am aware, the high school graduation rate is as high as it has ever been. As for your claim that Christianity has been "taken out" of public schools, all major religions, including Christianity, should be taught in religious or social studies classes, and because of the gigantic role Christianity has played in our history, art, and culture, it is taught extensively in those contexts as well. In that sense, Christianity was never "taken out" of public schools at all.
If we are required to interpret the days in Genesis as strictly 24 hour periods, must we also interpret the following passages the same way? "Sorrow may last for a night, but joy comes in exactly 12 hours." -Psalm 30:5 "Today, for the next 24 hours only, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." Hebrews 4 "With the Lord, a day is like 24 hours, and 24 hours is like a day." 2 Peter 3:8 And if ALL death is a result of man's sin, why does God speak so approvingly and favorably of plant and animal death in the following passages? "Rise, Peter. Kill and eat." Acts 10:13 "The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God." Psalm 104:21 "Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." John 12:24 I believe that a careful reading of scripture leaves room for a different perspective, without discarding inerrancy. Hugh Ross and the folks at Reasons to Believe are very careful with Scripture, and provide what I believe is a more holistic, whole-Bible approach to the questions at hand, allowing scripture to interpret scripture, and allowing God, who cannot lie, to speak truthfully and faithfully through nature.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone be strict about the number of hours in a day. If it was 23 or 25 hours or so, that doesn't effect young earth arguments. Rather, its more that "day" in Gen 1 is more like how we experience a normal day today, evening and then morning, one day. When "24-hour day" is used, they aren't trying to stress the number of seconds God took to create, but rather to convey this normal human experience of a day. Many creationists will explicitly state that when they are giving a more thorough overview of their position (as opposed to a short blog post). It doesn't matter to us even in this modern age that days can be longer or shorter and we need to shave a second here or add one there to correct it, and given that they didn't even have atomic clocks (and many cultures didn't even have a fixed length hour), over-specifying like this just looks like a dishonest attempt at a strawman rather than a serious point.
Op it’s like you haven’t listened at all. It’s when you see morning abs day in the sane passage, or a number Anna day in yw Dame passage, then it’s a guaranteed normal day. These words in isolation have wider range
Stars are literally hundreds of millions of light-years away, and Adam’s death was spiritual rather than physical. Who wrote the first chapter of Genesis, and what genre does it belong to? Hasn’t God already questioned Job, asking who was there when He created the universe? What is the symbolism in Genesis chapter 1? Finally, the last time I checked, John chapter 3 said that believing in Jesus Christ was the only requirement-not believing in a young earth or a literal six-day creation. Why put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of the Gospel message?
Where did he say this was a salvation issue? Nowhere. As far as Adam's death being only spiritual, there are problems. God killed the animals for skins to cover over the sin. It began the sacrificial system. Also if the death was only spiritual then why did God say to seal up the tree of life because if Adam eats from it he will live forever. Clearly speaking physically. Moses wrote Genesis as historical narrative. I.e. This is what God did.
The argument that God created the distant star light in place is, by far, his most intellectually deficient argument. Why practice science at all if what we see is a lie? If the death caused by the fall was physical then why didnt' they drop dead immediatly? Also why the Cheribium to guard the garden? Why the garden if all of earth was a paradise? P.S. I'm a big fan and also solidly old-earth.
I’m firmly YEC and never liked the starlight-in-transit theory. A god who shows us pictures of things that aren’t really there (e.g. distant supernovas) is a deceptive god. There are better solutions to the distant starlight problem that don’t impugn God’s character.
Some of these arguments of the rejection of starlight in transit instantaneously are surprising me that they are just not accepted and it is because of this.... If God made all the fish and birds on the same day for example he did not make them all babies but fully formed and functioning normally but if you looked at them you would say oh they are few years old or whatever. So after the very minute they were created it looks like they were many many many days old. In other words physics and the laws that govern our world are just being started up so if course everything had to be miraculously supernaturally instantly made when the time got set into motion to function. And the folks who say well where did the light come from before the sun failing to realize that God is light. Paul was blinded by a light brighter than the sun..... you do not think that Christ just appearing hovering over the globe in blazing Glory would not provide the light that the world needed before the sun was made? Like the appropriate heat, pressure, etc? Again if the universe was just being formed and instantly made everything we know about physics has to be suspended during the formation. There is no deception here just in the minds of man making accusations
@@hudjahulos You assume we are correct about what we are seeing. Remember until we get there it's all conjecture. Sadly as well even on the secular science side of things unless we can make wormholes we will never be able to prove any of it.
@@joepavlik808 I've heard Doug make a similar argument. It is a category error. Starlight is a different category from life as are rocks and variouse dating methods etc. With life, the evidence points to complex mechanisms that could only exist if the first versions were full formed. What came first the chicken or the egg? Clearly the chicken. I do think it's likely God created plants as seeds first. Nevertheless, this doesn't contradict clear observation. Starlight created in place is deceptive.
I'm from a family of charismatics turned Southern Baptists back when they were the sing song types. Anyways my parents erroneously thought smart = rich so as a kid I was forced into the sciences. Naturally as a little boy the only thing of appeal is dinosaurs and Jurassic Park came out soon afterwards. That being said I got really into paleontology but realized it didn't pay many bills and instead became a chemist but remained an enthusiast. STAY with me please.
SO while chemistry kept me on the team because we can't bail out the origin of life through biochemistry I had never dove into how carbon dating worked. I never thought to ask myself why certain layers would be missing in some parts of the world (meaning millions of years were eroded away), and I never noticed almost all fossils come from flash floods. Even the more I studied evolution the more you realize for it to work as Darwin said you needed near supernatural interference or you get punctuated equilibrium (which is the atheists way to explain why a Allosaur exists say 10 million years and then just disappears without finding the in-between species and then poof the next descendant just appears perhaps even a continent away). The more I dug into genetics the more I realized for evolution to work you need changes to be quickly, in a certain specific area, and for them to change across multiple animals all at once - again supernatural even if true.
Oh and of course we have to ignore where almost every version of humanity believed in some sort of dragon like creatures and again we ignore that no matter how odd it is that from Romans to Native Americans you can find dragon like creatures in all cultures.
OH and then paleontologist Jack Horner (the guy Alan Grant from Jurassic Park is based on) finds soft cells in dinosaur bones meaning our theories on fossilization are wrong and dinosaurs are likely much younger than ever imagined (the scientists now are blaming chemistry as being wrong but good luck with that one nothing organic like a cell should survive millions of years much less mineralization).
It was at that point I was heavily leaning YE and then I saw Walter Veith's defense of YE and I am sold. The earth is 6000 years old give or take and dinosaurs likely never existed long and were likely what inspired our ancestors to speak of dragons. This would also explain the beliefs in sea monsters as well and how some of them lived on to the modern day like giant squid which we all assumed was silly nonsense from the Middle Ages.
But if the earth was 6k years old there'd be soft tissue and DNA in every single dinosaur fossil!!
The idea that dinosaurs existed within the last 6k years is absolutely barmy, especially if you're trying to frame yourself as some kind of pseudo-palaeontologist.
@@aallen5256 no there wouldn’t. Fossilization depends on the conditions and as we’ve established, those conditions were not present very long
Op my story is similar to you. I came across Answers in Genesis and I know they didn’t deceive me because they told me what I already knew, they just reconnected the dots in a way that made more sense. But I think you’ll find fascinating the book After The Flood by Bill Cooper (not the terrorist you’ll find on Wikipedia, someone else). You can find chapters online which is how I first read his analysis of saxonese and Beowulf. He came to the conclusion that Beowulf was a dinosaur pest exterminator and Grendel was a common name for the species tyrannosaurus in saxonese. The titular Grendel was evidently a juvenile T. rex because he was able on the one have to east men whole but on the other hand, Beowulf mortally wounds him by pinning him against the wall of the mead hall underneath his jaws and tearing his arm out of socket, even off. Imagine that a nobleman would have had the access and free time to develop huge muscles from exercise and nutrition and Beowulf was likely a Nordic Strong-man in physique and ability. The author goes into detail explaining why the story is not to be considered fictional but a historical narrative. Really worth the lookup. This shows dinosaurs were in Europe in the dark ages period
@@cosmictreason2242 Preserved remains wouldn't even be fossils after only 6k years - once more, you immediately display the limits of your understanding!!
@@cosmictreason2242 You "know they didn't deceive [you] because they told [you] things [you] already knew" - do you know what confirmation bias is??
P.S. laughable to read Beowulf as literal history, hysterical to imagine him fighting a small T-rex! Dinosaurs in Europe in the dark ages?! LMAO! Fantasist.
"They have Moses and the prophets. If they do not believe them, they will not believe even if someone raises from the dead."
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47
Which inclines me to think that someone who rejects YEC with knowledge, does so to show that they are not born again
@@cosmictreason2242 Yes, I'm sure everyone who disagrees with your world view is going to hell. XD Typical Christian online. Why not let God settle it? I've seen Him do a bunch of things! We can both pray and see what God does. I'll keep in contact and you with me and we'll see if He wants to do stuff. :0
Edit: I had to Google YEC. XD I am not going to delete this because it's my own folly as a "typical Christian" online. XD
@@cosmictreason2242 Slow down there, champ.
@@cosmictreason2242 How about someone who rejects YEC with the Bible?
Bruh, those last lines got me. Only Doug Wilson.
Never would I imagine that I’d hear of Gabriel surfing event horizons, much less that it would be tied in sensibly to a larger point
He's great at making arguments from ignorance and wanting special pleading while deriding it simultaneously!
@@HorrorAlgorithm0x1337
I heard that he does a wonderful word salad as well.
On the way home from the Creation Museum today. What a slice of heaven on earth. Good people, thoughtful conversation, and hope for the future in word and deed. It all starts with the authority of the scriptures and uncompromised proclaiming of the truth. Highly recommended for any family weary of all the places the world would have you go on a family trip.
My kids were there last week. They felt that same comradery!
Amazing! Great place
I would love to visit the creation museum! One of these days, Lord willing.
Which state?
@@koraegis Kentucky
I've never understood people who can believe God created stars, but then find it impossible that He could also create the light. HE CREATED STARS! Let that sink in.
They think you can’t have light without stars, while typing on a LIT SCREEN, and not realizing they’re just as superstitious as the silly people who thought that the greatest proof one isn’t a ghost is that you can eat food.
In Christianity as well as Science we use corroborating information.
We know Jesus rose from the dead because we have historic, social, biblical revelation that are corroboration with each other.
If we apply the same method, we have geology, astronomy, chemistry and many other fields that all paint the same picture of an old earth/universe
I'd recommend the organization that I'm promoting: "Reasons to Believe"
We don't believe in evolution (monkey to human) but we agree with the science consensus that the earth is old
@@cosmictreason2242 🤣 that's funny
@@The-DO Using the tools* that only* exist within the realms of space, time, and matter is a flawed method when hypothesizing how space, time, and matter went from not existing to existing. Think about it.
@@The-DO You choose to believe in the resurrection despite there being no sources or documents outside the bible corroborating it.
At the same time you choose not to believe in evolution which is corroborated many times over by scientists all over the world. The human mind is truly fascinating.
Btw, “monkey to human” is not what evolution says. It says we share a common ancestor.
We just visited the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter!!!!! Fabulous! Thanks Doug! keep up the great/faithful work!!!!!!
Do Dinosaur National Monument and surrounding areas next. Mind-blowing evidence of a flood shrouded by unserious evolutionary claims.
@@YourMom777-x3x no there is only one flood talked about in the Bible
@@YourMom777-x3x so you have no excuse then
@@cosmictreason2242
Yeah and every civilization on the planet seemed to have survived it. Like it never happened.
@@JB-yb4wn incorrect. Written history goes back to 1800 bc at the latest
Once again, Mr. Wilson has "hit the nail on the head." Fundamentally, this is an issue of, "which presuppositions do we use to interpret the data around us." Thank you.
If your presupposition is that God created his creation "good" -- i.e. reflective of himself, knowable, etc. -- and has created man with the capacity to exercise dominion over that creation as he commanded, shouldn't we be able to trust the data that the good creation is giving us? We do this all the time in other fields of knowledge, such as forensics, and we don't have a theological crisis over it. I'm not saying accept the atheistic conclusions of the secularists or agree that they have handled the data properly, but if we apply analytical tools that have been shown effective in the understanding of one part of God's creation -- and see that as evidence of God's Providence -- shouldn't we fearlessly apply them elsewhere without falling into an either-or trap?
@@JonJaeden However my friend, the good creation that God made has been corrupted by Man's sin -including every aspect of our nature. Our bodies, minds, wills, especially our ability to reason is subject to that corruption (Romans 1:18ff). Even secularist's recognize this (e.g., Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution wherein the accepted paradigms of today are completely overturned tomorrow). Think about this, a significant amount of the "evidence" used in the Scope's Trial, has now been rejected by modern evolutionists. So what the reason of early 29th century scientists, stated, under oath, as trustworthy evidence, is now known to be false. We have to start with some presupposition; the question is, "Whose?" God or Man's?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Really? Citation needed.
@Sterling Falls Productions You are failing to take into account the literal 'act of God' in repopulating the world after the flood. If evolution cannot account for the post flood world that is a mark against evolution... not the flood.
@@therealkillerb7643 Yesterday, I put my granddaughter on a plane for her high-school trip to Washington, D.C . I was able to do that because God created the laws of physics in the Creation, and because men like the Wright Brothers, following the dominion mandate, discovered and applied them. Despite every aspect of man's nature being corrupted by sin, time and experience convince me those laws of physics -- hidden from us at creation -- are trustworthy. In their discovery and application we have have thought God's thoughts after him. We have obeyed the mandate. We have testified his Creation is good.
Despite what we have obtained, our knowledge is not exhaustive. We still live in a fallen world. The search for what is true still requires the sweat of our brow. Planes crash. There are always new situations. There are always unknowns. There's always a frontier where uncertainty and failure are the price to pay to extend dominion. There, "facts" and paradigms are born to die. Some survive and, given time and generations, prove themselves true and dependable. We all live our lives in deference to the ones that survived, without questioning them or giving them a second thought. As I suggested previously, if there are analytical tools and time-proven facts that have been shown effective in understanding one part of God's creation -- all of which are evidence of God's Providence -- shouldn't we fearlessly apply them elsewhere without falling into an either-or-presupposition trap?
In 1973, a massive explosion of munitions -- headed for Vietnam -- sent train cars in the Roseville, California, railyard flying in all directions. In the civil suit that followed, one of my professors was called as an expert witness because of his photogrammetric experience. It was important to establish the disaster's sequence and this was done by noting where train cars ended up and which cars contents were found on top of, or beneath, the wreckage of other cars. He used facts and analysis we would all accept to reconstruct the accident without comparing it to the Bible. It was basic forensics. He also was a professor of geology where he used the same kind of facts and analysis to reconstruct the physical history of the earth. The same methodology accepted previously is now dismissed because "sin has corrupted creation."
To be clear, not all conclusions from the same set of facts are correct. All facts can -- and often should -- be tested. Presuppositions are used to both select and reject facts in order to create or protect paradigms ... sometimes ignorantly ... sometimes intentionally. Welcome to the fight for truth and God's rule in a fallen world. The Bible told us it was never going to be easy.
This is so important, and also surprising to me that it is as controversial among Christian’s as it is.
For the first 1,800 years of the church, it really wasn't that controversial. It only remains controversial by those who want to explain Genesis away by infusing outside ideas into the Biblical text.
I think it's quite natural to trust the revelation of the Bible. All the internal evidence of scripture seems to indicate that the Lord Jesus took Genesis as history too.
Imagine trying to share the gospel without relying on the history presented in Genesis?
When you say "outside ideas" are you referring to reality?
REPLYING HERRE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN CENSORED
@Cosmic Treason What testimony of the flood? The only testimony I'm aware of is Ken Ham's attempt to build a replica of the Ark and how he couldn't fill it with live animals because the methane they produced would have suffocated all of his guests without millions of dollars worth of vents and forced air circulation. That's why Ken filled it up with stuffed animals instead.
@@rabbitsrevenge1101 no, but to desperate fantasies designed to explain away the natural world’s testimony of the flood
@@cosmictreason2242 What testimony of the flood? The only testimony I'm aware of is Ken Ham's attempt to build a replica of the Ark and how he couldn't fill it with live animals because the methane they produced would have suffocated all of his guests without millions of dollars worth of vents and forced air circulation. That's why Ken filled it up with stuffed animals instead.
I just want to say, I think Blog & Mablog may be the best RUclips channel name I’ve ever seen. The double entendre and the pun in one vicious line. Absolutely love it man.
They can't even predict the weather 2 weeks in advance, and they expect us to believe they know what happened 6 billion years ago.
Um, we can predict weather 2 weeks in advance, maybe in your red-neck trailer park area of the US you can't read weather maps.
We know what happened 6 billion years ago because the sun wasn't even around then.
WOW, YOU DID NOT PAST SCINECE CLASS IN SCHOOL, DID YOU
@@domcizek
Well no, but then you didn't pass English class.
Millions of years guys would be comedy relief if their misdirection wasn’t so tragic, and false. God could’ve done everything he said in Genesis in a microsecond. The days were for our benefit.
❤
AMEN!
@@manager0175 nobody believes that silly atheist
Yeah, I have a well thought out post as to why Doug is wrong, and he just deleted it. He forgets Jeremiah 4 or the fact that Yom in Hebrew doesn't always mean day. Or the fact that the Sun, Moon, and stars were made on the 4th day. But hey, why let things like the Bible get in the way of your pet theory?
@@charliedontsurf334 it always means day when combined with a numeral
Protect Doug Wilson at all costs, he’s our most intelligent Christian.
The reason the left can’t meme is shown here. It’s not that they’re too dumb to understand what you meant. It’s that they’re unwilling to acknowledge the point of anything you say, because if you are able to make a meaningful statement then that could lead to you eventually proving them wrong and causing them to have a worldview crisis. So they must ruin every joke, intentionally misunderstand everything you say, because their goal is not to prove you wrong but to destroy your ability to communicate effectively. They’re being intellectual terrorists in other words
@@cosmictreason2242 this is literally the situation of all fundamentalists, including yourself - protect yourself from worldview crisis at all!
@@aallen5256 if nobody knew you were one such atheist, they would now, because you’ve just fulfilled the very thing i was describing. Great job exposing yourself
@@cosmictreason2242 Don’t be silly. You know you’ve just described the fundamentalist position exactly; “unwilling to acknowledge the point of anything you say because … proving them wrong [would cause them] to have a worldview crisis”.
@@cosmictreason2242well said
I want a reaction video to Willie Lane Craig's crazy ideas of a millions years old earth and neanderthals being our first ancestors (before adam in some talks, and adam was one in others). And he believes wholly in macro evolution. Would like to get a biblical christian, like Doug, in a Doug Reacts/ Responds video! Thank you brother Doug, and all at Canon Press
Are you saying that William Lane Craig isn’t a Christian since he believes in millions of years?
It's clear Craig does not hold to innerancy in the same way that Doug does and most evangelicals do. His "mythological" interpretation of Genesis gives him license to interpret the text in a very loose manner. I suspect that Doug has a similar view of Craig to James White.
@@philblagden
How does James White view William Lane Craig?
@@philblagden Come on, you should at least, read WLC writings on the matter before saying he doesn't believe in inerrancy.
His usage of the word 'Mythos' isn't what you think it is. There is a book by WLC about the defense of a historical Adam and Eve.
@@manager0175 And wrong about it. www.youtube.com/@navigatorsway/about
Thank you, pastor Wilson!!
Excellent point bringing up Matthew 19 : 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that *at the beginning* the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
Another verse saying the same thing is Mark 10 : 6 “But *at the beginning of creation* God ‘made them male and female.’
"...and Gabriel has had himself a blast since that time surfing the event horizon, a celestial maverick" 🏄
Thats really cool
I would push back that ANIMAL death isnt inheritantly bad since God has given us dominion over the animals to consume their bodies. If death of animals was morally wrong, then all Christians today should be vegetarians, upholding God's "original design".
I believe death entering the world because of the fall is talking strictly about humanity's spiritual and bodily death, not animals.
I agree. There is no reason to think the death that came thru Adam isn't talking about death to men. Talk about special pleading. Why separate plants and bacteria and mosquitoes from other life?
While pre-Flood, it appears vegetarianism would have been the prescribed mode, but post-Flood, God explicitly gives everything that moves as food for man. "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Gen 9:3. He changed the "original design," and there's no biblical reason for Christians to return to it. If it ever was, post-Fall-pre-Flood, "morally wrong" to kill and eat animals, it's not wrong going forward. It should be noted that God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve while they were in the Garden and it was the animal sacrifice of Abel that pleased God.
It might be interesting to consider the purpose of the Tree of Life in the Garden. God said Adam and Eve could eat anything in the Garden except the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That suggests continuous eating from the Tree of Life was what gave immortality. Were all the animals also being kept alive by eating from the Tree of Life?
Keeping fallen man from gaining access to the Tree of Life after Adam was driven from the Garden was important enough that God set cheribim up as guards to prevent further access (Ge 3:22, 24). So was loss of access to the Tree of Life the means by which "death entered the world"? For man and animals?
@@JonJaedenthis is good
@Jon Jaeden of the design changed thrn how can you dogmatically say the old design was good and what it meant to be good. If it isn't good that animals die, then it isn't good either way.
@@steveschlichter4500 The creation was good because God declared it so. He judges his own work. He's God, we're not.
Pre-flood, God slew an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. He showed his pleasure at Abel's animal sacrifice and rejected Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables. Death for animals -- pre-Flood -- was not off the table. And, during the Flood, God himself wipes out every animal and human on earth, save those on the Ark.
What changes post-Flood is that, whereas he had previously given Adam and Eve every plant, except the Tree of Life, to eat, he now gives Noah every animal. God thought that was good.
Now this is what I call a good teacher of the Word. Some so called bible teachers fall so hard when it comes teaching the age of the earth. They separate Gen 1: 1 and Gen 1:2. Just to accommodate millions of years age of the earth.
Actually billions of years old, just like the sun is.
The Bible is a flat Earth book from Genesis to Revelation.
On the other hand, there are numerous incidental phrases as well as entire passages in the Bible that support the conclusion that its authors believed the earth to be flat. Take the phrase “the ends of the earth,” which arose among people whose creation stories easily illustrate their flat-earth beliefs, a phrase just as ubiquitous in the Bible as it is in Mesopotamian literature. Deuteronomy 13:7 speaks of “the people that are round about you…from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth.” Isaiah 40:28 says, “[the Lord is] the Creator of the ends of the earth.” Job 28:24 states, “He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.” Also note the use of “the ends of the earth” in Job 38:12-13, in which God asks Job: “Hast thou commanded the morning…that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?” God is comparing the earth to a blanket or garment picked up at one end and shaken. The dawn grasps the earth by its “extremity or hem” (Hebrew, kanap; see Numbers 15:38 and 1 Samuel 15:27) and shakes the wicked out of it. This is immediately followed in the same chapter of Job by the depiction of the earth as a piece of clay (presumably a clay tablet, something flat and stationary) whose surface is changed by the impression of a seal..."
The Christian Delusion (pp. 125-126). Globe Pequot. Kindle Edition.
Good job. You eventually covered the dilemma of time, which poses many issues to all sides of readers. Many conservatives (including myself) are too soon to hold that the earth is exactly 6000 years old; when in reality the concept of time in regular intervals may even have been foreign to Adam or in the garden of Eden.
There is simply too much unknown to accept one way or another. But neither does holding to views loosely denies the authenticity, validity, and authority of the Scriptures.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
I realize this is something of a deflection and doesn't get to the heart of the issue, but I think it is very important to follow the through line where the materialist, "rational", and "science based" world views have taken us. We have come full circle to the point where academics are rejecting the idea of biological sex. Where people say things like "some men menstruate", and "That man is going to give birth." etc.
Some academics have pushed back against this and said that it's not "real science". They are desperately trying to hold the tide back from their sand castles, but it is futile.
Sometimes a false world view can seem fairly convincing when it has only strayed a "little" from the truth. Give it a little time and it will become apparent how weak the foundation really is.
I could not love this video more! 💕
You Sir are a genius !!!!! Thank you
...is it bad to want one of Gabriel's minutes?
Not at all. You're living in it right now. God created an impossibly huge fission reactor in space that sprays a continuous stream of visible radiation at exactly the right distance from you so as to be enjoyable with the least amount of danger - a little thing simpletons like me sometimes call sunlight. Every day we get to go out and frolick in it, as free as you like. These are things which the angels desire to look into.
@@serak3403what a great description
@@Yuri_Jonker Apply that interpretation as widely and deeply as you like
That's what Chesterton described as "magic"
@@serak3403 You mean fusion reactor.
One has to deny their God given senses to believe this 🌎.
No. You'd have to deny a massive amount of irrefutable evidence whose elements reinforce one another.
If you've ever taken a class in designing and building digital databases, one of the first things you're taught is that you first create the form (i.e. structure, relationships, etc) of the database, then you populate it with objects or data.
That is very much what I see in Genesis 1. It begins by telling us the earth had no form and it was empty; it had not been populated with objects because there was no structure to hold them or intelligence to define relationships among them.
So, on Days 1 -- 3, God creates forms: Light, Waters Above and Below with an Atmosphere, and Dry Land with Vegetation.
On Days 4 -- 6, God populates those forms with objects of his creation: Sun, Moon, Stars; Creatures of the Sea & Air; and, Land Animals and Man, respectively.
Days 1 & 4 are paired, as are Days 2 & 5 and Days 3 & 6.
Gen 1:2 - Earth formless and empty
Day 1 - Light Day 4 - Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 2 - Waters, Atmosphere Day 5 - Creatures of the Sea & Air
Day 3 - Vegetated Land Day 6 - Land Animals, Man
This form/object understanding of Genesis 1 is similar to Plato's focus on form and idea vs Aristotle's focus on objects and empiricism. It echoes the philosophical concept of the One and the Many. And this does not require a commitment one way or the other to whether the days are figurative or literal or to Young Earth or Old Earth Creation. Speaking for myself, once I see the pattern, I can't unsee it.
Yes, that is true. The pattern is undeniable. The issue is that young earth creationists don't do exegesis on the passage. They proof text from it.
@@steveschlichter4500 Do you believe the Word of Moses?
@George Albany yes, I have heard all of this before but go ahead.
@@steveschlichter4500 Well if you believe the Word of Moses, Genesis itself was written by Moses, in order to believe in Jesus you must believe in what Moses wrote, including Genesis, without modifying what was written.
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47
"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2
“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." - Deuteronomy 12:32
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." - Revelation 22:18-19
You also cannot believe in the word of liars and thieves who rob from God as the children of Satan in foolishly trying to destroy Him, because they are enemies at war with God, there is no neutral ground, do not use man's wisdom to interpret what God has given.
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." - Deuteronomy 29:29
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8
"Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?" - Isaiah 2:22
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones." - Proverbs 3:5-8
The world can only be interpreted by what God has given, but if you do not regard in every detail of your thought first, you cannot understand that which He has already given to us and you will be made blind and immature. But for one to mature they must put full trust not in their wisdom nor the wisdom of man but what God has already said. The reason of our faith (not the faith itself, but the reason after our faith) must extend from this wisdom, not taken from some other source. Do not be deceived by what the world wants to feed you, Satan has devised many outlooks of the world to fool man, if we are taken captive then it is to devalue God by our nature and not value Him by His. A full cup cannot be filled any longer but not to the empty cup, do not be filled with that which is of little worth before you are filled fully in God's knowledge. A fool will be made wise but to he who thinks he is wise he shall be made a fool by God, do not trust those who are themselves a fool to God before you trust God only.
Once you have found these things I'd suggest checking out Answers in Genesis, especially their Ice Age talk, for it especially gets into the details through a Scriptural lens for which rational judgement of science make sense after we follow God, not before.
The fact that you can see a pattern doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also clearly say what it says. 144 hours is how long it took to make the world and it was made 6000 years ago
Glad most of this stuff is in the rearview mirror of civilization.
One caveat' that is always overlooked in any discussion of origins - a precise biblical definition of what sort of "death" Adam introduced into the world.
Physical and spiritual
Very good and helpful. Time for a discussion with dr Stephen Meyer about Intelligent Design (Cosmos)?
Thesis 1: Excellent.
Thesis 2: Also correct, but since it's so easy to claim to believe in biblical inerrancy, this is somewhat meaningless. The proof is in the pudding-can a person show that his interpretation of Scripture is consistent?
Thesis 3: Absolutely excellent.
Thesis 4: Another way of saying this is that it isn't only Genesis that teaches a young earth, it's the consistent message of Scripture. The authors of Scripture assume the basic narrative of: perfect world, fall, redemption. So you can't have your old earth evidence and have a consistent view of Scripture. This is also why old earthers hold to a local rather than global flood.
Thesis 5: Brilliant. If death and suffering precede Adam, then "good" becomes meaningless, and the implications are lethal for any belief system that holds to that.
Thesis 6: Another argument for biblical consistency.
Thesis 7: Excellent.
Thank you Doug. Well said.
As an Old Earth Creationist I appreciate Doug’s arguments and his desire to get the text right. He should really debate someone from Reasons To Believe. It would be a great conversation!
I think that's point of these brilliant thesis - for example "God created the Stars and the entire rope of star-light in-between" - think about it - meaning, why wait billions of years for just that portion alone of creation to play out? So --- an Old Earth Creationist and a New Earth Creationist, if affirming their debate should consider what is measured scientifically to be accurate but at the same time consider in the same context of creation to be a literal 6 days sequence as well - i.e. under the same one authority, The Lord, the Creator himself. I think the interesting part, would be checking if there is in fact corroborating natural science to validate that the two periods are in fact correct, the measured and what actually happened.
Agreed. They both hold to the inerrancy of scripture, so there is common ground from which to form a solid base of agreement.
@@thecrypt5823 Uhmm not quite! They NOT both held in scripture because the Bible plainly says six days of Creation, going as far as affirming literally "...there was evening and morning..." of day X. Here is the conundrum, what we measure now, versus the state it was created in. Meaning, the Word of the Lord is still perfect, but we humans, trying to extrapolate backwards, expect our measurements to be asymptotic to some initial point of time, working backwards. The points of light, meaning the stars, on day four, shone already, hence even at that point, the universe to a physical observer "measured" billions of years old already, although it was created on day four. But again, this still conjecture, because we still don't know except starting by trusting the Word of the Lord, as being a good place to start testing all things...
@@thecrypt5823 But does it? What does one mean by "Old Earth Creationist"? Do they not understand that you are starting off trusting the fallen man's presuppositions in order to read the text. What then would Jesus had believed?
@@drsproc It seems to have taken 13.8 billion years for the light to get to us from the edge of the observable universe, according to our time. According to the time of the photons taking that trip at the speed of light, that time is instantaneous. Age of the universe from the perspective of the photons: Zero. Just something interesting to think about.
Can anyone tell me if Doug has done a video or blog post on why he thinks we're going back to being a Christian country? We're so far gone, I have very little hope for that.
This was very well said.
It astounds me how we Christians go on about believing the Bible as the infallible Word of God, speaking absolute truth on matters even when it comes to science, but we ignore what the Bible says in terms of the ancient Hebrew understanding of cosmology-which was based on scripture. According to this monologue it is appropriate to exclude people who do not believe the Bible from the debate about the age of the earth, but then assumes we should be deferring to those same people when it comes to the "solar system" and "space". Neither NASA nor the scientific establishment accepts the Bible's thesis on the origin of life or the age of the earth. They think we are literally insane for believing a sky man magically created everything out of nothing. We are skeptical of the corruption and lies of government, with many examples cited by Doug himself. Yet, we trust them blindly when it comes to cosmology; based on what? The same *admitted* CGI and fanciful made-up equations Doug mocks in this very monologue. Many Christians may be surprised to find out that you cannot agree with the Bible and NASA when it comes to where we live.
People believed the earth went around the sun for hundreds of years before nasa. But nobody believed flat earth theory until a nasa engineer made it up. That’s a fact
@@cosmictreason2242 Can't tell if you're trolling...but this is far from fact, if you're actually serious.
You are absolutely correct. Try to find a church that teaches Biblical Cosmology. I’ve been to dozens of churches many denominations & never have I heard Genesis taught correctly. Genesis 1 contradicts what most “think” they believe. Earth day One, Sun & Moon Day Four. Earth had no Sun to revolve around. But completely ignorant of Copernicus..
I have a problem with “Christians” who reject the miracle of Creation in 7 days because of “science”, but they accept the miracle of Resurrection. Because?
I accept the miracle of the Resurrection and AN OLD earth because of corroboration information.
I must be consistent in my interpretation - That's why I agree with "Reasons to Believe"
To argue that there were 24h-days in Genesis is to misinterpret the passage (based on the Chicago Statement)
Same as saying the earth has 4 corners and not moving in space - is to apply faulty logic to make the bible say something that it doesn't say, like the earth is flat and in the center of the universe
Genesis is all about "Who Created" NOT: "When He Created"
Babies are a miracle from God, they take 9 months to be born - Just because there's a process that does NOT mean God is not responsible for it, or is in any way less of a miracle.
Just because there are long "yoms" / "days" in Genesis that does not mean in any way that this event is less of a miracle from God
Hope my response helps
They like the miracle of resurrection because it makes them feel good, but the miracle of 7 day creation goes against their big brain science they worked hard to learn in school, which makes them feel bad. It's pride, basically. They hold their own thoughts as a higher authority than God's Word.
Interesting video! I love Doug Wilson and watch him all the time, but I am an Old Earth adherent. Nevertheless, none of us should be smug about our view of the age of the earth because problems can be found in both young and old earth views. Did the Fall trigger a major re-creation of the carnivore species? Did Adam understand what God meant about dying if he was disobedient prior to the fall? Is the Genesis creation account actually about this earth? Was the Scientific Revolution not a product of Western Christianity? It is true that some "science" is "so called science." Darwin's "science" was and is based upon his atheism. But does that mean that all earth science is wrong? What about Geology and uniformitarianism? Is that not based upon the teachings of Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 and indicative of great age? I would be very curious as to how many young earth believers accept the notion of Copernicus that the earth actually moves despite the fact that Psalm 104:5 reads that the earth shall not be moved? I know that Martin Luther did not accept Copernicus. And yet, Martin Luther remains one of my heroes.
There is science and there is The science.
We like fairy tales more than science
@@ShoestringRacerscience is actual fairy tales while the word of God has the facts.
@@ifeawosika966 do you consider the technology you use every day to be a fairy tale ? Do you have any idea how a wireless signal works ? It may a well be magic to you. Any science you use is ok just if the Bible says different. There are not two scientific methods just one
The temperature at the centre of a star is solidly worked out from physics. Its not conjecture. Secondly I’m a Christian who holds to an old earth persuasion but accept biological evolution as pseudoscience.
@@manager0175 No it hasnt.
@@manager0175nope, no evidence. If youre talking about natural selection and variation due to genetics then sure. Cant add info, only take away. Unless its a mutation, but thats not a good thing.
Well said
Solidly? Nothing is solidly worked out until we actually went and measured it for sure which no one has done.
Why is it the chemists always have to remind everyone that the theory has to be proven in the terra firma to become law?
@@darthbigred22 You cant have a solar surface temperature of 5700C without a nuclear fusion process deep within its core. Those reactions require temperatures of the the order of 10^7. How else do you propose the sunshines? Burning coal perhaps?
I’ve listened to a lot of discussions on this. What do you say the approximate age is ?
Roughly 7k years
If only more Christian leaders set forth these salient lines of reasoning. Well said!
They are, but nobody believes this BS anymore, well except the truly ignorant.
Which of the following is the best way to measure the age of the Earth?
Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago.
I wOOd REad MaH BahBLe, IT trUthS EverYTHin.
These are the morons you are dealing with, Tom.
Amen. So clear and needed. Thanks Doug
masterful per usual
Just wanted to recommend a book presenting a positive case for a 6-day view from the scriptural evidence. In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2 by Cornelis Van Dam.
As a Christian who will stand on the inerrancy of scripture forever and will affirm a 6 day creation timeline i do have to say Genesis 1 poses an interpretive challenge for me. The language of the chapter or the layout can be seen as a narrative of events or in my opinion a word play analogy with narrative aspects included. Adams cpming from the dust since it is affirmed in the curse of chapter 3 should be considered literal. But where do you draw the line?
"Day" is also up for debate sonce according to Hebrews the 7th day rest never ended thus the 7th day never ended.
I truly belueve the most important question when interpreting the scriptures is what did the original audience affirm to. I must and will conform my interpretation to that.
Whoever reads this understand i am new to this debate having been a literal translation believer since recently. Im not about to go liberal. I just think t it does seem both sides of narrative or literary analogy have valid points to make. Afain however how does the rest of s ripture and the original audience understand this passage?
Any comments i ask for references to scholarly works not personal opinion.
So point me to the verse or chapter that dates the world to 6,000 years ago!
It gives the lifespans of all patriarchs Adam through Joseph and when they were begotten by their father, so we have a nice, very specific age of the earth.
@@YayGrr1 You are confusing the age of humanity with the age of the earth! They are not synonymous! Secondly, Hebrew genealogies tend to only list the highlights of the essential people in the lineage and not the entire list.
@@YayGrr1 Nonsense.
Why don’t you read the Urantia Revelation? It’s so much clearer and simpler. You won’t lose your ‘religion’. Such a wonderful view of the cosmos and our place in it. We are being trained for a glorious service as we move on. Daune
"What does day mean in the days of creation? The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” As it is clear that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11,12 and 17 for such a usage. The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis.” - Francis Schaeffer (Genesis in Space and Time)
Wise words from Schaeffer
"And there was evening and there was morning" repeated for each day in the account explicitly indicates definition (1): twenty-four hours is the one used in Genesis 1. God left no wiggle-room.
@@TheYargonaut But that phrase is not used of the 7th day. Which would imply we are still in the 7th day - making a day longer than 24 hours.
@@gunstonerocks1427 The way you phrase that comment seems to imply the 7th day is peculiar, so just to make sure: you grant the first 6 days of creation are explicitly noted as calendar days, regardless of whether the Hebrew word translated "day" can have other definitions in other contexts?
@@gunstonerocks1427 it wouldn’t make the other 6 days longer than 24 hrs. And we are not still in the 7th day otherwise Exodus 20 would be saying you are to work for one week and take the rest of your life off. Also the 7th day was blessed but how is it blessed and very good if God cursed the whole creation on that day? The fall took place on a different day. The 7th day ended just like the others, it just wasn’t necessary to spell it out. Jesus says “my father is working even to today” so he’s clearly not still resting. Repent of your foolishness
Time was most certainly constructed for our benefit, I say benefit because like everything else about the world we live in it is singularly attainable only here.
Well said. Thank you!
I reject debating cause how can two people do that when one person is being dishonest.
It is dishonest to say that the word yom/day can be a metaphor without having a comparison. For instance: she is the day to his night is a metaphor or Colin swam with the speed of a dolphin.
But not only that they misuse the term literal and figurative which has nothing to do with whether Adam is real or not or if events in Genesis are historical. They are how we build narratives whether their historical or fantasy and help us describe events in all genres.
The first of Genesis if it was in any other book would be seen as literal and not figurative but because it's the Bible and people would rather believe scientists they would rather believe the word day is a metaphor.
My question is if you were God why would you wait a billion years for humans when you can just do it in 7 days. I would want to get right to it.
The language of the Bible is pretty clear when it says, "Morning and evening was the first day." Why would you use the phrase "Morning and evening..." when talking about millions of years? Also, since disease and death entered the creation AFTER Adam sinned, how could there be dinosaur bones with evidence of disease, if dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before man? Consider the fact that God gives us a model for working six days and resting on the seventh. What is the model; God creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. We don’t work for six million years and then rest for a million years. Also, while there are clearly metaphors in the Bible, such as Jesus being the bread of life, or the rock of our salvation, we can't just assume a particular verse is a metaphor because the clear meaning doesn't fit our particular denominational theology. In other words, do we adjust our understanding of scripture to fit what science says, or do we adjust our understanding of science to fit what the Holy, Infallible Word of God says? In this day and age many professing to be Christian are adjusting what they believe to fit what society and "science" claim to be true. The Bible calls homosexuality a sin and that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God, yet many denominations are saying our thinking needs to come into the 21st century and realize that what the scripture says about sexuality just might be outdated. Hence, when God says He made humans male and female, He was not quite right; there are really many more genders. When God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, He was actually mistaken. Even though every atom of a man's body may say he is a man, society says science is wrong IF this particular man "identifies" as a woman. I think the danger is this; if we deny that "morning and evening was the first day..." means what it says, then we can, at least in our thinking, begin to change the meaning of what the Bible says about gender, about marriage, about adultery, fornication, drinking, pornography and a whole host of other things including, is Jesus REALLY the only way to be saved!
One of the big errors with old earth and evolutionary (hand in glove) interpretations is that they discard the plain meaning in favour of purely typological interpretations. It is no wonder those camps never have a unified understanding of creation and need to keep producing new ideas. Typology when it is not anchored to the text is a springboard for much futility if not serious error
You are a gem! To the head of the class! Off you go!
Pete gets an A.
By “plain meaning” do you suppose Adam and Eve literally became “one physical body” as in “one flesh”? 🙋🏻♂️
@@spacemanspiff9773 literal doesn’t mean literalistic. We use language the same way today. Sunrise, sunset, “The White House ordered..” hey, houses don’t order things!
@@spacemanspiff9773 No, and we can have a straightforward interpretation of Genesis without having to do that. What you just did is a subtle form of strawman.
@@joelebert9767 how’s that a straw man? YECs insist the plan meaning of “day” is always 24-hour period.
I’ve listened to this twice and I still have no idea what you said. Guess that speaks to your intelligence or my lack of it.
Idk if it’s due to the speed at which he delivers his points, but this is another lecture that went in one ear and right out the other. He doesn’t seem to really say anything other than the Bible says so. And thats fine. But it would be more helpful to keep it pithy if that’s his only argument. Maybe I just need to listen to it again.
So, if I were to take everything literally as Doug suggests, did God create snakes with legs on Day 6 and then because of one snake they all lost their legs? And when Laban pursued Jacob for 7 days (Gen 31.23) he actually and literally ran 168 hours after him non-stop?
Yep, that's the fundamentalist position: Noah literally lived for 950 years, Laban literally ran for 168 hours, the first human female was literally created from a rib.
Who says ran? They had camels
@@cosmictreason2242 Running for 168 hours is implausible and explicable by camels, but living for 950 years passes the sniff test?
@@aallen5256 and obviously you stop to sleep and let the animals drink
@@cosmictreason2242 why justify the one nonsense but not the other? 168 hour sprint is no more possible than a 950 year life.
Why doesn’t Wilson accept the “prima fascia” evidence in the text for a dome over the earth, pillars under the earth or the earth being a circular disc?
I agree with Doug’s starting point, that all knowledge is subject to revelation. He isn’t taking into account basic hermeneutics. If we are to take authorial intent seriously, then it is an assault on scripture to ask questions of it that it’s authors didn’t intend to answer. Yes, let us make dogmatic statements based on the meaning of scripture. You cannot make the case that Moses in the Torah, or any other biblical author of any other book, was ever intending to teach us the age of the earth. Therefore, we cannot make dogmatic statements about it either old or new. Theistic macroevolution would contradict Genesis, as I think cosmological and human origins are not outside the bounds of Moses’ intent in writing Genesis even if they are not his express concern. When was the earth created? “In the beginning”. That’s all that matters. Trying to divine age from the implication of genealogies doesn’t take into account the intent or function of genealogy in scripture. IMO, Ken Ham’s enterprise hinders people from actually READING the Torah. The answers are indeed in Genesis, when we ask the questions that Genesis is intending to answer.
If we have Jesus, our God and Creator, telling us Adam & Eve were created at the beginning of creation, then it's easy to see creation is not billions of years old.
“But *at the beginning of creation* God ‘made them male and female.’ (Mark 10 : 6)
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that *at the beginning* the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (Matthew 19 : 4)
This lines up perfectly with *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."* (Genesis 1 : 1)
Since Jesus is the Creator (John 1 : 3), then I'm going with his testimony that the creation of the heavens, the earth, Adam, and Eve were all at the beginning.
@@EyeToob when did I say he didn’t make mankind in the beginning? You might want to re-read my comment and examine what assumptions you may be making about my position.
@@JefferyHunt Notice that I never said you said that.
I was simply giving the verses that help me understand how old creation is.
@@EyeToob Why did you list said verses in reply to my particular comment? I mean, thats a really odd response. It doesn’t come across as completely honest. Also, how do any of those verses give you an age for creation? none of the verses tell you how old creation is, they just say, as I said, that it was “in the beginning”. The reason they don’t tell us how old the earth is, is because none of the biblical authors ever cared how old the earth is. The age of the earth is not a matter of special revelation. Its not a matter that matters at all.
@@JefferyHunt The reason I listed those verses in reply to your comment was that it felt like you served up the perfect opportunity for them to be presented. You wrote, "You cannot make the case that Moses in the Torah, or any other biblical author of any other book, was ever intending to teach us the age of the earth." but we do have Jesus teaching us that creation is the same age as mankind.
It was like you were pitching an easy to hit, slow, underhanded ball for someone to swing at ... so I took a swing and hit a home run.
Any Christian who claims the universe is billions of years old must also show why they believe mankind has also been around for billions of years -- based on what Jesus, our Creator, taught in Mark 10 : 6 and Matthew 19 : 4.
I'm not saying you're claiming what the universe's age is, but your initial post should cause the reader to think, "Well then, what's the closest thing in the Bible about the age of creation since none of the authors in the Bible intended to teach directly on the age of the Earth?"
Thus my post to your post points us to the age of creation is the same age as mankind's age.
Great job Pastor Wilson!
Jesus said that God made them male and female from the beginning not billions of years before. Paul points out that "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Well, who was seeing them from the creation or was it billions of years after?
One of the arguments here that I have a hard time agreeing with is the argument that death was brought into the world through Adam. I've always taken the passage to mean the death of humans and not speaking to animals. After all the parallel to Adam bringing forth death is Jesus bringing forth life. That life is not promised to the animals and seems to be only for humans. I will admit that there does seem to be some redemption for animals considering the Lion will lay with the Lamb ect. But it seems difficult to understand how death would not be a feature of the pre-fall oceans. I'm not opposed to answers that contradict what I am saying here but I am being honest that I am not sure the text is saying what Doug is saying that it is saying. I think Lewis's discussion of this in the Problem of Pain and subsequent letters is a good investigation on the subject (regardless of Lewis's views on scripture, which I would maintain are far more conservative than he at times lets on.)
I get the argument that Doug here makes on God's goodness and death before the fall. But the solution that I am struggling with is does the text verify the theory. Is it possible we could be missing the correct theory on how God's goodness could be justified with the death of animals?
“Creationist corn pones” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This needs to be on a t-shirt.
Smashing idols, good work
I have to push back a bit.
YEC uses cultic behaviour: "We are right, everyone else is wrong!"
I agree with Augustine that the book of Nature does not and cannot contradict the book of revelation. Both of these books needs intelligent interpretation and we can fail on both. What is sure is that when one reading of both is inconsistent then either both are wrong or at least one is wrong. Scientific mode of thinking are not the same as theological mode of thinking and both are difficult and fallable.
Gabriel, actually gets around. He appears to David, at least twice. He visited Mary to tell her she would be visited by the holy spirit. That makes God, a quad, or family.
This is a good opportunity to start teaching of the evolution of ancient language and civilization. Languages before the 8th century BC have really interesting and consistent representations of ancient nouns and name-places.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
...
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
...
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground- then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The creation account isn’t about origins. It’s about the source. The source is yhwh and that’s the point. The Bible is not about geology, zoology, or biology and if you make it something that it’s not it becomes a self defeating prophecy. This is why young earth creationist lose in debates 100% of the time. It’s embarrassing.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
Does Mr Wilson think that Adam recorded Genesis? or did he just mistake Adam for Moses? 3min mark
I think the real question I have is "what do you mean by Old Earth Creationist?" Because you have to actually define what that means before I can address it, if you say it is evolution, there are addresses I can give, but if you merely say it is an old age of Earth, prey tell where this age comes from and where it lies? I can address with many questions, but few every consider the presuppositions and axioms they already accept to make their arguments, often they accept some else's claims without question and then say "it just must make sense" without considering perhaps that your presumptions of reality themselves are founded on liars and thieves? I am more disturbed by the Christian's willingness to lean into the liars presuppositions and be deceived by man's philosophies and the elemental spirits of the world, does no one remember Colossians 2:8?
How did the animals develop into all the different species in a fews thousand years after the flood??
@@aallen5256 Because natural selection divides the genetics so as to reduce the information within the genetics, they were already of different kinds, what Ken Ham's people calls an Orchard of Life instead of a Tree of Life, many Orchards were given to each their own kind, and then with this full information of every animal in their genetics, they interbred and would lose genetic information in their offspring in order to develop into many varieties which could shift according to the environment, we can most especially confirm this by interbreeding hybrids, with this we know the spotted cat, house cat, leopard, panther, and lion are all of the same kind. This does not always work, some factors can disturb this work, but if you can also use morphology for this too, like for example the Cheetah is also related to the cat kind, as it carries all the traits related to a cat in its morphology, but it cannot breed with any cat because its so inbreed that its genetic information only allows it to breed with other Cheetahs. Many species already existed, and with God's providence through the full spectrum of genetics information that the creatures had, the kinds could develop into more distinct appearances. But God does not judge by appearance as man does, so too those who care for truth must not observe by appearance. Simply put, true natural selection is the antithesis to evolution, for evolution requires adding spontaneous genetic information, but natural selection removes genetic information from each generation that becomes more specified.
I suggest you look up Answers in Genesis' Ice Age talk where it goes into massive detail about all of this. That is if you truly care about how we deal with this Biblically.
@@Spartan322 This is too much confusion for me to engage with, but Ken Ham thinks there were dinosaurs on the ark!! And he totally disregards the fact that all obligate carnivores from house cats to t-Rex would need to eat meat to survive. His explanations only convince fundamentalists!
@@aallen5256
"Ken Ham thinks there were dinosaurs on the ark!!"
Why wouldn't dinosaurs be able to enter the Ark?
"And he totally disregards the fact that all obligate carnivores from house cats to t-Rex would need to eat meat to survive."
And do you know what the Earth was like in the time of Noah before the Flood? Do you know what animals he had? The Ark Encounter already got into this explanation but you make up claims to try and make it sound foolish.
For example, how do you know that in Noah's time he had to bring a T-Rex? See thing is we don't know if it was a T-Rex, it could be of the same kind as the T-Rex, we don't even know if its kind was one that was only ever a carnivore, we aren't even sure if that's strictly true, and it would be a juvenile at the oldest anyway. (less food consumption, less waste, smaller size, more potential to reproduce) Answers in Genesis have already answered this. Besides they didn't start as carnivores anyway, in the Garden there was no death, so one could not consume flesh. Why do you assume then that they could only exist as to eat flesh? Maybe that's the case or maybe after the Flood the ones on the Ark could also develop as to eat flesh, we don't have anything on that.
And its not just Ken Ham, I don't even get why you're so hateful, spiteful, and rude about this, do you not realize that your engagement with me is itself sinful? As is the way you refer to Ken Ham. I wonder of your understanding of the Biblical text if this is how you respond. Am I not a brother in Christ? Do you accuse me of being a heretic? Do you judge me as a false follower of Jesus? What of the judgement upon another and divisions in the Church? Do you say that a fundamentalist isn't saved? What do you even mean by fundamentalist? Is not the Bible itself fundamental to truth? If it is not, then is the Word of Moses not fundamental to the ministry of Jesus? Then what of John 5:45-47? Would you reject Jesus to be glorified by man? Would you be taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit, by the traditions of man, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ? (Colossians 2:8) What is a fundamentalist that you think they are of so little worth? Are they of less value then God's Word? The greatest virtue being love, yet where does it reside? What itself is love?
@@Spartan322 I won’t say it’s demonism, but with many unbelievers there’s this kind of uncontrollable “mask-off” spitefulness where they can’t help themselves and always reveal their true nature (which only the naive can’t discern)
“Once we have limited participants that way …” -> Meaning: once we only discuss with people who accept our own standpoint, it is easier to reach a “consensus”. What a revelation!! BTW: When people discuss “the age of the earth” of course they mean the age of the earth counted from today. Please do not give us this phony excuse at the beginning of this video :-O
I believe that the Bible Is God's true word - and is inherent. I also believe the earth is ~4.6 Billion years old.
I Agree!
"Reasons to Believe"
Well 1/2 is still a pass. The crazy book wasn't written by a god.
So here’s my question:
Admittedly, I don’t have time to do all the research into the science of archaeological dating and whatnot. And I’ve heard from believers and nonbelievers that there’s issues with this process.
But, how do YEC’s make sense of supposed civilizations that existed before 6k years ago? Some say Sumeria existed in 4500BC, which itself would put the clock back to 6500 years.
And for a civilization to have been around 6500 years ago, that would obviously imply it was more than just 2 people, since it was a civilization.
I find this harder to debate than the age of the Earth itself. If people and other humanoid creatures had been around much longer than 6000 years, then what do you do with that?
Sincerely,
A Christian who would have no problem with believing YEC, but if evidence suggests there were civilizations more than 6k years ago, acknowledges the potential implications of the entire Gospel story given Jesus himself pointing to Adam and Eve and the numerous references Paul makes to them, how sin entered the world, and how we now are saved.
Thanks y’all 💙
Flood of Noah likely created the coal beds, perhaps all large fossil fuel deposits. This doesn't get mentioned often.
You people are geniuses! Never mind that the great flood was written about first in the The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Hmmmm? Plagiarism? Not an original idea, hmmmm? Myths ripped off from other myths, hmmmm?
@@Lombokstrait1 Or you know other people experiencing the same super natural event and putting their own ethnic spin on it. We already see what Muslims did to the Bible. Moses was black with a huge dick for example. Jesus killed and revived little birds for fun as a child. Oh and depending on if your are arab or persian determines if you are Sunni or Shia.
You're the one who thinks chemistry will eventually prove the origin of life (and we're nowhere near that STILL after almost 70 years of experimentation). What Francis Crick said about a tornado hitting a junk yard to make a 747 is the same as atoms forming the first living cell just needs to be ignored right?
You think Carbon 14 decays perfectly, whether I heat a rock up, blast it with light, or soak it in radiation the Carbon -14 decays the same because reasons. You have no explanation why newly formed magma can't give it's correct age either.
You actually think Plateosaurus evolved into Stegosaur and that all the biological software along with all the genes for the physiological traits all came by luck. Sure is lucky that a bird not only has wings but understands the concepts of flight and even evolved lungs to handle higher altitudes. Say where are the in-betweens of those animals at? Oh right I know Punctuated Equilibrium! Amazing how the starving homeless guy in the middle of winter spends his last dollar on a lottery ticket and wins everytime isn't it? Because that's what Punctuated Equilibrium is saying: life doesn't evolve until a crisis event and then kicks it into high gear in times when you wouldn't even know the outcome of the crisis event in the longrun.
Your geological nonsense requires you to believe the layers are all millions of years and yet when some parts of the world are missing a layer that's millions of years old that was erosion. It only effects certain layers cause reasons.
You confidently held our ancestors believing in sea monsters like giant squid was nonsense. Until we found them.
You confidently held fossils had mineralized to the point no soft tissues were in them. Until we found them.
You claim then that chemistry got it wrong and the fossil is still millions of years old because reasons.
AND all of this is because deep down you want to be a hedonist and not out of any real desire for the truth which is why your kind have conniption fits when "the science" undoes one of your tenants. I'd rather your crowd drop the "yay science" act and just say you want to butt fuck kids it's more honest.
@@Lombokstrait1 You do realize every civilization has a great flood with a man who built a boat to preserve him and often the species of the world. The records for that are much older then the Epic, could it not possibly be that it happened and merely everyone is writing about what actually happened, corrupting and missing elements but speaking to other similar elements. Much like how a witness may describe some details and miss out on others, if we have even two independent witnesses who corroborate the same event with non-contradicting but distinct details, we already know that account is fact, how much more do the many people all independent yet to have corroborated such an event? This doesn't demonstrate anything and is in reality a fallacy. It doesn't even demonstrate plagiarism because they could all be describing the same event. And facts aren't something you can plagiarize.
@@Spartan322 Not true at all!! If there really had been a cataclysmic global flood, archipelagic nations like Japan would have such a myth - they do not. If it happened, why did developed civilisations that would have been apocalyptically effected make no record of it, neither in history or legend?
@@Lombokstrait1 if you got an F and I got an A on the assignment, you can be sure that I did not copy off of your work
Remember, God created a tree that bore fruit that was ‘pleasing to the eye and good for food’ and ‘desirable for obtaining wisdom’ and this was the fruit He told us not to eat-why didn’t God make it more obvious that it was deadly and horrifically catastrophic to our condition?
Because God tests us. God wants to prove (to us) what we will do when forced to choose between His word and our logic.
The serpent and the woman approached the fruit with a step-by-step adherence to the scientific method. They questioned, observed, hypothesized, and tested, and it killed all of us.
Science and the wisdom of man are abysmally insufficient to survive as a creature subject to God’s judgement.
Distance is an exceedingly odd way to measure time...
I come in peace. I think this is pointless, because it will always come down to a critical point the Lord Himself once made in the inspired-oh yes, and infallible and inerrant Scriptures-that have been so faithfully attested to and handed down to Believers in Jesus Christ since the dawn of the New Testament: Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
That’s in the Gospel according to Luke at 10:26. Go ahead-look it up in any and every translation available and language (I speak, read and write three major ones.)
My background is Biochemistry and Geology and Creative Writing. I grew up on what was available on the question of Origins, put out by John Morris, before Ken Ham materials became available to me. Now it’s all wearying-because all it appears to be is a word game.
There are philosophical presuppositions involved a priori. The Bible speaks all the truth about Physics and every other branch of the Sciences (it provided the framework for the Scientific Method in the first place!) but I think its point is Metaphysics, not Physics.
One last point: The Christian Establishment should stop playing at gatekeepers by insisting on YEC while labeling everyone else misguided. Just lay allow for all to examine all the data.
"And behold, a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28 NASB)
What relevant point you are reading in our Lord's words here?
Sounds like op just doesn’t believe God’s Word.
Yes!
I will ever be grateful to my youth pastor who said that just as God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, with the appearance of age but not actual age, so He also create the Earth with everything in motion for it to continue. If that requires a universe that has the appearance of age without actual age, so be it.
Therefore as a young earth creationist I have no problem w/ an actually young universe appearing old. Some of my brethren expend great efforts to make an old looking universe appear young. My efforts are placed elsewhere.
okay, so God created a young earth, but made it look like it's much much older? Okay, what else should I believe?
@@mkd4life40
That bats are birds, insects have 4 legs, the mustard seed is the smallest seed, and leprosy can be cured by sacrificing birds. Too many to mention...
The Gawd you describe is a liar.
OMG! Epic!
So your approach to science is to decide on the outcome at the onset and then work out the details. I don't think science means what you think it means. Good luck ignoring the evidence.
The earth is roughly 6 thousand years old because God said so.
@@M3MAX so your approach to knowledge, is that an obviously flawed book says it's true. Let me give you a syllogism.
1) The Bible contains laughable myths.
2) The flood and creation myths are laughably false.
3) So quit pretending the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Any more evidence free assertions?
@@chuckyfarley9465sure while I'm at it.. You are unregenarate sinner that will spend an eternity(much longer than 6K years) suffering in nonstop torment. Turn from your oh so mature and scientific pride before its too late. Turn to the only one that can save you.
@@chuckyfarley9465 Be brought low and watch this below 👇
Living
The Bible actually states that God "stretched out" the heavens, so He created the stars and then stretched them out which is how we see light from stars millions of light years away:
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV):
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
Isaiah 45:12 (NIV):
"It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts."
Psalm 104:2 (NIV):
"He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent."
Not how light works, not how physics works. I know, too dumb to look it up.
So he made the universe with the illusion of age. Seems honest enough.
If god knows the future then what is free will ?
If I know what the weather will be tomorrow, does that mean I control it?
@@dewaldt8104 that analogy makes no sense. If god knows what will happen before I do it then how did I have a choice to do differently
@@ShoestringRacer so if I know what you will do, does that mean I control you
@@dewaldt8104 it means I didn’t have a choice to do otherwise
😂😂amen!
Psalms 1:1-2 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Dear Dr. Wilson, 4:51 There is a theory that no one on either side considerers, and that, I think, resolves the issue without compromising the plain language in Genesis, and makes the time issue moot, at least for me. Where in Genesis does it tell us how fast clocks were turning at the moment of creation? I am assuming that the laws of physics came into being along with the physical universe, but no where does Genesis say so, but if the laws did, which I see no reason to think otherwise, then Einstein’s theory of relativity means that time moves faster in relation to gravity. If God held all the matter in the universe, in the palm of His hand, for the millisecond that it took to put it where He wanted it, how much gravity/time distortion would that generate? Even if it was only for a millisecond, then time would have sped up beyond anything we can calculate, if we accept Einstein’s theories. A million years could pass in a second. What conservative Bible believing Christian would argue that God did not create matter, all in one place, in the beginning? I would hope no theologian would be so presumptuous. All the matter in the universe is less than a speck of dust to Almighty God. Psalm 8 describes God placing the heavenly bodies into their places with His fingers. This would indicate some moment of creation for which we have no way to know the effect on time. E=MC2. Think about it, and tell me why I’m wrong.
Search for Walter Veith, his one hell of a scientists and attacks from a scientific standpoint. Impressive work.
BTW Jesus affirms the Flood (Luke 17:27)
@@darthbigred22 “attacks,” what? I am not attacking. I am asking how relativity affects time, and if this has been considered, theologically. If in fact relativity affects time, how did the moment of creation affect time? This is not an old age vs young age question. This makes that question moot. I believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God, and the Westminster Standards to be the most theologically correct expression of Biblical Theology. I am a reformed, Calvinistic, covenantal, preteristic, postmillennial, follower of our Lord Jesus Christ who created the world and everything in it, and through whom the atoms holds together by His will.
I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I’m not sold on young earth. It’s not an issue of whether or not the scripture is correct. It’s obviously our understanding of it that we disagree upon. Understanding of scripture varies greatly between other topics as well. Earth age is a secondary issue.
Time isn't really that complicated though? Time is simply motion. Particle A is in Location 1 at Moment X and in Location 2 at Moment Y. "Time" is simply an observation of the rate of change. It's an emergent phenomena caused by energy and matter in motion. And when Particle A bumps into Particle B which then goes on to affect Particles C and D, well now you have Causality.
See? Simple enough.
I believe that the Earth is relatively young - created by God much more recently than 4 billion years - but still quite a bit older than 6,000 years. Every bit of evidence to be found in the physical world screams that the Earth has some age to it.
The whole discussions are useless, it clearly says 7 days, so the earth and everything else was created in those 7 days. And often in the bibel it even mentiones that as god rested on the 7th day so shoupd you have the Sabbat... So it basically compares a human 24hr day to a creation day that also had only 24 hrs. And the whole thing is not mentioned in the bibel to be proven by us but more in order for us to believe in it without knowing the how. Thats what believe is about you trust in a fact that you are not sure of, yet we end up being sure that god exists and that what he says is truth. He gives us faith that grows day by day if we want that.🙏🏻
They let science trump their believe in the word of God. Very dangerous game to play
Ok, but the 7th day never ends.
@@dewaldt8104 hi there. Outside of Hebrews, where else would a person go in order to support this idea?
btw, I'm not at all looking to debate. A rarity, I know, on Doug's channel ;) I'm genuinely curious if you could point me to a few other places which you think teach this.
Thank you.
There is a great deal of flexibility in the interpretation of Genesis, and little reason to be aggressive about any of them. As Douglas Wilson says at the beginning the key is the glory and sovereignty of God, and the validity of scripture. Certainly the "day" of Genesis can mean more than a 24-hour day, especially since that is an artifact we developed once the Sun was put in the sky, which is several "days" after God started creating, and the 7th "day" of God resting from ex nihilo creation is, shall we say, inescapably longer than a 24 hour period.
That said, I am fine with a strict 24-hour interpretation as well, it might very well be true. As long as you get the gospel right, I'm flexible with other stuff.
And yes, I very strongly agree that scientists are definitely making extraordinarily sketchy guesses and theories about things they know virtually nothing about. I am reminded of science from the 18th century, where they have a few sketchy new concepts about things like electricity, and were guessing wild, outlandish, and ridiculous things because they had too little data to make proper conclusions
Sir, if you are on the team search Walter Veith and his little 10 part series. I'm a chemist and it brought me around. He's a biologist and well frankly if you are still Old Earth after him I'd be shocked he's not nearly as wonky as the Ark guys in Arkansas.
Doug was being generous... Jesus affirms the Flood so the most odious event must be taken literal.
The three videos in my playlist from is Genesis History destroy the possibility of believing old earth
I tend to say the earth is 6k years old.
But if we take the Bible literally, is it MAYBE 6 days old? On the 7th day everything is very good. Is everything very good? Was everything very good in the garden? No, it was not good that man should be alone. And Adam did not yet have knowledge of good as he had not yet knowledge of evil. Everything was not yet good. But in the 7th day everything was very good.
I agree with you on many biblical teaching but not on this one. The Bible doesn't teach literal 24hr days but Yom or periods of time. If you have an objection it's not with me but with Walter Kaiser.
Every time Yom appears with the word evening, morning, or night, or a numeral, it always means a 24 hour day. Every single time, across thousands of uses in the Old Testament.
Thousands? Nice try.
The times when the word Yom is used with a number is referring to human history. Genesis 1 is referring to natural history. If context is King, then technically 24hr days do not begin until day 4.
@@bountyhunter404 there is “The first day” And therefore it is an ordinary day according to normal reckoning
"The first day".(Yom) Normal parlance for the English speaking world perhaps but this was written in Hebrew.
So if God made the light between the distant stars and us then there is no reason to believe that those distant stars actually exist if I believe the universe is young. He could just be sending light to us that makes us "think" it is a galaxy or star, but in this view it doesn't actually have to be there. This feels like deception.
Time is not constant in space, sorted.
Seven theses, seven comments.
1. If you say that the issue is always what God says, not how old something is, then you are not debating a scientific issue, but a theological one. Theology does not belong in science class.
2. If you accept that this is an internal debate between Christians, then you should keep your internal debate out of public schools.
3. Indeed, keeping the internal Christian debate truly internal *_would_* simplify matters considerably, especially for all the people in public school systems who get pestered with Christian young earthers trying to get them to teach theology in science class.
4. Wait what? Mammoths and Tyrannosaurs will be resurrected, raised, restored in the end of days? Wow...
5. If the fossil record shows that death predates humans, and you cannot agree with that scientific insight on theological grounds, then you should admit you are not doing science, and your theology should be kept out of science classes.
6. If Jesus was fully human, then it follows that as a first century Jew, he did not know that the origin stories from Genesis he believed, were not actually true. Jesus also does not know when he will return, so there is good precedent for this explanation.
7. You may reject scientific insights because of your religious dogma, but you may not pretend that doing so is scientific. So keep your religious dogma out of the public science curriculum. Please.
Well no. We need Christianity in public schools. I know that offends non Christians, however since we've taken Christianity out of public schools, the public schools have suffered.
@@dewaldt8104 You said: _"We need Christianity in public schools."_
Not in science classes we don't.
Secondly, I understand you may feel this way because you yourself happen to be a Christian, but if your local public school were to listen to you, should they then not also listen to Muslim parents demanding Islam be taught, Hindu parents demanding Hinduism, etc. etc.?I hope you can see that this would be both unworkable as well as unreasonable.
You said: _"I know that offends non Christians, however since we've taken Christianity out of public schools, the public schools have suffered."_
I don't know if that is true at all. I would like to see the data on that, please. As far as I am aware, the high school graduation rate is as high as it has ever been. As for your claim that Christianity has been "taken out" of public schools, all major religions, including Christianity, should be taught in religious or social studies classes, and because of the gigantic role Christianity has played in our history, art, and culture, it is taught extensively in those contexts as well. In that sense, Christianity was never "taken out" of public schools at all.
If we are required to interpret the days in Genesis as strictly 24 hour periods, must we also interpret the following passages the same way?
"Sorrow may last for a night, but joy comes in exactly 12 hours." -Psalm 30:5
"Today, for the next 24 hours only, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." Hebrews 4
"With the Lord, a day is like 24 hours, and 24 hours is like a day." 2 Peter 3:8
And if ALL death is a result of man's sin, why does God speak so approvingly and favorably of plant and animal death in the following passages?
"Rise, Peter. Kill and eat." Acts 10:13
"The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God." Psalm 104:21
"Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." John 12:24
I believe that a careful reading of scripture leaves room for a different perspective, without discarding inerrancy. Hugh Ross and the folks at Reasons to Believe are very careful with Scripture, and provide what I believe is a more holistic, whole-Bible approach to the questions at hand, allowing scripture to interpret scripture, and allowing God, who cannot lie, to speak truthfully and faithfully through nature.
I’d encourage your read “Refuting Compromise” by Dr: Jonathan Sarfati. The book is a refutation of Hugh Ross’s scientific and theological views.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone be strict about the number of hours in a day. If it was 23 or 25 hours or so, that doesn't effect young earth arguments. Rather, its more that "day" in Gen 1 is more like how we experience a normal day today, evening and then morning, one day. When "24-hour day" is used, they aren't trying to stress the number of seconds God took to create, but rather to convey this normal human experience of a day. Many creationists will explicitly state that when they are giving a more thorough overview of their position (as opposed to a short blog post).
It doesn't matter to us even in this modern age that days can be longer or shorter and we need to shave a second here or add one there to correct it, and given that they didn't even have atomic clocks (and many cultures didn't even have a fixed length hour), over-specifying like this just looks like a dishonest attempt at a strawman rather than a serious point.
Op it’s like you haven’t listened at all. It’s when you see morning abs day in the sane passage, or a number Anna day in yw Dame passage, then it’s a guaranteed normal day. These words in isolation have wider range
So the debate should only be conducted by people who agree? Sounds like a very boring and one sided debate.
Stars are literally hundreds of millions of light-years away, and Adam’s death was spiritual rather than physical. Who wrote the first chapter of Genesis, and what genre does it belong to? Hasn’t God already questioned Job, asking who was there when He created the universe? What is the symbolism in Genesis chapter 1? Finally, the last time I checked, John chapter 3 said that believing in Jesus Christ was the only requirement-not believing in a young earth or a literal six-day creation. Why put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of the Gospel message?
Where did he say this was a salvation issue? Nowhere. As far as Adam's death being only spiritual, there are problems. God killed the animals for skins to cover over the sin. It began the sacrificial system. Also if the death was only spiritual then why did God say to seal up the tree of life because if Adam eats from it he will live forever. Clearly speaking physically. Moses wrote Genesis as historical narrative. I.e. This is what God did.
The argument that God created the distant star light in place is, by far, his most intellectually deficient argument. Why practice science at all if what we see is a lie? If the death caused by the fall was physical then why didnt' they drop dead immediatly? Also why the Cheribium to guard the garden? Why the garden if all of earth was a paradise?
P.S. I'm a big fan and also solidly old-earth.
I’m firmly YEC and never liked the starlight-in-transit theory. A god who shows us pictures of things that aren’t really there (e.g. distant supernovas) is a deceptive god. There are better solutions to the distant starlight problem that don’t impugn God’s character.
If God created everything out of nothing... Then why does he have to do it via a big bang?
Some of these arguments of the rejection of starlight in transit instantaneously are surprising me that they are just not accepted and it is because of this.... If God made all the fish and birds on the same day for example he did not make them all babies but fully formed and functioning normally but if you looked at them you would say oh they are few years old or whatever. So after the very minute they were created it looks like they were many many many days old. In other words physics and the laws that govern our world are just being started up so if course everything had to be miraculously supernaturally instantly made when the time got set into motion to function.
And the folks who say well where did the light come from before the sun failing to realize that God is light. Paul was blinded by a light brighter than the sun..... you do not think that Christ just appearing hovering over the globe in blazing Glory would not provide the light that the world needed before the sun was made? Like the appropriate heat, pressure, etc? Again if the universe was just being formed and instantly made everything we know about physics has to be suspended during the formation.
There is no deception here just in the minds of man making accusations
@@hudjahulos You assume we are correct about what we are seeing. Remember until we get there it's all conjecture. Sadly as well even on the secular science side of things unless we can make wormholes we will never be able to prove any of it.
@@joepavlik808 I've heard Doug make a similar argument. It is a category error. Starlight is a different category from life as are rocks and variouse dating methods etc. With life, the evidence points to complex mechanisms that could only exist if the first versions were full formed. What came first the chicken or the egg? Clearly the chicken. I do think it's likely God created plants as seeds first. Nevertheless, this doesn't contradict clear observation. Starlight created in place is deceptive.
I can't imagine believing in YEC as a grown adult.
You should write a paper outlining what we can do about this. Is there a cure for stupidity?
Creationist Cornpone here😁