Christian Astrophysicist Explains Young Earth: Dr. Jason Lisle Interview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- On The Babylon Bee Interview Show, Kyle and Ethan talk to Christian astrophysicst, speaker, and author, Dr. Jason Lisle. They talk about dinosaurs, cavemen, evidence of a young earth, and the Bible as a history book. Dr. Lisle obtained a Master’s degree and Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado. He has since written a number of best selling books on the topic of creation including: Taking Back Astronomy, Stargazer’s Guide to the Night Sky, the Ultimate Proof of Creation, Discerning Truth, and Understanding Genesis. He also founded the Biblical Science Institute, where they help defend the Christian worldview against people who call it unscientific.
00:02:24 Beginning of Interview
00:10:16 Response to Snopes calling Young Earth a conspiracy
00:19:46 Dr. Lisle's view on assumptions made by modern science
00:24:42 Ark Encounter and Dinosaurs
Subscribe on iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Submit Your Own Headlines and Become a Premium Subscriber: babylonbee.com...
The Official The Babylon Bee Store: shop.babylonbe...
Follow The Babylon Bee:
Website: babylonbee.com
Twitter: / thebabylonbee
Facebook: / thebabylonbee
Instagram: / thebabylonbee
What an awesome interview. I'm happy to see the bee sticking up for the Bible and really practicing what they preach. The evidence for a young world creation is outstanding, the evolution theory falls flat under genuine scientific scrutiny.
Evolution is actually the best supported theory in all of science with evidence from genetics, paleontology, ecology, anatomy, embryology and experimentation.
@@dinohall2595 Better supported than the laws of motion? Consider the assumptions behind the evidence for evolution as well as the difficulty in directly testing it. Can evolution be tested in a lab?
@@fredwalker3978 The laws of motion are not a theory. Laws describe what happens, theories explain why. Yes, evolution can be directly demonstrated in a lab. Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies and countless experiments on bacteria have done exactly that.
@@dinohall2595 My mistake about the laws, thank you. Dodd's experiment just looks like a new species of fruit fly, is that right? I don't see how that can be extrapolated as evidence for molecules to man? The one bacterial experiment I looked at was Lenski? And that wasn’t bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate because they were already capable of doing that under anaerobic conditions (so they could conceivably adapt it to aerobic conditions). Such changes or adaptations show the possibility/potential for evolution but are a categorical step away from demonstrating it. Basically what I was wondering was if there any experiments that show how a bird could evolve from a dinosaur?
@@fredwalker3978 Since extinct animals are, well, extinct, we can't experiment on them directly. However, we can experiment on living organisms to see how they respond to selective pressures and then analyze fossils to look for parallels between similar organisms.
In the case of birds evolving from dinosaurs, the way we can study it is by comparative anatomy. The skeletons of birds and nonavian theropods are extremely similar, sharing lunate wrists bones, a long and S-shaped neck, clavicles fused into a furcula, and a diagnostic structure of their ankle bones. (In fact, Avemetatarsalia, the group including dinosaurs and pterosaurs, means "bird ankle.")
The line between bird and "non-bird" becomes extremely blurry in some cases. Archaeopteryx, for one, had wings and feathers like a bird and an avian skull but had no beak, instead having a mouthful of teeth, clawed fingers and abdominal ribs like a reptile. Archaeopteryx also preserves impressions of feathers on its legs, which birds today don't have but which an earlier dinosaur, Microraptor, did have because it possessed gliding "wings" on all four limbs. There are also fossil birds with both beaks and teeth like Ichthyornis. So even though we don't have any living dromaeosaurs to experiment on, we can use observations from the present to make inferences about the past.
I’ve been discovering more and more about the young earth and I love it. It has always bothered me growing up in public schools that they place millions of years on everything. I always thought if things were truly that old, wouldn’t they just erode to dust? But now that I know the truth everything just falls into place very neatly. This science only strengthens your faith even more.
Thank you for sharing this.
this isn't science. This is nothing but lies. Geologists "place millions of years on things" because unlike you they actually study it firsthand. There are huge billion dollar industries like oil, gas, coal, lithium, uranium, etc that pay teams of professional geologists good money to find resources within the layers of the earth, and they ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION have found that the earth is very old indeed. Your inability to understand this is irrelevant. If things actually made more sense with a young earth, the competitive advantage this would give to a company would far outweigh any alleged motive you invent for them to lie about it. Lying about such things brings shame and ridicule to Christ. Deep time shows God's long suffering patience and makes Him even that much bigger than us.
Great..
ruclips.net/video/lM0RgVz5gjg/видео.htmlsi=X4DDI5wm1OP-kY2A
Lolz, Young Earth Creationism is full science denial as well as reality denial. Some folks are willing to tell 1,000 lies to defend the "Absolute Truth". From lying about what the scientific concensus is, what science is, the data about the natural world, the positions in science they disagree with, how the natural world works etc.
Look up the heat problem if you think young earth and Noah's flood are true. It's got the entire young earth creation science community in a very compromised position, including the Answers in Genesis crowd, and that's no exaggeration.
When the other side throws out all biology for the sake of “feelings” why do we let them judge our Bible? Jason is one of the smartest men I’ve ever seen, look him up see for yourself. He really scratched the surface I in this interview.
by "the other side" I assume you mean real scientists? Like actual biologists studying these things. So....actual biologists throw out biology? And who cares how smart this Jason guy is, he's a liar. Smart liars are the most dangerous kind.
@@theTavis01 No he's not a liar. But you are.
Calling someone a liar is meaningless and unhelpful. Haven't you got something better, like some evidence, logic or intelligent reasons as the presenter had?
@@andrewthomas6312 Rebuking liars is actually a biblical command (Titus 1:12-13). The evidence of an old earth is excruciatingly well-documented at this point, as a result of CENTURIES of rigorous research performed by countless professional geologists all around the world, employed by cut-throat do-anything-to-succeed multi-billion dollar industries like oil, coal, lithium, uranium, etc. The idea that some random liar can allegedly prove them all wrong simply on the grounds of "cus duh byebull say so" is extraordinarily dishonest and blasphemous. The Bible does NOT say so, and neither does geology.
This dogmatic drivel is ruining Christianity and is responsible for more atheists than the "church of satan"...
I was indoctrinated with the 'billions of years' bunk because that's what our schools have been teaching.
The conditions that are necessary to make fossils convinced me that the story of Noah makes complete sense and led me to become a believer. Thanks Lyle and Kent Hovind as well.
I'm a God-Earther. I believe God made the Earth. If He wanted to do it in 7 days, He did. If He wanted the world to be 6000 years old right now, it is. If He wanted to make it in such a way that we thought it was older as our "knowledge" grows, then He did. If He wanted the Earth to be billions of years old, then He did. Jesus came down here 2000 years ago and made sure that didn't matter.
Unfortunately, it does matter. I grew up entirely secular, and the ridiculous nonsense I would hear from young earthers made me extremely repulsed by Christianity, and made me lose all respect for the Bible. That's not ok. They are standing on nothing but a pile of lies.
Thanks for having Dr. Lyle. Nothing better than hearing him speak.......except hearing him speak with Kyle and Ethan!
He's a liar. He's lying to you. Deep time glorifies God by showing how patient He is, and how much bigger than us He is. And deep time has been extremely well established for centuries and is very sold science relied upon regularly by major billion dollar industries like oil, coal, lithium, and more. Nothing about Genesis excludes deep time. 2 Peter 3:8 even tells us directly that a day with God can be a really long period of time. Insisting upon 24 hour days despite it not being required in the text, and despite enormous evidence to the contrary, is not a show of faith nor of humility.
@@theTavis01 That's true the Bible can go either way on this subject but he is NOT a liar. Wether you believe what he is saying or not he is NOT lying. And it's very telling when people use ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with his arguments.
P.s.
I'm not sure about the age of the universe but one things for certain. We (human beings) did NOT evolve from anything else. We have always been human. Darwinian evolution is the biggest lie and hoax ever committed in the history of the world.
If you disagree then God will certainly correct you on the day of Judgment.
@@theTavis01 So...not a comment refuting what he said, just a comment about the oil, coal, lithium "and more" industries that teach us the Earth is old. Gotcha, man.
@@TheHappyBachelor yeah, the fact that you blasphemers pretend to know better than all of the professional geologists working for cut-throat billion dollar industries is BEYOND prideful. Keep in mind, you're not just correcting them on a small thing. You are claiming that they are ALL completely and utterly wrong on EVERYTHING that they have spent their life's work studying. All because you're too thickheaded to allow the days in Genesis to be longer than 24 hours. it's utter trash. I have zero respect for Jason Liar because if you read Genesis with the ultraliteralness necessary to insist upon 24 hour days, you MUST also reject a solar system and deep space, and yet he doesn't do that so he's not even consistent in his fake piety. But if he said something that you deem worthy of a response, tell it to me. Otherwise I have better things to do with my time than to watch this horribly sinful video again.
You cannot use 2 Peter 3:8 to justify the day age theory. The context here is that God will fulfill his promise in due time the day of judgment is to come, no matter what. verse eight is saying that to the Lord it is as if judgment day is tomorrow while to us it feels like 1000 years away. God’s perspective is outside of time. We are stuck on this timeline, but God is not. The book of Exodus says that God created everything in six days and so we should work for six days and rest on the seventh because He did also. that is our foundation for a 24 hour day week in Genesis one.
I was blessed to be educated as a Young Earth Creationist at Christian High School in El Cajon, CA.
Home also to the Institute for Creation Research, so scientists like Duane Gish, Henry Morris and Ken Ham were our Biology, Physics and Astronomy teachers.
That was 45 years ago & God has used this knowledge & confidence immeasurably in our families lives.
Praise God - great interview here Dr Lisle is superb.
That's not a blessing, it's a curse. Those men are dirty rotten liars.
@@theTavis01
Go for it.
Prove your point of view.
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
O % evidence after all these years.
Missing Links ?
Still missing !
Evolutionary theory is based on "belief & faith" just like any version of origins.
In fact, Evolution is simply the "Creation Narrative" of a Materialist Secular Worldview.
Only you have a problem:
You have NO CREATOR.
Where did matter come from ?
You have "matter making itself" and
"Everything came from NOTHING".
Both of which have never been observed & cannot be demonstrated.
You guys are like a man who thinks a factory can make finished products, but has no "Receiving" door for Raw Materials & then no skilled creative workers inside.
Only monkeys throwing grenades, lol.
So, sorry Bill the only liars are the ones that taught you the fake religion of "Evolutionary Materialism", and that it was an acceptable explaination for the amazingly complex intricately DESIGNED world 🌎 we are Blessed with.
Blessed because God Almighty and His Son JESUS created it for His Glory.
And our Good....
@@psalm2forliberty577 Everything you just said is a lie, except for the last two sentences. Evolution is the study of God's creation. If you cannot see God's creativity, judgment, long suffering patience, wisdom, and foresight in evolution then you lack faith and are spiritually blind. Romans 1:20 says that you have no excuse for not seeing God's glory in evolution, and regardless of that, there is ZERO justification for such wretchedly obsessive dishonesty.
@@theTavis01
Uh, Genesis.
@@psalm2forliberty577 what about Genesis? And you ignored what I said about God's glory, why is that? Genesis presents creation as a progression over time. If you are going to pretend like "And God said let the earth bring forth the living creature" is somehow totally at odds with evolution, then you are looking for conflict and practicing eisegesis. Also, I sure hope you reject a solar system and deep space, because if you are going to insist that Genesis requires the entire universe to be only 6000 years old (because you're soooo "hardcore"), the you ABSOLUTELY MUST have a literal dome encircling the earth with the sun, moon and stars INSIDE the dome. That's what the entire church believed for the first 1500 years, up to and including Martin Luther. It says the word firmament several times in chapter one. Acting like the firmament is some loose poetic metaphor for an atmosphere gradually fading off into the vacuum of space, but then turning around and in the very same breath saying that a day MUST be exactly 24 hours and not some indeterminite aeon, is NOT honest behavior, and it's NOT a valid hermeneutic. You either have a young earth under a dome, or an old earth in deep space. Those are the ONLY valid options.
Scientifically, space and time are a continuum and a measurement of deep space IS a measurement of deep time. So a young earth in deep space is impossible scientifically, it's impossible Biblically, and yet this is what nearly everyone in the YEC cult holds to as if it were the Gospel itself! (hint: that's not the Gospel)
And finally, even if all the science in the world is wrong. Even if the entire field of geology is catastrophically in complete error even though it's been used for centuries by major industries like oil, coal, lithium, and more. Even if radiometric dating is some giant and oddly consistent random fluke. Even if the fossils just happened to deposit perfectly so as to appear like a progression over time. Even if ALL of it is wrong - it STILL does not, and never will, justify LYING ABOUT IT. Young earth creationists CONSTANTLY LIE ABOUT SCIENCE. Henry Morris who started the cult literally published a book titled "Their Words May Be Used Against Them" in which the entire point was to encourage the dishonest misuse of scientists' words. This tactic, of "look the scientists admit it's all a fraud" even though the scientists were actually supporting the theory, or "look this new science actually proves a young earth" even though the publication talks about an old earth, is a PERVASIVE tactic of the yec cult. It is objectively bearing false witness, there is no excuse for it, and yecs do it CONSTANTLY. It's NOT ok. It will NEVER be ok. It is inexcusable behavior, regardless of what any facts may or not may be.
But to any rational person, the constant use of dishonest tactics just places the underline on how radically wrong yecs really are about everything. Being wrong is one thing. Being wrong and then refusing correction and then lying to pretend you are not wrong is another thing entirely. Stop it. The TRUTH will set you free. Not what you WANT the truth to be. The ACTUAL TRUTH.
"Chihuahuas are a result of the fall"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yes, I agree!
And cats
Yes. That was funny
This is a man who love Jesus with all his might, soul and body!
Oh cool! I just saw Dr. Lisle over the weekend at the Tulip Time Festival! I got to talk with him in between talks and he was sharing a Babylon Bee meme with me and laughing over it so much that I had to look it up to figure out what he was talking about 😂
A theory that I like is: Pre flood, there is good evidence that the planet was roughly 70% land and 30% water. Much more plants, much more oxygen. Also the atmosphere probalby also looked very different with a potentical ice layer that melted and fell to the earth as rain, which blocked more armful solar radiation. So post flood, the oxygen was gradually reduced, and more harmful radiation reaching the surface, causing people after the flood to die younger and younger as time goes on
That’s a pretty good theory
@@kky.x yeh, the Bible even mentions in genesis the water above the expance, and during the flood that water came down... It's a Kent hoven theory, I can't take credit for it...
Also, there is the matter of cell replication with the replication of chromosomes. A telomere is a region of repetitive DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome. Telomeres protect the ends of chromosomes from becoming frayed. Each time a cell divides, the telomeres become slightly shorter. Eventually, they become so short that the cell can no longer divide successfully, and the cell dies. So the organism dies sooner. Maybe more harsh environmental factors after the flood affect the telomeres. So both environmental and genetic factors may cause the shorter lifespan.
What was keeping the ice up there? What made the ice fall? What evidence do you have to support this postulate?
@@ArroEL922 Show me the PROOF you are the inbred descendant of the mean naked drunk who cursed his own child into slavery. The incest in you backwards cult does not count.
this is the video that made me a young earth creationist
sad to hear
I don't see my other reply. But please consider checking out Stuart Burgess video 'Uniqueness of Man'. Stuart designed the solar array deployment system on 4 different satellites. He also designed new transmission for the British Olympic bike teams who won the gold medal and broke the world record for both men and women.
Welcome to the light brother lol! Honestly, the more you research the more convinced you become!
Wow, tell everyone you are a science and reality denier that has zero understanding of reality, science or even care enough to learn anything factual without saying any of that.
You... You Science Denier(tm)
Let me mock you without providing any counterpoint.
Such a great conversation. Dr. Lisle gives evidence from both Science and Scripture in a well-thought-out conversation. Thank you guys for having this conversation.
I didn't see any evidence for his claims
@@markschiavone8003 I haven't watched yet but have you considered Matthew chapter 1 the recorded genealogy from Adam to Christ?
@@brettmagnuson8318 , yes, I studied the bible and I'm familiar with Matthew chapter 1. My problem ended up being how do we know if the supernatural claims in the bible are true. Aside from the obvious truths ig: Jerusalem is a real place, the Roman's were ruthless, human beings can be kind hearted and murder others etc etc. But without substantial external proof, the bible is like reading Spiderman or Harry Potter.
@@markschiavone8003 ah I see. I just realized I misunderstood your original comment. I was assuming you were referring to biblical evidence as in scriptural proof. Thus a person who believes the Bible is inspired by God (and therefore in its original form, is inerrant) and written by man will take that genealogy literally as I do.
So you’re not on board with the Bible as the ultimate source of truth because of the metaphysical claims. I see where you’re coming from. But have you considered that science still has no answers for many phenomenon that occurs even today? Conception is one example if my memory serves me right.
I would dispute what you said about the Bible being no different than Harry Potter or any other work of fiction (it sounds like you’re concluding the Bible is fictional?). These works were written by one human mind in one time period. It’s apples and oranges. The Bible was written over the course of thousands of years by different human authors yet somehow the message is ridiculously cohesive. How so? Could it be that there is one author who inspired each of these men? If you read the Bible including the Old Testament in the context of the savior and redeemer of the world Jesus Christ coming so save sinners you will see just how cohesive the Bible really is. I pray you will! For the sake of the length of the comment I won’t add much more but there is much much more if you’re willing to hear it. You might be interested in the book “the case for Christ” by lee strobel. He was an investigative journalist who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up concluding its the most accurate historical document in human history (with regards to its historical references).
Anyways I’d be happy to continue a conversation if you’re interested.
@@brettmagnuson8318 , I'd be happy to discuss this further with you but your comments bring up too much points. Let's just pick one thing at a time.
I'm here too discuss the bible and not the short comings of the science community as evidence for a god. When it comes to science I take it with a grain of salt.
The irony of the snopes article is side-splitting.
I believe the one that made it all and according to His record the earth is just a little over 6000 years old, He spoke it plainly so that we would understand
Please tell me where it says it’s 6000 years old in the bible
Would you consider an ancient understanding of Genesis? Genesis was written 3000+ years ago to a people that weren't anything like modern people. If you heard an interpretation that presented the story in its ancient context would that move you?
@@daveslyker4431 The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Bible is an ancient book and history moves on. If creation occurred 6,000 years from today then it would have been wrong in the past as well as the future. But if you add the genealogies from Adam to Jesus you can get about 4,000 years. Roughly 2,000 years from Jesus to today per our present calendar. Pretty simple.
@@TexasHoosier3118 so youre saying that Jewish genealogies are always precisely chronological and comprehensive? Pretty sure you just made that part up.
The purpose of the Bible is not to inform people as to the age of creation. Or rather, its not dependent on that. The modern young earth English interpretation of scripture would not be how ancient Hebrews would have understood it.
We legit just finished a Bible study featuring him two-weeks ago. Awesome timing!
This guy is awesome.
I wish young earthers would stop with their "the Bible tells me so" argument. That doesn't help nor will it convince anyone.
I usually just point them right to the publisher's info in the book to indicate to them that God didn't write it.
Jason Lisle is the freaking man!!
I genuinely respect and appreciate Dr. lisle's work.
Intro is so sweet. The only podcast intro I actually listen to.
The Bible is a library, not a book. Each book in the Bible is a different genre from one another and each is not meant to be read as one would read a modern science or history book.
True! And some books have been removed. Others were excluded that perhaps shouldn’t have been.
As a Christian I believe in the ruin and restoration theory but I really have no idea nor do I care how old the earth is. I admire this guys faith and willingness to put himself out there, and respect his years of study, so I might listen to more of him.
That's a good attitude.
When i first began studying, i was taught the gap theory.
When i looked into the young earth research, i realized there's no evidence for the gap theory, biblical or scientific.
They say things like " the Bible says the earth was created to be inhabited but it says it was formless and void. " and try to differentiate between creation and formation.
That's just not a valid argument.
The earth was created to be inhabited, in six days, in the time the Bible says.
They say all the fossils were animals that lived before the creation week and that makes no sense biblically.
I believe they've allowed bad science to influence their biblical interpretation.
There reason is little to no reason to believe in billions of years.
I believe in gap theory also. I posted a separate top level comment on it.
Why hasn't the woke culture cancelled Darwin--a complete racist?
Here's what I'll say. I know many Christians and theologians who believe in versions of old earth, both evolutionary and non-evolutionary versions, but I don't think I've ever met a non-religious person who believes in a 6,000 year old earth. That tells me that this particular Biblical interpretation comes before reason and evidence, and that it is interpretation of scripture that the belief rests on, not extrinsic evidence
If you want a theistic evolutionist perspective on Genesis I would love to come on some time.
Evolution is impossible you boob.
@@michaele5075
It’s theoretically possibly is theistically guided. Still contradicts the doctrine of original sin, though.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 Its not theoretically possible in any way. The laws of physics and chemistry forbid it from happening.
But it certainly does contradict scripture as well.
@@michaele5075 thats a statement not information. if you think it contradicts scripture... either you limit God's ability or you force the english translation to reign over hebrew (which it was written in originally. God didnt start us out with English big dog)
not saying you have to feel one way or the other on 'young earth'; just a caution on mentally limiting God. Maybe it isn't relevant to us, like it isnt relevant to ancient Jews who were hearding cattle that the sun is a gravitationally contained nigh-infinite nuclear explosion fueled by decay of elements in the nucleus of an atom.
It doesnt matter. Trusting God does
@@anthonybuck9140 It always amuses me when stupid people think they are smart. :)
I would love to see Jason Lisle on Joe Rogan
Joe is pretty anti-religion. It would be an interesting conversation.
Not without Hugh Ross
The problem with this interview is that if we mock Neil DeGrasse Tyson for saying stupid things that are outside of his field of expertise (and you better believe that we do), then we can't very well just take this guy's word on topics not related to Astrophysics, can we?
We should not mock anyone ideally nor should we blindly accept anyone's authority whether or not they are speaking in their field of expertise. Focus on the ideas and arguments themselves and leave the personalities aside.
But he knows how to read and learn from other experts, just like you and I. How is that a good argument against the validity of what he has learned?
@@nogravegonnaholdmedown4280 Because outside of the field of astrophysics, he's either not much more qualified or not at all more qualified to speak than anyone else that has a degree in certain fields or anyone at all, depending on your faith in STEM education. That he's an astrophysicist doesn't mean that he knows much more about say biology than the average person that had to take biology classes for their own degree.
My point is that there is no such thing as an omnidisciplinary scientist, and you shouldn't take the word of an astrophysicist that agrees with you on matters unrelated to astrophysics simply because he agrees with you, because on those topics he's no more of an expert than you are.
@@chriswolfe351 What if he is just quoting or paraphrasing gifted scientists in any respective field. I dont hear him claiming to have done exhaustive research in other fields of science.
The issue isn't that NDT speaks outside his field, it's the absurd, totally unlearned, regressive things he says when he does.
This guy might have his primary education in Astrophysics, but he clearly specializes in this topic as a matter of personal passion, and because of the nature of the field, doing the reading is the primary difference between competency or not... and yes, Astrophysics actually does overlap with YEC.
Is “Christian Astrophysics” anything like “Feminist Glaciology” or am I getting my imaginary degrees confused?
he is an astrophysicist by degree and Christian by religion. it's not a new degree.... just two things that define the person
lol you're not smart.
" because the bible says so" is not a scientific argument...it immediately discredits you as a scientist to say you believe something not because of evidence but because of a text. This is not science at all and is the reason science exists.
You need science not ideology. The guy describes himself excluding himself from the scientific method. Humans DO go back millions of years.
6 mins in and nothing remotely scientific has even been mentioned. He's a preacher preaching.
More importantly...not funny, not entertaining, just preaching
That is not meant to be a scientific argument. It is a philosophical argument. The issue here that Lisle talks about is that secular scientists have naturalistic paradigm while Lisle does not. Also to be believe that scientists don't have an ideology is ignorant. Everyone has presuppositions that will let them interpret evidence differently.
My big issue with Lisle though is that he thinks that evidence points to a global flood which I don't think makes sense even under his paradigm.
I love Jason Lisle!
For someone who has decided not to believe in God or the Bible, simply no explanation will suffice because it is a matter of vanity, pride, rebellion, independence and total separation from God.
I have been thinking this too. Evidence isn’t enough for some. At the end of the day it’s a matter of the soul.
I miss Ethan on the Babylon Bee. Can you please bring him back?!?!?!
I went full swing. In college I was basically agnostic and an evolutionist mostly. However even at the time there were so many things that never made sense. I was a biology major for just a semester but had a substantial amount of biology, chemistry and physics before moving on to technical fields. After God grabbed me, I finally started throwing off the bonds of the world. Things that I had to close my eyes to accept in college I could finally dump and eventually came to young earth. Like he says, neither in science, religion or anything else does it make much difference, but it does simply make more sense.
Once you see behind the curtain on "science", particularly in college you see just how corrupt that whole show is. Ever tried getting a grant for anything that would support young earth? But yet people will get grants for shrimp on treadmills and lesbian obesity (really).
I'm an "old fuddy-duddy old-earther" catholic, however i liked this interview, even when I think he is mistaken. He is not just a crazy person screaming "Bible!!" I'd never heard the death/sin idea as a proof for young earth.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned- So if the bible is true, then there was no death until Adam sinned. One can clearly determine through genealogies that Adam was created about 6 thousand years ago, again according to the bible. But religion picks and chooses which parts of the bible to believe and which parts it doesn't. Somehow I don't think God wants it to be that way. I think he wrote it very accurately. Everything else He does is so precise that life would not exist without it. Since you think the earth is old, how big do you think the sun would have been around 4 billion years ago? The sun loses 4 million tons of mass per second. 4 Billion years is a lot of seconds. I have checked the math. The sun would have almost been touching mercury. At that distance the oceans of the earth would have evaporated off the planet. Now they have discovered red blood cells in dinosaur bones. Tell me how that is possible if they died out 100 million years ago. Have an awesome weekend
@@puppyupper4565 so do you also reject a solar system and deep space? The Bible clearly describes a firmament. You're not just "picking and choosing" now are you?
@@theTavis01 @Bill Tavis We live in a solar system and we live in a galaxy among many galaxies. There are many proofs of that. The earth is not flat.
Yes, we have a firmament above us. The bible does not define firmament for us. But tell us of it 17 times in the old testament. It is from the Hebrew word raqiya`. But the King James translators used the Latin translation 'Frimamentum" of the Hebrew word raqiya`. Most bibles translate the word as sky or heavens.
I am not picking and choosing. I accept the bible as fact. I ask you, how big was the sun 4.8 billion years ago? It is a relatively easy math problem for those who have had algebra and geometry. Unfortunately, most people just don't understand geometry. Not saying you dont in any measure. You seem to be quite bright.
His view is that there was no death at all before sin, but the Bible is clear that there was no human death before sin. They use Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:21 but they quote both of them out of context. Both passages speak specifically of human death. Genesis 3:22-24 explains this. God was not going to let us be sinful and live forever, so God cast them out of Eden so they couldn’t have access to the tree of life and live forever. Check out Hugh Ross, Rodrigo. You will love seeing what happens when the whole Bible is considered.
Wow! In every single proof he gave for the young earth from science, he left out a critical science. We need a “Paul Harvey moment.” Contact Christian Astrophysicist, Huge Ross, and get “The rest of the story.” Your audience will love it!
Being totally owned by religion doesn't mean you can't get a science degree. There are many people with advanced science degrees who believe all sorts of strange things with no scientific basis. With religion as the focus it simply means you will not accept a vision of reality outside your faith. If you want to cherry pick only what will seem to add evidence to your religious view you can do that all day but it's not science or what is real. There's a reason that the totality of science does not in any way, shape or form, support Dr. Lisle.
Truth and comedy! Great idea
I’m a midlife-crisis-Earther
“Most people believe in evolution because they believe that everyone else believes in evolution.” My apologetics just became more efficient. Thank you.
Evolution = fact
The theory of evolution describes the fact.
The theory might be wrong.
The fact is not.
@@ozowen facts can be proven....prove that changes we see weren't just arranged code ; set up so useful adaptations can take place .. That's better termed adaptation not evolution...
@@sounddoctorin
In science, nothing is proven.
However, the problem with your claim is that of additions to the genome.
These are an observed feature of the nature of the genome.
I can agree with you in one sense, this is a 'design" feature of DNA.
Not really true. Most people will accept evolution because they know the information comes from a reliable source that can/has demonstrated those principles. Even the people who never studied this much in school can grasp this, as the same principles that informed us about the existence of evolution also deals with what we know about things like gravity, or chemistry, or whatever else.
@@ozowen my problem? scuse me commy youtube selectively sends no notification...i just saw this due to Butler's post!! quote what i said/ state why it's a problem...i'm lost
He may have scientific credentials, but his beliefs are not based on science. What a goofball.
Can’t wait to see this comment section later.
Have you made it back here? RUclips comments are somthing else!
Also shout out from a fellow NTB subscriber!
I love when people are patient enough to hear out the science that supports a so-called young earth.
No science supports the young Earth claim.
The4 evidence against a young Earth is overwhelming.
That leaves a small quota of evidence available to present for the young Earth.
But since it is disproven, it is not logical nor truthful to present any evidence claimed for being representative for a young Earth as valid to the task. It is being interpreted incorrectly because the claim is not valid.
@@ozowen false.
@@dave1370
No Dave, it is not false.
There is simply zero evidence that can be harnessed for the young earth claims unless one chooses to ignore all the evidence that disproved the young Earth and pretend (lie) about what the science has shown.
The earth is billions of years old. This is a fact that cannot be disputed because the evidence overwhelms.
Folks like Lisle necessarily must misrepresent the science. He has even signed an agreement that he will ignore any evidence that contradicts his biblical literalist viewpoint. That is to say, he has signed an agreement to not be a scientist.
There is no science that supports a young earth. None. This man is a charlatan.
While no one is patient enough to examine the so called evidence for Darwainian evolution?
It ONLY takes millions years to observe and test, but no one ever bothered to test it out, I am wondering why 🤔
Great interview! Love Dr. Lisle's work
I am glad that Dr. Lisle mentioned that belief about the age of the earth is not a matter of salvation. I would hope that people on both sides of this debate will be respectful. As a believer in old earth, I myself find great truths in the old earth perspective and it gives me even deeper appreciation for our Creator.
If old earth is true, Jesus doesn't exist.
I always wondered what Adams first thoughts were, when we go to sleep and wake up we have a psst to reflect on , a future too, but adam all of a sudden just was! God must have extended a good amount of grace to him.
The Bee and Dr. Lisle? Yes please!
I was on a Lisle binge today and then I saw this 😍
I worked for a scientist once who after hearing my explanation of how I was going to fall a tree in his yard he asked the question "what keeps is falling"
Thank you Brother Lisle.
Excellent 👌
This is a memory of the title of Darwin's most famous book📖: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life .
Another reason why the genealogies in Scripture links Adam in the Garden, to Jesus Christ in about 76 generations, is that for Jesus Christ to "reverse the Curse", He HAD to be directly descended from Adam.
I continue to be shocked that these videos only have a few thousand views. This is top-notch content, funny, informative, and full of very handsome men.
I didn’t know one of your staff believed in young earth. I’m happy because I believe it too. It’s so rare to find people with the same opinion. It’s nice. Although I’m used to it by now. Lol. *Solo violin. I agree it’s not a salvation issue though.
He's not on staff at the BB, he's at the ICR
It may or may not be a salvation issue depending on the view. If one believes life evolved from some primordial soup and that God just directed the soup, then there is a major problem. Jesus said "From the beginning God made them man and woman." If Jesus is not to be believed about the beginning of life, then how is he to be believed about the ending? Then there exists a great misunderstanding of many who claim to be christians. Jesus said to Nicodemus, that no one will see the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again. Many who claim to be christians are not born again. They have head knowledge only. Every single born again christian I know believes the bible, believes Jesus's words about creation, and believes Jesus is the Creator. If one doesn't believe in this Jesus, they believe in a Jesus of their own making. That Jesus won't save them. Have an awesome weekend.
I think belief in "young" earth is more common than you think, we are out here.
@@puppyupper4565 I believe every word of Jesus, and yet somehow miraculously this doesn't cause me to reject all kmnown facts about the material world. Huh. Weird. Almost like humans EVOLVED as male and female. Weird, right?
@@theTavis01 Jesus said from the beginning He created them male and female. If you believe in evolution you dont believe every word of Jesus. He said He is the Alpha and Omega. And all through the scriptures, that same Alpha and Omega says He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. In Genesis it says He created the plants before He created the sun. If you believe the bible, it has to be a 6 day creation. I think all the plants would have died without the sun.
It is clear in the bible that Jesus created all things in 6 days and then rested on the 7th.
So many of your known facts about the world are not facts but conjecture. Many prominent cosmologists are now rejecting the big bang as impossible.
Did you know they have found blood vessels in dinosaur bones? Something that lived 100 million years ago would not have blood vessels today. Hopefully you will soften your heart to Jesus and become born again. Once born again, the Spirit will lead you into all truth in time. Best wishes
I've been binge watching Dr Lisle, that's how I ended up here. I'm also a young earther. Science proves the Bible.
I like the parts about killing the infidels with 2 types of fibers in their clothes and those with tattoos.
The rest is just retconned Jewish fan fiction for slaves.
Very annoyed by the idea that 'scientists' are pressuring certain Christians into accepting the old earth. Science is literally a method by which realities about the world around us can be determined. It's not controlled by anyone. I don't think I've ever cringed harder than when it was suggested humans interacted with dinosaurs.
Well, the dinosaur part though is actually true. Did you know they’ve found blood, blood vessels, tissue in dinosaur bones now? It wasn’t found by a believer either. The scientist that made the discovery was so shocked (because it can’t be possible for that to still exist after hundreds of millions of years, even if the bone had been frozen solid that whole time, which they know it wasn’t it was discovered in a hot climate) that she said she couldn’t believe her eyes. And retested it over 10 times.
They’ve since found several other dinosaur bones with the same thing.
Look up creation ministries international website and search for the articles about it.
@@narnia1233 Hiya, I did look up the discovery on various websites, and it is pretty astonishing that blood vessels can survive for so long (the scientists that discovered the fossil date it to 80 million years). But while I don't know much about fossilisation and the scientists themselves aren't sure of the mechanism that preserves tissue like this, I fear that creationists aren't seeing the wood for the trees here, holding up specific examples while neglecting the glaring evidence for an old earth (and Universe!). E.g. how did fossils from the seabed make it to the top of Italy's Dolomite mountains in just a few thousand years? Or, that fact the C14 dating is by no means the only method we have for estimating the age of objects e.g. meteorites can be dated using the rubidium-strontium decay system, which has a half life of 48.8 billion years.
@@notfirstTHERMAL The answer to sea fossils on mountains is differential vertical tectonics as water was draining from the global flood. Basically, the mountains weren’t always so tall. And there is evidence that the mountains were pushed upwards due to plate movement. And the global flood is how it could happen quickly. There are scientific articles on creation ministries international website on this. I’m sorry I can’t give you a direct link, but honestly RUclips deletes comments that try to post links.
But when you’re on that site, add this to the website and it’ll take you to one of the articles they have on this:
/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain
Radiometric dating has also been observed that the rate of decay is faster if the environment is different (we’re talking about the beginning, not just a humid environment or something). They’re tested and observed that temperatures can affect the rate of decay for even radioisotopes.
So while the rate of decay for radioisotopes today is slow, to take that rate and apply it to the past is making assumptions that the environment was the same as today. There are processes that could cause decay rate speed to increase exponentially.
Go to creation ministries international website and add this to the link to find information about radiometric dating:
/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers
There’s tons and tons of scientific articles on that website that go through every single question you have. I found out about this years ago and yes, it takes a while to learn. But, there are scientific explanations for every point.
Young earth creationists are not unscientific.
@@narnia1233 I do appreciate the engagement haha, but again I don't think these points track well. In addition to explaining where the water went after the flood, it's also necessary to explain where it came from, as the water cycle is a closed system. As for radiometric dating, it's not a good idea to suggest decay rates may change, as in order to do this you'd have to mess around with the strength of the weak nuclear force, which has far more profound and far reaching impacts than changing decay times e.g. the rate of fusion in the Sun.
On a rereading of Genesis, water is said to have been separated into two, some above and some below, with a vault (the sky) in between, where all the land ends up being formed. I assume that, in the minds of the writers, the blue sky was actually a vast body of water held above their heads. I wonder what your interpretation of this passage is, and I might suggest that, rather than being true in a historical sense, the account is still able to convey deeper truths about God and how he relates to his creation.
I find the creation ministries website very interesting, but I would recommend looking at other sources and see how to scientific method actually works firsthand, instead of getting second hand info that may well have been passed through a filter.
@@notfirstTHERMAL Yeah I wouldn't listen to that dude. He's just regurgitating some creationist nonsense.
All of those creationist websites have overtly stated 'statements of faith' wherein they stipulate that NO amount of scientific information, however credible, is allowed to contradict a literalistic biblical view.
Living organisms are extremely complex organic machines involving sophisticated mechanical and chemical means, not to mention information, and yes, design.
To say that this just came to be over millions or billions of years without an outside intelligent force is beyond absurd, it's impossible except in science fiction.
As someone who believed in the young Earth and has since grown to believe in the old Earth, I found this fascinating. I'd love to this in more depth and I'd really love to see a debate with someone who believes in the old Earth.
Search Hugh Ross Jason Lisle debate.
I was just thinking that I would love to debate him. Not because I would think or hope to win (let the truth win), but because I think that a lot of facts and assertions/assumptions were never even acknowledged or addressed. And because the idea of an exponentially decaying magnetic field flies in the face with the generally held scientific view that the earth's core cycles the magnetic field.
Genesis clearly teaches that Jesus ..the Word...created everything in six days and that sin and death entered after Adams sin. So there was no death and disease before Adam's sin...so there no deep time.
@@alantasman8273 the death in Romans 5 clearly refers to man, not animals. Exodus says that in 6 days God made everything on the land, sea and sky around the earth. That does not speak about the universe.
@@voiceInDetroit No death relates to nature in general as all creation groaned because of original sin. Romans 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Even thorns and thistles are referred to as part of the curse. So death certainly referred to nature in general. By the way, thorns and thistles have been found with dinosaur fossils so it would appear that dinosaurs were around at the time of original sin by Adam.
I'm so glad you guys had Dr. Lisle on. Now please have Dr. High Ross on to do a discussion on the old earth view. 👍
One old earth view. There are several. I like Ross, but his reading of Genesis is just as off as Lisle's
Everybody already gets that view from everywhere they turn. Equal time is not required. False equivalency / whataboutism
As a young Christian I grew up with this kind of understanding of the Bible. The Bible holds up big time, but this particular view of Scripture is too narrow and does not give Scripture its due appreciation. Dr Lisle is a good person, but there is a lot more to Scripture than this kind of literal understanding. A strict literal reading is in fact a typical modern, post enlightment thing, and not the one and only true Biblical way of reading Scripture. We scientific minded, modern people tend to think that what is measurable and concrete are more "true" than a story with symbols and metaphors. But there is way more to the truth and the value of Scripure than stating that something is «literally» correct or not.
I'm not sure how you justify calling a liar a "good person" but otherwise I agree with you.
The Earth is 4.5662 +/- 0.0001 billion years old.
The Bible is the inerrant word of Yahweh.
Dragons are mythical? You mean to tell me that the Year of the Dragon, in the Chinese Zodiac, was the only mythical creature?
My favorite interview! So excited you got him on!
I felt so alone in this belief. I didn't realize there were more of us! Cool beans! The Earth was formless....the matter was here for who knows how long, but the planet was set up only 6000 years ago.
You’re not alone Sister!!!!!!
I don’t believe in cherry picking the Bible.
Research formless in Hebrew
@@teutonicknight9041 I sure hope you reject a solar system and deep space as well then!
Have you checked out the channels , "Genesis 1:1" or "Is Genesis History " ?
@@theTavis01 reject a solar system? Lol what are you talking about dude?
He believes all science that can be observed in the present but refuses to apply any practices and observations to deduce the past? Proof that you can be smart and dumb at the same time.
One cannot deduce the past. It is more a matter of inductive reasoning.
Even set aside the past...we can accurately predict the future based on our current understand of many phenomenon. Given that why cannot some of those predictions go backward.
Interesting that the scientists said the “Bible doesn’t give an answer” as to why man lives such a short span because it does! I’m sure he will appreciate this because he said he believes the Bible literally.
Genesis 6:3 (NKJV)
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Fantastic interview with a scientist I have been following for years. Dr. Jason Lisle is the real deal. I am surprised that this interview even happened. Thanks guys! I would love to see you guys interview him again in the future. He has so much more knowledge to give. Especially in his field of study, Astrophysics, which he didn't really get into much here.
He's a fraud
I used to be a young earther, I was 100% convinced, I knew all the scripture to defend it. BUT I only ever studied young earth "science." Once I opened up to studying old earth I realized how wrong I was. Young eartherism leads many people away from Christianity because it is not scientific, and people who are scientifically minded see Christianity as a joke if you have to believe in 6,000 years. I would suggest reading and listening to Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe. Not everything in the Bible is literal, it's an ancient text, these were different times.
I used to be more towards the theistic evolutionist side myself, until I began to look outside the Bible at the major arguments for evolution. I became a solid young earther. What evidence convinced you to do the opposite of me?
@@narnianhero God is the author of scientific Laws of Nature. Young earth cannot and does not operate under these laws. He created the universe under the Laws of Nature starting with the Big Bang, and to me that’s even MORE amazing than a supernatural 24hour days creation narrative. With regards to evolution... I am not a full subscriber. I think we haven’t fully understood how evolution works. God would have had a heavy hand so to speak in the “evolving” of species. And it’s difficult to observe evolution today because we are living in God’s rest day ie no more creating/changing/evolving.
this is also one of my arguments against it. Your science minded kid gets to college and learns enough science and suddenly they throw out Christ with the young earth bath water. Young earth is not a necessary believe. Its not tied to salvation and so why teach it? You cannot prove it true...its just so much tautology.
@@smolhummingbird I appreciate you sharing your views. It was the Big Bang that made me reject Old Earth. The Horizon Problem (the CMB appears too uniform for the Big Bang), the Flatness Problem, and the Monopole problem all are fatal flaws to the Big Bang. Inflation does partially solve them, but that is a just because we have flaws fix for them, there is no evidence for inflation. Then we have the early mature galaxies problem. We also have a series of critical flaws moving into the ascribed Solar Nebulae model. The Sun's plane of rotation is off 7 degrees from the plane of the Ecliptic and the Solar Nebulae model cannot account for that. Additionally the strong magnetic fields on multiple planets indicate the System cannot be close to 4.6 GA. There was a series of cascading evidence from this that left me with no choice but a Young Earth.
@@aguyfromnothere I think you are coming from good intentions, but I would suggest the truth is better than the lie. I would say young earth because the scientific evidence is so incredibly overwhelming that there is no reason to subscribe to a deep time worldview. There's been a few grad students and doctors come to Christ from this, like Dr Carl Wieland.
Awesome interview, thanks for that. Dr. Lisle excellently explained why the world can only be about 6,000 years old.
I always enjoy Dr. Lisle, but I don't think man was created immortal because Adam (and Eve) were expelled from the garden before he could partake from the tree of life and become immortal (using Dr. Lisle's literal hermeneutic, which makes sense to me here)
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
In the day you eat , you will SURELY die . Adam needed oxygen and food, heat ,water,he would have died eventually but his disobedience guaranteed it.
Could the Raptor Jesus rode have been a Ford F150?
Great question..
Jesus drove a Honda. It's right there in scripture. He said, "I speak of my own Accord."
@@thegreatcujo33 Dang. Never noticed that before.
Is this satire news or a platform for bible science?! Wtf
It's a Christian channel, you know what they're like lol
IRe: "We do understand that evidence requires a woerldview in order to interpret it." (12:00 mark)
Iread a report (maybe 15-20 years ago )of an international study that tackled the question as to why so many estemed scientists fell on one or the other side of the story of creation or evolution as an account for life on earth. They discovered that the most common denominator that divided both camps was whether or not they had attended church in their youth.
Question: How do you measure the length of a day before there was an earth? And what about time under extreme conditions such as at during rapid expansion before physics broke apart into the individual forces?
You don't. This dogmatic drivel is subverting Christianity its sad..... I think YEC has created more atheists than the "church of satan". I wish they would get on board with Jordan Peterson, but they won't, the current hierarchy and MLMs would lose too much power.
a day is from morning until the morning of the next day. The so-called first day began in Gen 1:3. Gen 1:1-2 are before that.
He keeps claiming that he is taking Genesis "as written" however many Hebrew scholars have confirmed that the word "day" can be translated legitimately as either a literal 24 hour period of time or as an era of time. So unless this guy is also an ancient Hebrew scholar as well as a scientist he is not qualified to claim that his interpretation of the text is the only one that reflects how it is written is simply a matter of opinion. The older Earthers do not think they are playing fast and loose with the text, and scholars agree that they are not.
However the real textual problem for young Earthers is that four of the seven days of the creation week cannot possibly be 24 hour periods of time. The first three days of creation there does not yet exist a solar system without which there is no such thing as a 24 hour Earth rotation in relation to the Sun by which a "day" in this sense is defined. That does not exist until the fourth day. The other problem is the seventh day. As we all know the text says that on the seventh day God rested from all his labors of creation. Now is that day a 24 hour period of time as well? If so then God rested for 24 hours and began getting back to work again after that. Literally no one interprets this day in that fashion. God rested and the seventh day is ongoing. If not God is still creating now because he only rested on the seventh day. Day eight He picked up the work again and is still making stuff today. However that is NOT what we observe. We do not see a universe where material pops into existence immediately or even slowly. Nope. So the seventh day MUST be a defined epoch of time characterized by God's ending of his creation work. We are in the seventh day still and have been since the dawn of man. So why the inconsistency. The Long Earth view has no such inconsistency and views all the days the same way and the seventh day fits right into that scheme.
I don't accept everything from "hebrew scholars". Aren't they the ones who said Jesus can't be the promised messiah despite all the prophecies that perfectly foretold and described him..? Despite the fact that there were no sun and moon, the genesis account still tells us day 1 to 4 were limited to periods between mornings and evenings. On the first day God created light and He made the distinction between day and night. There were no planets, but somehow there were already periods called day and night. There is no indication in the text that day 1 to 4 differed in length from the rest
@@warpnin3 Accept nothing at face value - but please also get enough knowledge to understand that Hebrew (and even more, old Hebrew) was chock full of allegory (i.e. story telling) - they used that extensively in the Bible, roughly a third of it. Nothing wrong with that, you can tell morality tales very easily with allegory (heck, just go watch a good movie of your choice - it's storytelling) so could the time frame be off? Sure. Could God also put it all in place in the blink of an eye? Yes.
The reality is, we flat out don't know - but if we throw some science at it, we can show how the sun stood still in the sky (polar shift) flood tales (in almost every ancient culture) etc etc etc - the events HAPPENED, but the timeline is off.
Meanwhile, I have a hard time believing the Irish monk from a thousand years ago, reading the texts and coming up that God flipped the switch on the Earth on a Tuesday afternoon in March, 4004 BC... Not that it's not much shorter, but that the human calculated it correctly.
The Bible never says the earth spins, or orbits, it actually many times states the opposite.
@@CaptainSeamus The calculation that arrived at a result of plus minus 4000 years has little to do with that monk. It depends on "adding up" the ages of the antediluvians mentioned in Genesis, and those of Abraham's descendants.
True science certainly has its place, and I believe christians should wait for answers that confirm the bible. They always come.
@@allthingsbing1295 Odd because Genesis 1:14-15 seems to very nicely describe the solar system as it in fact is. And if your going to say that when the Bible uses words like "sunrise" or "sunset" that is inaccurate then I suggest you have a word with you local weather man as well who does NOT say "Earth rotation will become apparent at 6:15am" but uses these same words and we all know what he means.
Wait... So if death was introduced after Adam and Eve sinned, including animal death... Does that mean Adam and Eve were vegan? And bacon would have never been a thing?
Yes.
If nothing dies they could harvest parts from animals without them bleeding out. Presumably this leads to either endless bleeding or bloodless zombie cows, I'm not sure if there's a reliable source of info.
get your bacon now before the new heavens and earth
Yes, people were vegetarian until after the flood.
I believe the Bible says in genesis 1 that all creatures ate herbs
This is an AWESOME video!!!
20 minutes in I have not heard an explanation of dinosaurs in the earth''s history. And if Adam and Eve were the original man and woman, how did their children marry each other without the effects of inbreeding? I would have liked to have heard just one criticism explained.
In the YEC point dinosaurs would've been around with early human and died in the flood with a few exceptions and went extinct due to being hunted by humans and referred to as dragons. Adam and eve would've been perfect so inbreeding wouldn't have been as issue for generations.they lived for 900+ years around the time of moses human dna would've been degrated enough that direct inbreeding would have issues so it is in Torah that they could no longer do it. I get not everyone is Christian and not all Christian take genesis literately but I'm just explaining the view point regarding what you were asking. There's also many flaws with what is taught By the secular education of today.most people just believe whatever their teachers say or they read in magazines but there is no evidence for evolution but they teach it as fact.i get the irony of saying that in regards to Christians reading the bible but most real Christians will tell you they have had experiences that have lead them to knowing the truth of the bible.
@@yeshuaislord3058 I understand how they may write off dinosaurs, but they wouldn't have died off from the biblical flood because Noah would have gathered two of each to bring with him. They would all still be around just like elephants and zebras.
Genes were more pure in the early years, (i.e. little to no generic mutations)
So intermarriage was “allowed” - there came a breaking point when there were enough genetic mutations that medical issues were more prevalent and then intermarriage was not allowed anymore.
There’s a more technical explanation, but that’s a quick summary.
Animals on the ark only had to be 2 of each KIND, not species. The average size was a sheep-size… not all were adults. No meat-eaters at that point.
AiG, Creation Ministries and Dr Lisle are a few places you can dig in and research this point of view. Have fun! 🤓🤍 📚
The arguments usually involve a pseudoscientific concept known as 'frontloading' whereby they argue that human DNA around the time of Adam and Eve, was genetically perfect (like, if you've seen the Bruce Willis movie '5th Element'... think of Adam and Eve as two Leeloos.
It's a bogus and stupid concept, but anyway, you asked.
Because God created all human species on the 6th day and Adam and Eve on the 8th day. So for cain, city dwellers were already there. Plus, Adam and Eve DNA probably had a very low rate of mutation
I would like to see a conversation between Jason and Bret Weinstein.
Yes,that would be awesome 😎
Or one of the PhD biology people mentioned.
@@jon8864 Oh Lisle would never allow that to happen. He is 'very' careful about who he talks to on camera.
Dang that's a good idea. I might pay to see that.
Why? (I don't know much about Brett Weinstein)
Would you guys like a second opinion?
You’re so smart. You’re going to offer a second opinion when you’ve not even had any sort of decency or scientific curiosity to hear the first opinion. What you can say at this point is worthless drivel.
@@wurclav1 Bruh Luke is another astrophysicist that actually does have another opinion.
It's not wrong because it's based on Bible.
@@unclesniffer7166 Jesus also pretty clearly says "This is my body" and "This is my blood," but you don't see many fundamentalists who believe in transubstantiation.
@@wurclav1 this may shock you, but Dr Lisle has spoken before.
Death seems to me to be as much if not more about separation from God rather than separation from the body. On this view it is at least conceivable that there was physical death of animals and plants before the fall as they may not be alive in the same was as we are with regards to our connection with God. Perhaps they were alive in that sense through us as we were made in the image of God.
The term "biblical creationsim" for Young Earth Creationism is very misleading. Some one can hold to the Day Age Theory and be a "biblical creationist." Day Age Theorists interpret Genesis 1 to teach that the Bible the earth and universe is old. You can disagree with their interpretation but it is biblical in the sense that it is a interpretation of the Bible.
One major issue I personally have with Answers in Genesis (AiG) and its followers they make their interpretation of the Bible equal with Scripture. In other words, young earth creationism is God's Word.
Just a heads up I am a Young Earth Creationist.
Until you ask a Day-Age creationist if they believe plants existed for an entire age before the creation of the sun.
Generally then the scriptures get a rework to match naturalism expectations.
There are exceptions, but it's telling the answer you get on that one...
@@Crym123 Someone can view Genesis 1-11 as Hebrew Poetry or "Mytho-History" (Theistic Evolution) and have a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. They would be literally interpreting the literary genre of the text.
For example, when Christian literally interpret the Psalms they literally interpret them as Hebrew Poetry. The same is said for Poetic Prophecy. When Daniel had his visions of the beasts the first was a lion with wings. We do not interpret it literally as narrative and say Nebuchadnezzar was a winged lion. We literally interpret it as poetic prophecy "illustration" pointing to Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king being like a lion with wings.
Setting a side theological issues with Theistic Evolution, I disagree with them that Genesis is Mytho-History. I believe it is a Historical Narrative that has poetic markers (i. e., repetition). If one holds that Genesis is a Historical Narrative they can literally interpret Genesis 1 to fit Young Earth or Day-Age.
P.S. I do not care about exceptions. We can point out exceptions in every camps (Young Earth, Day-Age, Gap Theory, Literary-Framework, Theistic Evolution, etc.) view on Genesis 1 and the age of the earth and universe.
That intro was great!
For those in the comments that struggle with literal 6-day creation. Read up more on General Relativity, and then also read Dr Humphrey's theory called "starlight and time". Understanding some basic aspects of relativity unlocks creative non-dogmatic thinking about the age of universe. We know and can observe that time itself is tied to the speed of light at the atomic level and that two clocks traveling at different speeds can report different progression of time (satellites deal with this drift compared to clocks on earth). So when you start to realize that time itself is not a static clock measuring the whole of the universe, and the universe is in motion relative to all entities within it, then you can start to grasp the complexity of space and time just a bit which may open your mind to understanding that that there could be other ways to view how starlight could travel vast distances and yet clocks on earth only progressed mere days (or even less, since gravity wells could pause passage of time indefinitely). Remember, if you could travel the speed of light, you would not experience any passage of time. Light does not "experience time" - what a wild thought.
I’ve thought of this as well.
What makes you think a biblical day is 24 hours? An earth day is 24 hours but a Venus day isn’t 24 hrs.
Exactly! The Bible itself even tells us that a day in the context of God can be a very long amount of time (2 Peter 3:8)
Dafuq am I listening to?
There was no death before sin? Do those people really believe that bullshit?
If it's written in a book, then it must be true? Really? So everything on the internet is also true?
He's a presuppositionalist who believes that he Bible is absolutely foolproof/inerrant word of God, and he will brook no argument to the contrary.
@@davidbutler1857 A bullshiter :)
Science has long been puzzled at death because theoretically, all living creatures should repair themselves indefinitely . There is no crazy conflict of reasoning here . Now we know tolemers get tagged on replication frequently. Radiation exposure, decrease in food quality, magnetic sphere all affect DNA replication efficiency and accuracy.
Death existed before the sin of Adam and Eve. First, if they never saw death, they would have no concept of it when God told them they would die. In other words, "In the day you eat there of, thou shalt surely quixdacl." They would be like, "What's quixdacl?"
Second, animal death probably took place because they do not have the special third part gift of God...a spirit that communes with God.
Third, Adam's job was to keep the garden. That more than likely meant he trimmed growth, just as we do flowers and trees...and no doubt they ate fruits. So, plant branches would die after the trimming.
By the way, I am a Creationist.
Interesting. I am a creationist but also think there was death...maybe just outside the garden of Eden.
Just stick to what God has revealed.
However, it's not the branch that was alive, it was the tree and the tree doesnt die when its trimmed. You have to wonder about injuries though, but theoretically life could repair itself of any injury regardless. Perhaps their only understanding of death was ceasing to exist, which they could conceive of because they knew there was a time when they were not, as was evidenced by the presence of all things.
Bible Science: Making the data fit the prediction.
Oh the irony of that statement.
This is like parody in a hall of mirrors, probably one of BB’s best I’ve watched.
The Bible clearly teaches Covenantal death because of sin, not physical death:
1. Adam didn’t die on the day he ate the fruit, which God promised, but was exiled from the garden.
2. Paul was dead when he disobeyed God’s command before he wrote the book of Romans (Romans 7).
3 The Ephesians were dead because of sin but were still alive to hear Paul’s message (Ephesians 2).
4 Moses said to the Israelites to choose between life and death (Deuteronomy 28), but the life and death were blessings and curses.
5 The Israelites were as dry bones, but were alive in Babylon (Ezekiel 37).
6 The wicked are raised in the resurrection (Daniel 12:2), but the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
Sooooo No real science just a bunch of "In my Opinion thinking" got it he knows nothing.
Great interview. I have vacillated over the years so I’m not sure what is right now. I just looked it up and I’m going to watch another video with Hugh Ross versus Lyle.
I have also vacillated. The arguments on both sides are compelling. I think I can get on board with a young earth, but I still accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. And is it not possible that the earth was a blank, lifeless ball covered in water for millennia before God began to form it? 🤷🏼♂️ Outside of earth, all the other planets in our solar system and beyond are essentially blank orbs made up of varying elements/consistencies.
Luckily, I don’t think God will reject me on judgment day because I believed one way or another on this issue…
@@MichiganTrikker
There are zero scientists that believe the earth is flat, but many who have no problem with a young earth timeline, like Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, and most all scientists prior to Darwin. Why does it matter... truth matters.
"I mean if we ask how long days of creation are, can we measure it with the flow of time that God created, when He exists outside of such time?"
If we could, would it even make a difference to you ?
I listened to a debate between those two. IMO, Hugh Ross got schooled by Jason.
@@jerz8289 I listened to one and came to a different conclusion. Both Jason and Hugh use the Bible to support their positions. BUt Hugh also had strong scientific evidence on his side. Jason was not as strong there. I'm still not convinced either way, but not impressed with Jason. If you have an example of where Jason "schooled" Hugh, I'd certainly consider it.
@@dpcrn I think that before you make your choice you should research the scholarship on the book of Genesis. One thing the young earth folks have in common is that they are literalists that interpret ancient texts through modern eyes. This is probably not the best way to handle scripture.
I think the reason why we are not living longer is our deadly sins. It's also due to the change in radiation levels after the flood.
Its sad to see what indoctrination can do to an otherwise intelligent person.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME ACCESS TO THIS MAN N ALL HIS KNOWLEDGE!!!! TY TY TY!!!!
His whole view is based on theological views. He doesn’t see any other way of looking at the scriptures on death and sin and that’s his limitations. For those of us that do see a different way of understanding those passages without corrupting the scripture, the view of death and sin does not limit us to the young earth. I am not an old earth either. I believe the bible is silent on the age.
Overall i like the guy and his views on evolutionism.
I really like this channel for calling out the anti-scientific hypocrisy of the left's gender "science," but this whole Creationist nonsense is ridiculous.
Dr. Lisle sells 6,000 year old snake oil to babies and laughs all the way to the bank.
Please precisely explain how these events managed to be accurately documented in the Bible thousands of years ago when in fact each of the events took place thousands to millions, to even billions of years before the Biblical Authors were born?
1) The universe had a beginning?
2) 4 correct starting conditions of the early Earth?
3) The land plants came before the sea animals?
4) 10 Creation events in the correct chronological sequence?
5) The Universe is expanding?
6) Which extraterrestrial being do “you” suggest these, as is claimed, Yahweh inspired Biblical authors received their accurate information from, Space Aliens?
Scientists have accurately determined:
1) The Earth is 4.5662 +/- 0.0001 billion years old.
2) The Universe is 13.79 +/- 0.04 billion years old.
Why do you post comments, when clearly you are ill-educated on this subject matter, yet pretend you know what you are talking about?
Jason is correct, Jesus turned water into wine, by definition a good wine is aged, but Jesus made it just moments before.
According to the Jewish calendar as of this year it is 5783 since the creation week.
Jason Lisle back again. Nice.
Just to be fair, one can be really smart with a great education and still hold incorrect beliefs.
Exactly. There are a lot of well educated Democrats who actually believe Biden is the most popular President in history.
@@alfyr.e.meyerakaa.r.e.m.4434 I'm not sure of a lot of them truly believe that. They just purport that claim because it promotes their agenda.
@@alfyr.e.meyerakaa.r.e.m.4434 Nobody thinks Biden is popular. They do think he’s a good president (so far), and I would agree. He’s been dotting all the i’s and crossing the t’s and has the extra quality of truly caring about his constituents which is itself somewhat rare. I don’t know what his legacy will be because it’s only his first year and crises tend to have a detrimental effect... a war or something else could ruin all of it. But he’s handling COVID well so far and things are looking better here at least.
People who think their president is beloved by the People don't have the Capitol surrounded by razor wire and national guard for going on 4 months now.
@@davidbutler1857 His "handling of COVID" is merely continuing with what President Trump's administration accomplished. Everything else he's done has been a complete shit show. The illegals swarming across the border is up 1000% thanks to him sending signals of welcome. Sex traffickers' have free rein to do what they want. Drug gangs have an open door. Now, "unemployment" is a big problem even though there's "help wanted" signs all over the country because his administration is paying people more to stay home than they would if they took a job. He's encouraged Hamas to attack Israel by his weak support. He's encouraged hackers to hold US industry hostage at will by his complete lack of action against them saying, "it's the pipeline's business". His support of lockdowns and printing of TRILLIONS of dollars is causing the worst inflation in 40 years. Yeah, things are sure "looking better".
This proves that working in a science job doesn't make you a scientist. Being a scientist, regardless of your job is the only think that can make you a scientist.
Well he'd have to have a JOB doing that to call himself a scientist. This guy graduated with his PhD over 20 years ago and hasn't done anything with it. He's never held a job in his field.
My questions to christians believing that evolution was the mechanism of creation, is:
1. What was the evolution stage in which the eternal, noncorporeal living soul was created?
2. The Bible is very clear that AFTER all other living things were created on earth, God took some soil and made man, making him completely separated in origin from any other life form. How is that compatible with evolution?
3. Describe how can you believe evolution as the mechanism of creation if that means not believing the Bible in it's details about creation of man, eternal soul and death because of sin. And if you believe man was created somehow not trough evolution, why not believe that all creation described in the Bible is as is?