How Should Christians Think About the Age of the Earth? - The Alisa Childers podcast #24
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 мар 2020
- Listen on iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Book recommendations based on this episode: www.alisachilders.com/blog/ho...
For all links to Alisa’s recommended reading, podcast studio gear and other items,
please visit the Alisa Childers Amazon Store at www.amazon.com/shop/alisachilders
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
I'm baffled by many excellent apologist like Alisa Childers and others. I just got finished reading her book and it's an excellent rebuttal to progressive Christianity. Progressive Christians constantly twist scripture, take it out of context, ignore it or ADD alien ideas into the text. She picks up her sword and shield to defend against the inconsistent nature of progressive christianity so very well.
However it's so odd.......she lays down her arms when it comes to Genesis. She doesn't know the context, she doesn't know what the word day means, she accepts alien ideas into the text etc. She tells you whole heartedly that we shouldn't embrace evolution because scripture declares Adam to be historical. Something I agree with, but then doesn't connect the dots of the genealogy. Which when followed in no way gives us a timeline past 10,000 years.
She then seems intellectually dishonest when says she doesn't hold a position on the age of the earth. I think it's clear she does. She only recommends old earth or progressive creationist. (Hugh Ross and John Lennox) She accepts the big bang which requires an old universe to work. It's also completely at odds with the Genesis order of creation.
It's my hope that she'd at least have guest to explain the Biblical creation position from Creation Ministries International, The Institute for Creation Research, or Answers In Genesis.
Two great books I'd recommend for her are....
"Refuting Compromise" By Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and "Searching For Adam" by Dr. Terry Mortenson
I'd love for her to have these authors on her channel/podcast.
If God created man 6-10 thousand years ago, how does that negate an old earth? Couldn’t it just be that that’s when he decided to breath man into existence along the greater timeline that began much, much earlier?
Thank you for the book recommendations.
In 4.5 billion years of earth history, we do not see humans suddenly popping into existence 6,000 years ago. The oldest stone tools are from ~2.5 mya
TheSaintFrenzy : I concur with you. Sarfati, Mortenson, Gitt, and many other YEC Biblical Creationists have solid technical credentials that refute the confusion / compromise that Alisa Shows in this podcast.
@@balletktmc
IF.. they were literal 24 hour days then the negation comes from the statement that Adam was created on the 6th day along with all other land based creatures. (Ocean and air creatures on day 5, plants 3rd day; sun, moon, stars {?} 4th day...)
I am not one to either claim I know it all or to limit the power of The Word (John 1:1-3), so... hoping that I awaken (if asleep without breath at the time) to the shout and the trumpet and then I may learn something of the mysteries we have not yet had cleared up, but if I awaken and there is a humongous CITY over there... /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
It just goes to show how creative God is. His handiwork is amazing. The new heaven and the new earth will be even more amazing!
Alisa, I am incredibly impressed. I am a seminary graduate, and I find that you have a better grasp on systematics than some of my theology professors had. God bless you. Keep up this important work.
I recommend 'Discerning Truth' by Dr. Jason Lisle.
Explosions do NOT create order...
Those willed by God do.
The Bible says "The LORD GOD FORMED MAN of the DUST of the GROUND and BREATHED into his NOSTRILS the BREATH of LIFE and MAN BECAME a LIVING SOUL". Genesis 2:7 KJV
NO singularity. NO explosion out of the nostrils...which has a name BTW...it's called a SNEEZE. Nope. The Bible does NOT say God SNEEZED into man the SNEEZE of life... Nope! But, REALLY, what would have had to have EVOLVED FIRST? The RED blood cells, the WHITE blood cells, the PLATELETS, the PLASMA, the VEINS, the ARTERIES, the CAPILLARIES, the HEART, OR the LUNGS? NOPE! Everything in Adam was FULLY FUNCTIONAL from the VERY FIRST BREATH!
It's BEAUTIFUL what GOD DID!
Google "one blood KJV" to see HOW RACISM should have been handled by the CHURCH. We are ONE BLOOD w Adam and Eve our common relatives...and Noah and his wife. We are NOT red, yellow, black OR white. We are DIFFERENT SHADES of BROWN based on the quantity of melatonin in our skin1. Adam and Eve were two medium skin colors w all the genetics necessary to produce all four colors in one generation of children... Twin Teens: One Black, One White, Celebrate Their Differences ruclips.net/video/JIUK2KSbvl/видео.html 2
(Twins Lucy and Maria Aylmer are twins but
most people wouldn't believe...based on their appearance. They have the same mom and dad but Lucy has pale white skin with red hair while Maria has a caramel complexion and thick curly black hair.)
Share the HEALING POWER of the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ to HEAL the RACIAL DIVIDE...
Ray Comfort of LivingWaters.com uses the Ten Commandments and the Good Person Test to show us WHY we are SINNERS in NEED of THE SAVIOR. Additionally, NeedGod.com and FullyFreeFilms.com are two more websites to check out for suicidal or depressed people...as well as many others. Enjoy!!
THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: Will you go to Heaven when you die? Have you lied, stolen, used God's name in vain, or usted (which Jesus said was adultery, Matthew 5:28)? If so, God sees you as a liar, thief, blasphemer, and adulterer at heart. If you die in your sins, you will end up in a terrible place called Hell. But there's good news. Though we broke God's Moral Law, Jesus paid the fine by dying on the cross: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16). Then Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by hundreds. It's no fairytale). He fulfilled all the prophecies of the promised Savior. Please, today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will forgive you and grant you the gift of eternal life (Eph. 28,9). Then, to show your gratitude, read the Bible daily and obey it, join a Christian church, and be baptized. Visit NeedGod.com and LivingWaters.com.
1 "Creation Facts of Life: How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God" by Dr. Gary Parker, biology w cognate in geology {paleontology}, April 2010 {14th printing}, page 127.
2 Courtesy of RUclips.
1. Where were YOU 100 years ago? In the gonads of your grandparents.
The gonads, the primary reproductive organs, are the testes in the male and the ovaries in the female. These organs are responsible for producing the sperm and ova, but they also secrete hormones and are considered to be endocrine glands.
training.seer.cancer.gov/anatomy/endocrine/glands/gonads.htmltraining.seer.cancer.gov/anatomy/endocrine/glands/gonads.html Accessed August 3, 2020.
2. Where were YOU 1000 years ago? In the gonads of your grandparents.
3. Where were YOU 2000 years ago? In the gonads of your grandparents.
4. Where were YOU 4,500 years ago? In the gonads of your grandparents...on board Noah's Ark.
5. Where were YOU 6,000 years ago? In the gonads of your grandparents...created in the image of God...in the Garden of Eden.
The King James Bible, the number one BEST SELLER of ALL TIME on the New York Times Best Sellers' list, was poo-pooed by modern Man following Charles Darwin's disastrous fiction replacing Jesus Christ of both Old and New testaments with NATURE.
Only when HEARTS change will society change...for the better.
2 of 2
THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: Will you go to Heaven when you die? Have you lied, stolen, used God's name in vain, or lusted (which Jesus said was adultery, Matthew 5:28)? If so, God sees you as a liar, thief, blasphemer, and adulterer at heart. If you die in your sins, you will end up in a terrible place called Hell. But there's good news. Though we broke God's Moral Law, Jesus paid the fine by dying on the cross: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16). Then Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by hundreds. It's no fairytale). He fulfilled all the prophecies of the promised Savior. Please, today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will forgive you and grant you the gift of eternal life (Eph. 28,9). Then, to show your gratitude, read the Bible daily and obey it, join a Christian church, and be baptized. Visit NeedGod.com and LivingWaters.com.
1 "Creation Facts of Life: How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God" by Dr. Gary Parker, biology w cognate in geology {paleontology), April 2010 {14th printing), page 127.
2 Courtesy of RUclips.
Ms. Childers, I have enjoyed the several videos I have watched. You come across with an orthodox, true-to-Scripture exegetical approach.
In your video "Should You Take the Bible Literally?" you make a very compelling case that the Bible should, MUST, be read in the plain sense of the word, with the text taken in context. You state that some Scripture should be taken at literal, face value, other Scriptures with symbolism. I agree.
Take the position of a Christian in England or France or Bulgaria in, say, the year 1750. If that Christian had access to a good, worthy translation of the Hebrew, how is he to read the first three chapters of Genesis? The first three verses of Chapter 1? What about the simple non-college-educated farmer couple in 1915 Nebraska with the KJV translation?
The Bible should be taken at face value, and read in the plain sense of the word, using common sense to distinguish narrative, poetry, allegory, etc. Let's not make this too hard. "Jesus wept." So, Jesus was a crybaby? I don't think so.
IRT your pod cast about the age of the earth (e.g., is the Universe Old or Young), you did a pretty good job explaining the nuances of the various Camps. I would submit that the Creationist Camp has three sub-sets - (1) conservative (or as you state elsewhere, "historical") Young Earth Creationism (YEC) that commenced about 6000 or more years ago and was accomplished in Six Days and a Seventh Day of rest; (2) Old Earth Creationism (OEC, also referred to as Day Age Creationism) that commenced eons ago, perhaps with The Big Bang, progresses from there with God managing and guiding all the subsequent processes; and (3) Theistic Evolution (TE) with "God" (whoever He is) using The Big Bang and Darwinian processes to guide or leave to chance the processes that led to the form we see today in our Universe, and our solar system with its planets, moons, and biological life on earth.
There is also Intelligent Design, which I won't address here. The above three Camps can have some overlap and additional subsets with some people, depending on the discussion and positions of such folks.
I am squarely in the YEC Camp, and I can explain why. In your pod cast about the age of the earth, (11:34 - 13:55??) you make the claim that it is a "false dichotomy" to state that either the earth is 6000 years old or that evolution is true. You also state "don't fight against The Big Bang" because it is some of the greatest evidence for the existence of God. "The universe exploding out of nothing?" How does that work? There was "nothing" for The Big Bang to explode into. The secular-atheistic literature clearly alleges that The Big Bang (TBB) was THE something, and that all matter, space, and time are the result of TBB. Then, as the story unfolds, all kinds of band aids and correctives and miracles are needed to ensure TBB arrives at you and me on Planet Earth. "Overwhelming evidence" that TBB is true is simply not correct. If there is, please provide such evidence. TBB is a fairy tale for grownups and has zero rights to be included in the Creation Narrative, whether YEC or OEC. But I'm open to pushback and counter arguments. Please, fire away.
You mention (17:11) the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, radiation from TBB (that would be the universal and constant background radiation from deep space), and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity all come together to show that TBB is "a real thing." I beg to differ. You would need a very special revelation from God to make such a statement as "fact."
Einstein showed via Relativity that when space is stretched, time does funky things and it depends on the location of the clock in question. But I won’t go into it here, except that the “stretching of the heavens” will account for some very interesting time dilation.
For the "simple" "uneducated" Christian, let him or her use the Scriptures as the launching point to discuss our physical world, with the limitations that he or she has. For the Christian with three PhDs and a vast experience background in the physical sciences and math, that Christian still must use Scripture as his or her launching point, with the added ability to drill down deeply into complementing factors that demonstrate that there is a loving, all-knowing God and that Jesus was a real person in time and space as a historical figure. Christ died for ALL, the educated and the simpleton, the great and the small.
Allow me to offer three very compelling Christian arguments for Creation that TBB cannot ever answer: (1) Permutation Statistical Analysis (please, invite a secular atheistic mathematician and a Christian mathematician to provide the probability that the insulin protein can self-assemble from chance, random processes), (2) Orbital Mechanics (also Celestial Mechanics, same thing), and (3) the "evolution" of the Hummingbird; the "evolution" of the Golden Plover; and the "evolution" of blood clotting. I will leave it to the reader to explore these areas. You will find the Golden Plover a fascinating bird.
You are correct. Jesus is the TRUTH. In Him there is no deceit. He is the Creator of all things. I believe that an honest, methodical investigation of Scripture (if you can, do some exploring of the various folks who use the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint to supplement the Biblical genealogies) will show that The Six Days commence about 6000 to 8000 years ago (the various investigations use the principles of uncertainty in calculating elapsed periods and OT people's ages). Now, you state that there is no Biblical case that The Beginning was about the same time. If Moses used straight chronological narrative for those first three chapters, which I think is the most correct view, then Christ commenced the first day Creation work right away. The "stretching of the Heavens” that is mentioned several times in Job and Isaiah. "He hangs the earth on nothing." For the God (Christ) who became a human, was horribly crucified, and rose again, is there anything too hard for Him?
I would add to my previous comment that the age of the earth is NOT a salvation issue, and we as Christians should have respectful dialogue, because unbelievers are watching us. We need to show love to one another.
Thanks, 'GodCan.' Screaming hyperbole and disrespect do not further understanding.
Alisa, you might want to familiarize yourself with Dr Jeanson's Genetics Research at AIG.
Thank you. This was very clear and helpful. It is a subject that I struggle with a lot and so many resources out there are so divisive. I really, really appreciate you calm and reasonable demeanor.
Genesis 1:5 "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." To argue that day could be anything else in this context makes no sense. The other meanings of day have no evening or morning.
This was GREAT.
Eden would have been destroyed during the flood. The whole geography changed. You can't pinpoint the location of Eden today because it was literally a different world back then.
I think it's under Antarctica's ice.
Exo_31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in "six days" the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
The age of the earth is determined by the genealogies in Genesis and the rest of Scripture. If the genealogies are reliable then the earth cannot be more than around 6,000 years old.
Lets just make it up as we go along.
Alisa is invoking a double standard here. Starting at 12:56 she analyzes Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and goes on to give that passage authoritative status by emphasizing "So when did God create the heavens and the earth? In the beginning." At approx 13:35 she says: "I don't think you can make a biblical case for the age of the earth or for the age of the universe. The Bible just simply doesn't speak to it. Now what I think the Bible does speak to are things we'll get into, issues of evolution. But I really want to drive this home. I think it's a false dichotomy to say either the earth is 6K year old or evolution is true; that is a false dichotomy." But she's failing to give equal authority to the use of "beginning" in Matthew and Mark: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ - Matthew 19:4 (NIV), and “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ - Mark 10:6 (NIV). Can't have it both ways!
Yes, but the Bible doesn't tell us how much time passed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. I personally am young earth, but I understand the thinking of old earthers, and I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain on the age of the earth.
There is a huge difference between science and the narratives, speculations and just so stories of evolutionists. VERY different.
Check out Answers in Genesis and Northwest Creation for some really good scientific and apologetic info. I wouldn't put much weight on Hugh Ross. He's quite off on certain things and extremely arrogant about it. (This doesn't mean he can't have anything right. It's just an observation that people who cling to eisegesis in one area of their theology often do so in other areas as well.)
Consensus is not the same thing as science.
@@deborahruthtrotter2154 Yes, concur. Consensus is merely 51% of the vote or greater. Or 2/3 majority, whatever is the agreed protocol. A lot of scientists / engineers / researchers in the room can come to some uniform (and informed) agreement on a topic, but the true art of scientific skepticism can later render the vote mute if clear data and evidence shows the original conclusion was wrong. Each of us has at some point "known" something to be actual, absolute "fact," only later to discover we were wrong when new validated evidence was brought to light.
I really appreciate your respectfulness on this topic, Alisa. Now, I accept macroevolution AND a historic A&E. Although you don't adhere to this position, I wonder if you think that the position makes one, by definition, non-Christian? In all other ways I am conservative. I reject woke, emergent, liberal Christianity, and am a Reformed James White fan, just to give you an idea of my general place on the Christian spectrum.
In the Beginning was the WORD AND THE WORD WAS GOD AND IS GOD, without Him, "Nothing was made at all!"
That’s unacceptable garbage to today’s science. Pretty sad if you ask me. It’s not the first time man’s thirst for knowledge has led him down a road of confusion. The Bible has been quite accurate down the centuries.
As one who has studied this subject in depth, Alisa is way out of her depth here. Her big problem is that she completely ignores what Jesus, the Apostles and the Church have taught, which is that the events in Genesis are historical and real. While she claims to be helping Christians on this topic, she has actually undermined the very words of the Bible in doing so.
Feeling like.... we have killed the meaning of the Bible with our fundamentalism.
With macro evolution out of the way, the thing about time hangs on 2 main scientific issues: 1) starlight and it’s impact on the age of the universe and 2) Geology and the age of the earth. Of these 2, I still find the theories to fit (1) in a shorter timeframe not so well developed, but on (2), I think the scientific work on flood geology, is very convincing to indicate the reality of a worldwide flood. One’s whole concept of geological time is potentially challenged if a global flood, as per Gen 6 is at least plausible. No macro evolution and a global flood, brings me closer to a younger earth view than an older one
Big bang cosmology does not line up perfectly with Genesis 1. It does not put the earth ahead of formation of the stars.
Hi Alisa,
I'm a progressive who rejects the evolutionary paradigm.
Have you ever heard of such a thing?
One could say that we have common ground in that regard.
What do you mean when you call yourself a ‘progressive’? What differences do you have with traditional Christian beliefs?
@@cruinneas5624 I hold to the tenets of the Apostle's Creed as non-negotiable parameters up-front. They are not on the table for discussion. The rest of the stuff? I pick and choose as I see fit. I have found myself at odds with both sides of the aisle. My liberal colleagues wince when they hear that I reject evolution, and my traditional brethren are horrified to find out that I attend a church with a woman in the pulpit.
This was an excellent podcast. I appreciate your balanced view of young earth vs old earth and the “false dichotomy” of saying that those who believe in an old earth automatically believe in evolution. I personally believe that the days in Genesis refer to long periods of time. In any case, the six days mentioned in Genesis occur after the creation of the heavens and the earth, as mentioned in Genesis 1:1. As you emphasize, the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. One argument in favor of the days of Genesis being long periods of time is the fact that after each of the six days, the account says, “There came to be evening and there came to be morning.” However, it does not say that about the seventh day. Genesis 2:3 says, “God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created.” That means that when Moses wrote the book of Genesis, God was still resting. Hebrews 4:3, 4 also says that Christians can enter into God’s rest, which indicates that during the first century, God was still resting. In other words, the seventh day of rest still had not ended. The only part of the podcast I disagree with was when you said the trinity is present in Genesis chapter 1. In the creation of the world, God used his holy spirit, which comes from the Hebrew word “ruach”, meaning “breath, wind, spirit”. It is an impersonal force that God uses to accomplish his purpose. We shouldn’t take a doctrine that wasn’t fully developed until the fourth century and project it onto the Genesis account. The trinity doctrine of three persons in one God is not described anywhere in the Bible. John 1:1 does not mention the spirit. Neither does it say that God (ho theos with the definite article) was the same as the Word (which is referred to as theos without the definite article).
Here's something I never heard from a Christian arguing these matters, but I always wait for... The numeral systems of ancient texts were much smaller back then. Hebrew numerals rarely exceed 400 and one thousand is commonly used as a term to figuratively imply eternity, sort of like we say a million or a billion to imply such a concept nowadays. Isn't there a chance ancient scribes wrote Adam lived to 960, that they meant a higher number, perhaps 960 thousand or so in literal context, but weren't equipped to write it in such a manner and assumed ancient audiences would understand?
I actually started reading the 7 Days that Divided the World (which you recommend in the video) but did NOT find it helpful. It was pretty obvious he's leaning into Theistic Evolution so I just couldn't feel like it was balanced at all.That book actually rather influenced someone I know who is a Theistic evolutionist too.
I agree that if mankind was divinely inspired, then mankind wouldn't have evolved from the same tree as other primates, but is there a chance that after being exposed to the tree of knowledge, our physical characteristics changed along with our mental capability of understanding good and evil?
Jesus said in Mark 10 v 6, 'But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.' Therefore Adam and Eve were made right at the beginning. That info is coming from the very source that was present at the time when these things came into being, Jesus Himself. As mentioned by another poster, genealogies then play a part in determining how long ago that was.
So Adam was made at the *_EXACT_* same time as Eve, and both of them appeared at the start of the *_FIRST_* day????????????? Once again the modern ultraliteral attempt at reading the Bible fails miserably. Obviously Jesus is talking about marriage. He is saying that humans have always been both male and female, which is perfectly consistent with evolution.
In the context of the marriage question the Lord of creation states that man and woman have been here since the beginning of creation and I think He knows. When does evolutionary theory say they arrived?
This may have been already commented on, but you have not mentioned the effects of a global flood having on the Earth the change it would have had on the location of Eden and the pre-flood world.
Thanks Alisa on your discussion about the age of the earth/ evolution. Many christians think it's not an important issue but as you describe Genesis is the foundation of the bible and our faith. You make the point often that the bible doesn't tell us the age of the earth? The bible clearly tells us the age of the earth through the chronology of the patriarchs. I think its very safe to take a literal view of the bible otherwise we pick and choose.
Old earth all the way, yay Alisa!
What is ironic if I can use this word, the people in ancient days did not actually believe that Genesis is speaking of a 24-hour day, this is actually a new belief, it is actually a modern belief. It is not something they have believed for thousands of years they did not believe that Genesis was a literal depicting of events but more of a poetic explanation,
it is like reading, god formed man from the dust of the earth, literally you would have to have god and his hands taking hold of the dust of the Earth and forming man, in this, these words are poetic they are speaking of what has occurred not in a literal sense, it is like when in Psalms I think, God had rolled out the heavens or placed every star in its position, he did not literally have a hand and within that hand between thumb and forefinger he held a star and placed it in its position, it is poetic metaphor, it is speaking of the power of God not a literal meaning,
it is like The Serpent the snake in Genesis, it is not a literal snake speaking to Eve, it is a spiritual thing which dwells within Eve, in fact the serpent dwells within everyone, if I want to see a literal snake talking, then I will go to Disneyland there I will find him,
within the word are great mysteries it is not a little child's book.
What does believing the 'big bang' occurred solve? If a big chaotic explosion happened and the complexity we observe resulted, a greater miracle is required than if God simply spoke it all into existence by His design.
A greater miracle means a greater God. Deep time glorifies God.
@@theTavis01 "Deep time" also denies God by replacing creativity with process, despite zero evidence. There are too many problems with 'deep time,' the main one being it was manufactured out of thin air for the purpose of explaining away God.
@@ge0ld0re No, that is the philosophy of naturalism which denies God, which is *_NOT_* the same thing as science. Science does not have a philosophy. If Christians refuse to glorify God in science (despite Romans 1:20), the void that is left will be filled by naturalism, paganism, or any number of other harmful ideologies.
"replacing creativity with process" Creatiion *_IS_* a process. I'm an artist. Creation is all I do all day long, so I should know. Science studying deep time is elucidating the *_DETAILS_* of this Creation process.
"it was manufactured out of thin air" is a *_LIE._* Bearing false witness is a sin. You don't get to make things up to try to discredit something just because it makes you uncomfortable. You obviously have no clue about science but you're talking about it anyways as if you do. You think you are defending the Bible but all you are defending is lies about the Bible that you've been told by sinful men, and it actually brings shame to Christ in the process. Jesus is the Truth so how could a lie ever possibly glorify Him??? You can't show me a single verse that says the earth is young. When you read the Bible it does, however, explicitly say that the earth is very old (Duet 33:15, Ecc 1:4). And before you start illegitimately insisting that a "day" in Genesis must be 24 hours, read 2 Peter 3:8 which explicitly tells us that a day in the context of God is much longer than a day in the context of humans. This is because God is so much bigger than us. The deeper the time, the bigger the God and the smaller the person. And the next verse, 2 Peter 3:9, lets us now that it's not because God is slow, but because God is long suffering.
@@theTavis01 Bill, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would agree that science should have no philosophy but scientists who practice science have philosophies. The prevailing myth is promoted in such a way that it is easier to claim a 'philosophy of science' and, indeed, science-practice is promoted in that way. The prevailing philosophy of the world is to refuse to glorify God; I'm mystified on what basis you would attribute that as a philosophy of Christians generally [using the term to designate followers of Christ and of Creator God]. 'Deep time' cannot be deep enough to account for the extreme complexity without running into physical constraints.* I believe the days of creation were 24 hours or less. The Creator needs no extra time for process. The "LIE" you claim is no more a 'lie' than any of our speculation. Your declaration from scripture, for instance, is speculation based inaccurately on statements that contextually refer to the mountains & earth in relation to a man's lifespan. ~ *A few evidences for a young earth; Thin Seafloor Sediment; Bent Rock Layers; Soft Tissue in Fossils; Faint Sun; Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field; Helium in Radioactive Rocks; Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds; Short-Lived Comets; Sea Salt Lack; DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria; Pleochroic Haloes; Moon Distance; and much, much more. ~ I agree that God is not slow, but is long suffering. To claim God needs more time is evidence your god is too small!
@@ge0ld0re "The prevailing philosophy of the world is to refuse to glorify God;" So then Christians should be proclaiming God's glory is science, a la Romans 1:20. But instead, many of them like you choose to *_LIE_* about science instead, which brings shame not glory to God.
"'Deep time' cannot be deep enough to account for the extreme complexity without running into physical constraints" That's so stupid. We *_KNOW_* evolution happened because the fossil record *_EXISTS._* And how insane do you have to be to call yourself a creationist but then you deny the power of the creator???? With God anything is possible. and you do *_NOT_* have an alternative physical process which you find to be *_MORE_* plausible. Therefor it's a nonsensical statement and you are obviously just speaking out of total bias and not logic or reason. This behavior brings shame to Christ.
"The Creator needs no extra time for process" Then why did He need any time at all??????? Makes *_ZERO_* sense. You're not the authority. You don't get to decide what God does and does not need. For who can know the mind of God????
"The 'LIE' you claim is no more a 'lie' than any of our speculation." Here you are lying about lying. You claimed that deep time "was manufactured out of thin air for the purpose of explaining away God" which is a *_BOLDFACE LIE._* This theory was created to explain countless thousands of rigorous *_MEASUREMENTS_* collected by professional scientists in many disparate fields over hundreds of years of study. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to *_LIE_* about it.
" that contextually refer to the mountains & earth in relation to a man's lifespan." Yes, exactly, the earth is practically eternal compared to a measly little human lifetime, which is *_PERFECTLY_* consistent with billions of years but *_NOT_* with a couple thousand years, considering that it would literally only be like 3 Noahs old at the time those verses were written. How incredibly biased do you need to be to try to change "ancient" into "young"????????
"A few evidences for a young earth" *_NONE OF THOSE ARE EVIDENCE!!!!!_* There is a vast body of scientific literature covering all of those topics and not one single paper concludes that any of it indicates a young age. You are getting your information about science from trashy lying websites, rather than from the scientific research itself. Your claims are literally so stupid that it would be like an atheist telling you Jesus isn't in the Bible!!! *_STOP LYING ABOUT SCIENCE!!!_* Bearing false witness is a *_SIN._* There is a persistent and disgusting pattern of this behavior in the young earth creationism movement. AIG even has an article bragging about bearing false witness about science. It is *_NOT_* acceptable for any Christian to willingly and repeatedly bear false witness about science, and this behavior is *_DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY FROM CHRIST!!!!!_*
You don’t have a problem with both old and young earth theories? They are opposed to each other. I liked your book but in this one I don’t think you have it right.
I have found no compelling scientific evidence that the earth and/or the universe is old. I would respectfully ask to be convinced of this first.
Idk look into geology. The evidence found there is what convinced me en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
@@DJHastingsFeverPitch Can you summarize it in your own words. I've looked into all that and find it very unconvincing.
@@EternityinOurHearts316 I'm not trying to be difficult or to condescend, but in order to not waste your time, could you clarify for me: would you consider youself presuppositionalist?
@@DJHastingsFeverPitch I would
@@EternityinOurHearts316 Gotcha. Would I be correct in my guess that the reason you find the geologic evidence unconvincing is that it can be explained by radioactive decay rates changing over time? Not trying to ask leading questions just trying to clarify so I can respond accurately.
Now, she is a scientist...amazing...Always making up things to overcome science. How come Christains never spend their time proving existence of God...what they like to do is....always refute science if not in agreement with their magic book...
Dear Alisa,
i've just Listened to your Podcast (I assume) supposedly addressing How Christians should think about the Age of the Earth. You've proposed 3 basic Premises concerning the age of the Earth--although, the "3rd" premise that you proffered seemingly does Not give
a relative "Age" of the Earth. Then, you diverted into several Issues dealing with Darwinism, Micro vs. Macro evolution, & particularly, a Biblical account of Adam & Eve as it relates to A-biogenesis & DNA evolution. Which, Underscores your "3rd" premise Rather than a tentative age of the Earth. Yet, Despite your Expressed interest (& suggestion) in Postulating the "Age" of the Earth--you seem to have avoided the matter head-on with Any stated Estimation of your own. You only go on to further suggest reading a book by a John Lennox--which, again apparently did Not sway you to take a Stand, or, lay out your idea of the "Age" of the Earth.
Respectfully!
I was watching a video on landslides and I wondered to myself, have landslides been occurring for 4 billion years?
If so, how many mountains would be left after 4 billion years? Erosion has been taking place since the mountains came into being. We can even guess how fast some types of erosion take. Land and rock slides seem to happen often too right? 4 billion years is a long ass time. Since there isn't much evidence of non volcanic mountains repairing themselves, then after 4 billion years of erosion and slides there should only be a few hills left on earth!
Common sense right?
Nope. Radiometric dating is a science
@@AMC2283 A science with assumptions.
@@saturn722 unlike religious belief? What is it-if earth wasn’t made magically a few millennia ago then there’s no heaven?
@@AMC2283 I believe if the accuracy of the Bible. Just because the claims weren’t explained in detail doesn’t mean they aren’t true. In fact science and archeology have been proving the authenticity of biblical claims and prophecies at many points during man’s history. It would be front page news if some scientist actually proved the Bible was totally inaccurate. Christians around the world leave the faith in droves!
@@saturn722 archeology studies man made relics, not the amount of uranium in ore samples
GUYS. God has done many miracles, making blind men see, raising people from the dead, heck creating everything, he is almighty and can do anything. With that being said he has done so many things that are indescribable and unfathomable, don’t waste your time trying to ponder and figure out things that god has done and trying to figure out how or why it is the way that it is just accept it.
With a mere thought God brought all into being according to his express design. How long it took is of no consequence.
Radiometric dating is a science. But I get it-if the earth wasn’t made magically a few millennia ago then there’s no heaven
Quran said that Adam was created from dust. Allah created Adam in the best shape of creation than any living creation like animals. So, Quran denying Darwinism,
Muhammad also said it was revealed to him that Adam was 90 feet tall and men have decreased in height since. Islam is not a trustworthy source of scientific information.
@@sivad1025 that’s a big dude
I think Adam and Eve were weren't meant to be allegoric but I don't think they were the only people living in Eden, just the first... and I think ancient audience would have understood that. Either God created more people OR Eve just had children before the fall. (God does tell them to go forth and multiply on the sixth day and Eve's curse didn't have to do with childbirth, rather the pain of it.) To make this conclusion would mean that others would have been involved in the fall if Eden were eventually closed off to man, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't meant to have been there. (After all, when Napoleon fell at Waterloo--for example--history books don't name every single soldier present at the battle, but we know he had troops there.)
I was raised "young earth" and the discrepancies bothered me. I had serious doubts that caused me to doubt other areas of faith as well. God led me to Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe (reasons.org). I watched some of his talks on RUclips and read almost every one of his books. He is a Bible-believing Christian, but also a scientist and very intelligent. His "old earth" explanations resonated with me. Especially good books - Navigating Genesis, Improbable Planet, and Beyond the Cosmos.
Here’s what I don’t understand: if one is a Christian and believes the miracles of Jesus, etc, why is it difficult to believe God created the earth in six days and the genealogical record in the Bible is correct? I worship an all-powerful God, He can do literally anything, including create the earth in six literal days.
@Clouseauish I don't know Ross' opinion of the flood, but I've never understood it to mean a literal world-wide flood either (if that's what he believes). The focus of the passage is destroying all of mankind, not flooding the whole literal earth. To them, the "earth" was a small region since no one lived anywhere else. I have a hard time believing the flood literally happened as described. I'm not saying it didn't happen, nor am I saying it couldn't have happened as tradjtionally believed. I just think there's a good argument to be made the other way.
@@Rachel0731 It's not a matter of what God can and can't do. Sure, God can easily create in 6 literal earth days. My issue is that God has left us a tapestry of evidence so that we can understand how he created the world. It would be rather deceptive if God made the earth in 6 literal earth days but planted all this false evidence of the Earth's beginning.
@@sivad1025 I don’t think he’s planted false evidence. I think evidence has been interpreted to fit a narrative of an old earth and evolution.
@@Rachel0731 You don't think the extensive fossil registry is evidence that life has developed in stages? You don't think our understanding of the speed at which the universe expands is evidence of how long it took thr earth to form?
I made my previous comment the wrong way. I believe in Old Earth creation.....and the Big Bang....
Matthew 19:4 KJV
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
This is Jesus speaking the Creator, he states the beginning of creation was the time Adam and Eve were created. We know from the genealogies that were included in the scriptures, to prove Jesus was Messiah, that earth’s history is roughly 6000 years old. These are false teachers and they are dooming people to hell
Very disappointing.
Interesting, but I think your understanding of the science is flawed. For example, the distinction between micro and macro evolution is something posited by creationists/intelligent design advocates, but not recognised by evolutionary biologists who have no particular religious angle to promote. The only difference is the timescales involved. May I recommend 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth R. Miller, who is both a Christian and an evolutionary scientist. You might also be interested in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case, about which there is a lot of information online. I'm not a scientist myself, so if I wanted a scientific view of human origins I'd go to a scientist. Theology is interesting and maybe important, but it's no substitute for science.
It is4.5 billion years old.
Hahahah😅