Dr. Ross seems like an arrogant fool that thinks saying it’s all debunked makes it true. He reasons from science and the Bible the same way the atheist he likes so much do.
Dr. Ross says that God is unchanging and therefore the Laws of Nature are unchanging, yet the Bible is replete with examples of these laws being suspended, not the least of which the one on which Christianity was built: the Resurrection! Also, the longevity of humans pre-flood was drastically different from post-flood.
The Bible says," the laws of physics can not be changed?" Not in my Bible. That's adding to scripture. You can't believe in miracles if you really believe that.
Lisle makes me think of when Dr Mike Licona says no one at doctorate level theology conventions agrees with the Jehovah Witness views because they are widely considered as baseless among experts. It seems Lisle, hamm and YEC are among a small outlier group when it comes to docrorate level astonomy conventions. I have to ask myself, if Hamm and Lisle capitualted to Ross' position, would there be many people visiting Hamm's creation/ark museaum? Again, Ross believes the Bible is innerant, just as Hamm, but is Hamm and company forcing a square peg in a round hole?
Not sure how you guys are saying Lisle did better here. All he did was argue why rosses arguments are bad, but didnt present evidence of his own for a young earth
You have three choices: either 1. find a way to explain away the inconsistencies between your book of fables and observed reality, 2. commit to ignoring empirical reality (probably fine if you’re a beautician but impossible if you’re a geologist), or 3. ditch the fables and face reality courageously and honestly. Ross is trying to help you people do #1, but you’re committed to irrationality.
@Detson404 HEBREWS 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. PSALM 14:1 " The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good".
@@davidgraham2673 so… “play make believe with me” and “if you don’t, you’re dumb.” Please. Look, the flesh is weak and eternity is scary, I get it, sometimes it helps to play pretend. The risk is that you’ll dissuade new generations from studying reality, and the world needs smart young people more than it needs comforting lies for us old farts.
Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” referring to the whole time of the six days, The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
I love that Dr Lisle always brings it back to the bible. Great question from the man who asked Dr Ross what age Adam would be if a scientist takes a guess
But Ross is also basing everything on what the bible says. Just cause he understands all the science doesn't mean that he isn't recognising the Bible as the ultimate source. Ross knows and understands the bible as well as anyone does. He just knows that a day in ancient Hebrew does not necessarily mean 24 hours. And if it did why would the bible say evening and morning to mean 24 hours when everyone knows that from an evening to a morning is 12 hours anyway? A day is a morning to the next morning, God knows that doesn't he, so why would he describe a day of 24 hours as an evening to a morning? He couldn't have made such a basic mistake could he? Therefore a day must mean something else. And the bible tells us that a day can be like a thousand years and. vice versa to God. And as we all know a day can mean a period of time. And many of the people commenting here are treating Ross as an evolutionist which simply isn't true. HE has strongly refuted evolution in virtually every video he has ever made. So many people misunderstand so badly then make their conclusions based on rubbish which neither man has even said
Also you forget Ross's brilliant answer to why God creates a full grown chicken before the egg-because an egg can't look after itself. If Adam was a baby alone on the earth he would soon starve wouldn't he.
The problem is that people look at the same evidence properly and their presuppositions influence the interpretation of that evidence. I am with Dr. Lisle in that I trust the Biblical worldview (Bible) as the proper filter for interpretation of data. The other guy, not so much.
Jason lisle turned in an old earth thesis to earn his doctorate. If he is so certain of a young universe why didn’t he present a young earth thesis to earn his degree.
@@Terrylb285 What was his thesis? Have you read it? That said... Even tenured professors with irrefutable evidence for a young universe will be fired. Any geologist teaching a global flood in Noah's day, even though tenured, will be fired. One can't obtain a Ph.d without telling Academia what it wants to hear. Academia doesn't want to hear the Word of God.
All YEC leaders teach if you are not with us (YEC), you are an atheist evolutionist. Falsely claiming there are only two world views YEC and atheist evolutionist. (Thus Old Earth creationism is not even real). YEC call Christians atheist evolutionist all the time. YEC are very sick leaders. All scientists are evil lying bad men in this YEC world view.
He specifically said that Dr. Ross is relying upon the consensus of modern science of which secular scientists are the driving force. Hos arguments being from uniformitarianism and some from naturalism; so Dr. Lisle is demonstrating how that line of reasoning is false. In a way he is appealing to a Christian brother to change his mind. If we were trying to convince a fellow believer they were embracing gnostic ideas it would be better to argue against the gnostics that against the brother.
This Lisle guy is unfortunately confused about the Einstein Special Theory of Relativity Time Dilation Theory. He claims the light from distant stars reaches us instantaneously but that's utter rubbish. What the Special Theory actually says is that for the light photons travelling at the speed of light there would actually be no time, that's true, but we as an observer have a different "reality". For us the speed of light C is still a constant and we know how fast it is. We have had many opportunities to verify the speed of light and Lisle even contradicts himself when saying the light from distant stars reaches us instantly as the same equations needed for that special Theory of Relativity use the speed of light C as we know it. It's a bit pathetic that Lisle tries to confuse the listener with his seemingly educated vocabulary but if you really understand what he's talking about you will know that he is actually either not saying the truth or doesn't understand what he's talking about. The implications of instant light btw would be dramatic as the universe would be flooded with light and gama rays. Btw, being that even we humans explain complicated matters using simple stories to our children who is to tell God didn't do that? We can see that parts of Genesis can't be taken literally " they will become one flesh.....". The "apple" might also not literally be an apple so why must the rest be 100% literal? Fact is we humans have a IQ between 100-200. God's IQ however is so huge it couldn't be measured, like billions. That means for God to explain to us the creation story necessitates that he uses figurative/ poetic formulations because our IQ isn't adequate to fully understand what really happened. As Christians we should be humble and accept that God created in 6 days/ periods, there is no evolution, Adam is 6000 years old but going into detail how he did it and how old the universe is, is taking things too far.
But Genesis isn’t written in poetry. It’s in the Hebrew narrative. And do you know Jason wrote a pier reviewed paper on Einstein’s “theory of special relativity”. And many scientists agree with Jason and many agree with Hugh. Which simply proves science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. The James Webb telescope has begun the unraveling of things scientists thought were facts just 5 years ago.
@@mynonameyt "Genesis isn't written in poetry". Oh... you would know? You know the intentions God had? Of course. I'm not sure how much you understand about physics, theoretical physics and astronomy but if you do you should understand what I wrote above and conclude Lyle is very confused about the conclusion to be made of Einstein Special Theory of Relativity in regards to the speed of light. Dr Hugh Ross has a much better and deeper understanding of these issues.
@@platzhirsch4275 Anybody with an understanding of Hebrew poetry can tell you Genesis isn't poetry. It's genre is historical narrative. Hebrew poetry is written in a style called parallelism. Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd demonstrated conclusively Genesis isn't Hebrew poetry. That said, there is one instance of poetry in Genesis and it occurs in Chap 4 verses 23-24. It's the only instance of parallelism in Genesis.
@@scottb4579 that's your opinion and I wouldn't blame anyone for that opinion. It's nevertheless wrong. To claim Genesis is to be understood completely wrong and use Hebrew to proof it has been disproved by Jews themselves that hold a contrary opinion to you- pls be honest about that. To pick out one Jewish scholar that supports your position and neglect others that don't isn't honest. Pls be honest in this debate. What I do understand very much about is the Physics of Einsteins special and general theory of Relativity and I can therefore 100% tell you that Lyles hypothesis is more than wrong, it's even deceptive. I can't believe he actually believes that and I come along with a 100% proof: gravitational lenses. What are they? Huge galaxy clusters are known to have such a huge pull ob light that they curve light coming from behind it. A galaxy that has moved behind such a galaxy cluster emits light that reaches us, but that light is bend like a lense around the cluster like a lense ( general theory of relativity) and we can see that effect here as the image of the emissing galaxy gets blurred plus forms multiple images as long as its behind that cluster. We can see this astronomical effect very clear. This observance proofs that light doesn't reach us instantaneously but relativ to us light takes different lengths of time to reach us leading to these multiple images. I however know where Lyle is confused in his hypothesis: the special Theory of Relativity concludes that the light photons don't experience time, as they travel at the speed of light ( special Theory of Relativity). Relative to the viewpoint of a photon they don't experience time at their speed C, but we have a different perspective. From our perspective that same photon travels at the speed C that then leads to the effect stated above. He contradicts himself even further when claiming the speed of light towards us is so much different that when leaving us 1. How does light "know" its moving towards us and has to change its speed? Why would it do that? 2. That hypothesis is in strong conflict to the vary laws of the special Theory of Relativity he likes to quote that says the speed of light in empty space is a constant C!!!!!! Btw: the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel are not literal 70 weeks either. Actually we know today a day in that week counts for a year. It's therefore also not literally 70 weeks and thus proof that scripture isnt always 100% literal. I hope I could help you.... Don't ask for human interpretation but for the Holy Spirit to guide you. Pray for God's wisdom, not mans wisdom. Shalom and Amen ❤
@@platzhirsch4275 Thanks for your reply. Well, I'm aware scholars disagree, but we can see paralellism in the scriptures. Years ago, before I understood what it was, I noticed the change in writing style as I read through the bible. Boyd uses statistical analysis to show Genesis isn't poetry except in the two verses I cited. I'm fine with his view. I don't know of any others who differ on that, but I know some refer to Genesis 1 as "high prose." I'm not a physicist, but I am aware of the principles you mention. Lisle uses the anisotropic synchrony convention with regard to the one way speed of light which Einstein talked about. He has an article about it entitled "Distant Starlight-The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention" on the Answers in Genesis website if you choose to read it. I have no opinion on the truth of this view. I also know the 70 weeks are weeks of years. What you don't seem to take into account is, the Bible, and history, make clear they are weeks of years, while the Bible makes clear the days of Genesis are 24 hour day. Just because some words are to be taken literally doesn't mean none of them are literal. Text, context, and co-texts make the meaning clear.
JWST just proved Ross wrong. I guess we can’t look back in time and see God create the universe. It also proved that distant galaxies look identical to nearby ones, showing that they are all the same age. This means that we are NOT seeing back in time, the farther we look away.
This is not True. Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. We have the Hubble telescope, JHTS telescope and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). All these tools are real and tell us the universe (time, space, and matter) began 13.7 billion years ago. So beyond is the one that brought the universe into existence.
@@SpaceDad42To say that God created everything with an appearance of age would suggest that God is deceptive. As far as Adam is concerned, God created him as an adult male..there is no appearance of age. It clearly and plainly states that Adam was a man. He didn't have the appearance of a man. He was, in fact a man. To suggest then, that God created everything else with an appearance of age is ridiculous. You can't use this one poor example then assume He did it with everything else when there is absolutely no indication of Him doing so.
@@mtino7509correct Adam was brand new . No liver spots , chipped teeth etc. just like a car coming off the assembly line , it looks brand new and does not have the appearance of age.
Hugh Ross also says that when God said "Let there be light" he doesn't think it happened right away. As if creation would hesitate to obey the Creator. Thomas Newberry can say it better than I can... "Let-there-be light." "In the Greek there are two forms of the Imperative. The imperative aorist, expressing a command, positive, decided: "Do at once." And the imperative present: "Do, and continue to do." In the Hebrew there is an imperative form which is positive and decided, corresponding with the imperative aorist of the Greek. The long tense is also employed in Hebrew as an imperative, corresponding with the Greek imperative present, and expressing continuance. In the sentence "Let_there_be light," the long tense is used as an imperative. The force of this is "let light be, and continue," not "let there be a temporary flash." "And 'there_ was light." Here the long tense is used, the "vau" or "and" being connected with the verb "was," because not the temporary appearance of light at that definite period is intended to be expressed, but the permanent continuance of the light now brought into the scene. This is not, I consider, the creation of light properly speaking, but the bringing in of light upon the darkness surrounding the deep. In Isa. xlv. 7 God says "I form the light, and ... create darkness." The word "form" is to manipulate skilfully and artistically; to "create" is to bring into being. This seems to imply that light is normal, and darkness an unnatural thing, a thing brought in. God is represented as dwelling in light which no man can approach unto; dwelling eternally in light. At His command light was brought continuously into the darkness which surrounded the chaotic earth.
I will say that in reference of Jer 33...Jer 33 is a chapter that speaks to the assurance of the health, healing, peace and truth that God will bring to Israel and its people. This prophecy is given while Jeremiah is confined to the courtyard and the houses and palaces have been torn down in defense of the Babylonian siege. God says "The Chaldeans are coming to fight and to fill those places with the corpses of the men I will strike down in My anger and in My wrath", but despite this, while and before this happens, God makes promises of restoration. This continues with his promise of the Righteous Branch, whose promises ultimately do not happen in Christ's time but are still yet to come. As long as there is a throne to sit on and a temple to sacrifice in, David's offspring will sit on the throne and Levitical priests will offer the sacrifices. This covenant is as sure as God's covenant with day and night. Yet God stopped the sun in Joshua's day and also had long periods where there was no king on the throne. It is not about the laws of physics but the promises of God, which can be stalled in his timing or given a waiting period. Notice also that God says "If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that day and night cease to occupy their appointed time". He does not say that it cannot or will not happen, but that "if man can make it happen", which is rhetorical yes, but the point is that his covenant with Israel will continue as his covenant with day and night will continue, it will not be defeated (פָרַר disannul). He is making the point that if man can disannul God's covenant with day and night so that they cease to be in their season, then his covenant with Israel, David, and the Levites may be broken...but since that cannot be with day and night, so can it not be with Israel. yet, there was no night at the appointed time during the battle of Joshua 10:12-14 12At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. 14There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel." So the "breaking" or disannulling spoken of in Jer 33 must be more than a a pause but more of a complete stop where the sun stood still for about 24 hrs. Therefore, the entire beginning premise of Hugh Ross is mistaken
Lisle argument: "Don't look at the evidences, we know nothing that's why I'm correct, and I'm the greatest Christian ever" He's just crazy, and he's part of a cult called YEC invented by the Seventh Day Adventists
I love how Turek basically bought into Ross’ presuppositions right from the beginning, assuming the Bible is not accurate history and is not a source by which to decide what is or isn’t true. The whole point of the debate that Lisle was making is that the Bible is our source and that is supreme, and does not need to be interpreted in light of a greater scientific authority, it IS the greatest scientific authority itself. Turek is clearly an evidentialist old earth “science should be lord over the Bible” person and wasn’t really a fair moderator
You are spot on about Frank Turek. He does elevate secular science over the Bible on a regular basis. That’s why he, Hugh Ross, and other old earth creationists reinterpret Genesis in order to uphold their viewpoint. And that’s why he didn’t want to touch the question regarding Noah’s Flood, because that also has to be reinterpreted in order to explain the rock layers and fossils as being deposited over millions of years instead of from the flood. Ultimately, these interpretations undermine the authority of the Bible and create all sorts of discrepancies regarding sin, death, and the need for a savior. Hugh Ross in his summary touched on an irony that I think he missed: because God can’t lie, if scripture and nature disagree, then we either haven’t interpreted scripture accurately or we don’t know enough. Hugh and Frank need to ponder that statement and get some self-awareness.
The Bible is the Word of God and Hugh not only believes this he wrote a book on it. Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense By Hugh Ross. This is why Hugh Teachies and YEC reject: Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Job 12:7-10 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.
@@djsarg7451Those verses don’t prove the YEC wrong and I don’t see the point of your comment. Quoting scattered verses out of context with no explanation doesn’t prove your point whatsoever. YEC do not reject those verses as you suggested, and in fact I think they could be equally quoted by YEC to prove their side as well.
Ross's ''pre-suppositions'' as you call them is actually scripture-that the laws of physics are constant-the bible says this. It is actually Ross who is using the bible as his measuring rod then comparing what science tells us to that, you and Jason Lisle are trying to lie about that. at least in Lisle's case I believe he is stupid enough to believe this part of what he's arguing
@@michaelmichael2121 Have you read any of Lisle’s work? Also, when you read the word “days” in the Bible, do you think that if you came to the text without imposing modern scientific knowledge on it that it would read “millions or billions of years”? You think that “millions of years” is the correct understanding of “days” in the text of Scripture?
Wow two profoundly untrustworthy theists having a battle of unsustainable lies with absolutely no relationship with reality or how it works. Here's the present and age of the universe (ignoring the "red shift" measurement"). We know that supernovas give out a fixed levels of light (lumens). Let's replace that with a candle: If I place a candle 1 meter away I can measure that light. if I move the candle 2 meters away I can measure it is 1/4 as bright, 4 meters away 1/16th as bright. So think of supernova as a candle, they are all approximately the same brightness as they explode. If we use geometry to measure the closest supernova we can calculate it's exact distance, say 4 light years. If we see another supernova and it is 1/16th as bright, like the candle, we can say it is 4 times as far or 16 light years. We can watch these supernovas exploding all the way back to almost the beginning of the the universe using such as Hubble or JWT and based on our measurement of light emitted by them compared with the closest supernova calculated by geometry we can calculate the distance (which we do in "light years" which are an abbreviated term for the number of miles light will travel in those number of years). So when we say the universe is 13.8 billion years old it means we have seen a supernova explode (via a telescope at a distance it took 13.8 billion years for the light to travel to our telescope based on how dim the light is. And yes it is beyond dispute or debate). NOTE HERE: This is not making estimates or presumptions based on the past as Lisle tries to deceive you, it is actual measurement on what we are seeing now as the supernovae explode. Since the Apollo missions left reflectors on the moon we measure the distance of the moon to earth made by a laser reflecting off the moon reflectors which is half the time it takes the laser light to get to the moon and back i.e. the time from when the laser was turned on (in the past) to the time we see it turned on (reflected back to earth) in the future. Note: The estimates given on this and other information the moon would have been 15,000KM from earth 5 billion years ago. Repeat: Science is not making ANY presuppositions other than what is known as the standard candle value of a supernova which we observe to be true. We can measure the magnetic field geologically and it undergoes a minor shift every 200 million years. Lisle knows this and is lying. Lisle lying again, no we can't prove the Oort cloud yet but we know we have all the ice we need create comets in the Kuiper belt. I demolished Jasons Lisles book on Proof of God which included all this rubbish and lies on his site with links for proof. He immediately deleted it, twice, because liars can't sell books. Personally, I believe it is wilful fraud. Both Hugh Ross and Jason Lisle know that is how universe dating takes place so they both know the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old and everything they say to contradict that fact is a wilful lie used to deceive you. But don't believe me, there's hundreds of REAL scientific sites confirming it. And note: As astrophysicists, neither could get a PhD in astrophysics without recognising the above as true throughout their entire education including being tested on that being the truth and claiming it was. So, they are either liars who lied their way through their degrees which makes their degrees fake or they are lying to you and deceiving you now. Feel free to ask both about the "Supernova standard candle method of dating the age of the universe." and if they refute it, I'll contact the dean of their university to confirm that's what they were taught and accepted. Or you can look up the university where they got their PhD and ask their astrophysics department the same question. They are liars.
The fact God used 6 days does anyone think WHY 6 days? 6 days And day is like a thousand years I’ve declared the END from the BEGINNING (creation days) Each day in creation tells a PROPHECY about each 1000 years The 6th day is not over yet, we have not hit the 6000 years old, it’s NEARLY exactly 2000 years after Jesus’ resurrection, WE ARE in the LAST DAY (5000-6000 years) I reckon the end, Jesus’ return is between 2028-2032 Remember our calendars are off and the original calendar had 30 days in each month! HE is coming soon people 🙏😎😬
"And day is like a thousand years " this about God not bening a man, limited to our time, not about the age of the Earth., Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451 a DAY is ONE rotation of the earth!!!!!!!! Don’t try and change the meanings of words to fit your heretical views!!!!! The TWO verses describing a “day is like a thousand years” is PROPHETIC VERSES about the earth will end in in 6 days (6000 years) then a new earth with Christ and his followers for the 7th day (last 1000 years) !!!!! Study biblical prophecy mate Gap theory goes against Gods word AND science!
I've been thinking along the same lines. Scholars place the death of Christ at either A.D. 30 or 32. So we're almost 2000 years since his death. But the 70th week of Daniel has to come before his coming. So maybe the 70th week commences 2030 or 2032? We'll see.
@@scottb4579 correct brother, most scholars put Jesus’ death/resurrection around 30-32ad My view with others I’ve studied is 28AD because our calendars have been messed with over the millennia Months should of been lunar/ 30 days We changed our calendars over time and go by solar calendar, we add and take away months, adding leap years etc I believe the Lord will return feast of trumpets (sep) 2028 but is 2028 OUR 2028 or is it the REAL 2028 where we have strayed away from ? I’ve been trying to figure this out for some time now You know any links or videos on this topic brother ? I also did a video on this
Jason’s problem is he has predetermined that his interpretation of genesis is infallible,therefore the science has to be wrong if it disagrees with him.
Young Earthers always label Old Earthers as "evolutionists". That seems to be because all nontheists believe in an old earth. They are "materialists" an evolutionists. But, there are many scientists, like Hugh Ross, who are Christians that believe in Old Earth cosmology for very scientific reasons. And, as he states he does NOT believe in Evolution. Find books and vids by S. Meyer, J.Lennox and others.
Before the Big Bang proved that the universe had a beginning , evolutionists believed the universe was eternal and that allowed for trillions of years for evolution to take place . A universe that is only 13.7 billion years old severs any possibility of evolution.
If you want that distinction then you also need to own that your position opened the door for Macro Evolutionists who have the most Anti-God world view and the Theistic Evolutionists welcomed them in. Your interpretation of the Bible destroys the plain reading of scripture. If you’re my brother in Christ I appeal to you to look at the whole counsel of God and realize Jesus (the God-Man) affirmed Genesis 1&2 as literal History. That Adam and Eve were at the beginning of all God began to Create. Don’t exalt Science over the Word of God.
So one thing that never got pointed out to hugh, that i think is a big deal for his case. He states that god upholds the physics of thr universe consistently so no change in physical process can habe ever happened if we are to belive scripture. But in scripture theres a part where got makes the sun stand still and extends the day so that isreal can win a battle. Right there god is using his supreme power, to miraculously halt a natural processby some way. That is a dirrect example in scripture of god interviening, altering the course at which events proceed naturally. So his entire case that god will never alter physics, or the way physical processes work is demonstratably false, and it fails there. Sometime else i gotta say is that jason, got hugh pretty good with that one line. Where hugh had been bringing up the idea that no scientist would come to the conclusion of a young earth outside of scripture, and jason finally responded to that by pointing out that theh would never come to the conclusion of jesus resurection without scripture either, i was like holy crap. I felt that one. But thatd what you get for trying to apply one hermanietic to a topic, abd a different one to the others. Your workdview cant stand. And on that point i dont think its true anyways that the only reason that people can think the earth is young is scripture. Theres two things to be said about that. The first is that if you find yourself convinced the earth is young by evidences apart from the bible, then you are probably going to start believing in the bible since it has been saying the earth is young for more than 2000 years. So its kinda a selection bias thing to try to say that nobody believes the earth is young apart from scripture, because anyone who comes to that conclusion by any route will end up beloving in scripture because they have seen it is correct. The other thing to say is we cant ignore the secular naturalist bias at play in such an assertion. One of the biggest reasons so many evidences for a young earth, ate recieved, or are ognored by secular scientific institutions is precisly because they ascribe themsekves as secular, so they are going to steer clear from acknowledging things thag would be to big a boon to a nonsecukar outlook like scripture. If chrsutianity didnt exist, or if it was a small hardly known religion there would 100% be a harsh divide between old earth, and young earth scientists in secular science because acknowldging evidences for a young earth would not be seen as a concession to a religion.
Please read your Bible. Jeremiah 33. I have yet to find a YEC that reads and trust the Bible. Unchanging physical laws: According to the Bible, the laws of physics are unchanging. In Jeremiah 33, God, speaking through the prophet, contrasts human wavering with his own immutability by referring to the “laws governing the heavens and Earth” (verse 25). Just as they remain “fixed,” as in constant and unchanging, so does God. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451 the day age theory/metaphorical day theory is very weak for a variety of reasons But one very big one is that we can find exactly zero ancient jewish literature that supports the idea that they ever took ot as a metaphore. If anyone should understand what genesis was talking about, it should be the initial audience god supposedly gave it to, but they never took it to mean that. So either God wasn't the one who wrote it, abd it's a bunch of hokey from the middle east, God did providentially give it yo them, but was unable, or unwilling to make it clear what it was supposed to mean, Or God did provodentialky give genesis to Moses, and it means exactly what the ancient Hebrews took it to mean. A literal creation account.
@@anthonypolonkay2681YEC do not trust the Bible. it is like Hebrews 4:9-10 is not in the Bible. It is like Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 are not in the Bible. literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ).
@@djsarg7451 so what you are doing is a very intellectually dishonest way to read something. You are attempting to redefine the context of one part of the Bible, with cheery picked passages from a competly different part that has no explicitly stated relation. Like dog the topic of hebrews is paul talking to hebrew judeaziers who are attempting to go back to the temple sacrifices. Hebrews at most only makes passing remarks about creation, it never gives an explicite teachings thereof. And you are also doing so while trying to actively ignore the context put forwards in genesis itself. That isn't how a consistent hermeneutic works, you don't get to redefine explocite teachings in one part of the Bible, with implicit meaning you are trying to draw from compettly unrelated parts. Something else that needs to be mentioned here, is deep time, abd evolution are false irregardless of Christianity. That's something you can learn just by studying the basic facts thereof. It's not the popular secular opinion, but that's because it's all the secular world has to work with. If they admit they don't even have that, then they cannot defend a secularist ideology.
A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural. Hugh Believes in miracles.
Hugh always claims that the Bible says that the laws of physics don't change. That is false, because the word "physics" isn't in the Bible. Hugh is just giving an interpretation.
@@jaybennett236What does "re. change or not" mean? I've listened to a lot of Ross's debates and lectures. He frequently says that the Bible says that the laws of physics don't change. How much have you listened to him?
Read Jeremiah 3, I have yet to find a YEC that reads and trusts the Bible. Unchanging physical laws: According to the Bible, the laws of physics are unchanging. In Jeremiah 33, God, speaking through the prophet, contrasts human wavering with his own immutability by referring to the “laws governing the heavens and Earth” (verse 25). Just as they remain “fixed,” as in constant and unchanging, so does God Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
Need to read the Bible: Jeremiah 33:25 Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant with day and night does not stand, and if I have not established the fixed patterns of heaven and earth, [the whole order of nature,] Jeremiah 33:25 This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth. "laws of heaven and earth." = physics in Bible wording.
@@Aspect762 Jeremiah 33:25 Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant with day and night does not stand, and if I have not established the fixed patterns of heaven and earth, [the whole order of nature,] Jeremiah 33:25 This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth. "laws of heaven and earth." = physics in Bible wording.
Hugh Ross is correct. Their scientific model for an old earth over the last several decades has gotten stronger and they can present there testable model ,and readily ask for those in opposition to critique it.
Not really. At least not wothout assuming it's conclusion. When it comes to having to prove itself without begging the question the secular models are very bad.
@@Terrylb285it isn’t secular, but it is circular, as it begs the question and uses the same untestable assumptions that secular models use uncritically.
@@ryankelly9032 this is a testable, falsifiable model. It is not circular,for this model welcomes critique, that’s how scientific models work. Your goal is to try to prove yourself wrong.😑
@@Terrylb285 it welcomes critique, but the assumptions underlying the model are not themselves falsifiable. There’s no way to test whether or not the rates of decay have always been the same. Uniformitarianism is unfalsifiable.
If I was there I would have asked Hugh about the war in heaven and the fact that the powers of darkness have been roaming the world for nearly 100,000 years . I think the earth would be destroyed by now with the evil.
The war in heaven didn’t happen till after the birth of Christ ,Rev 12. But I think you are on track though ,spiritual beings can influence human behavior which is why God sent a flood to destroy wicked humans. And then the Tower of Babel to keep man from getting out of control again. And then the resurrection which stripped Satan and the rebellious angels of there authority.They know that there time is short and continue to try and influence mankind to destroy themselves and Gods creation.But God will intervene ,Matt 24:22
I think Jason forgot that scientist corrected the Geocentric biblical view ,Science didn’t disprove God and the Bible but help the church to correctly interpret the passages that were used to support the sun revolves the earth.
The thing is that geocentrism is a bit of a red harring of a topic. And it was a stupid hill to die on for the renesance church because no scripture teaches it. The thing everyone, including the renesance church(or more accurately some of the church) points to is a passage in the psalms that talk about how the earth is fixed on its pillars, abd immovable. But the psalms are by defintion poetry. That's why it's a psalm. They aren't teaching literal technical facts about stuff. You can even compare it to other scripture like in job which describes that the earth is hung upon nothing. So which would it be? Is it immovable on fixed pillars, or hung over nothing? Is it a contradiction in scripture? The answer is no, its not a contradiction. The original author, and intended audience of the psalm in question was not trying to teach literal technical truths about the earths structure, he was writting a poem about the glory of God, abd how he his the creator of the heavens, and the earth. I Don't think job is intending to give a science lesson about the earth either, but at least it isn't explicitly a poetic praise(though some party's of jobs speeches, abd stuff are written poetic) but if you are gunna go with either go with job since it's a histiricle narrative, and not a peom.
@@Truth_Distillery It's probably higher than it should be. The flat earth's who believe it based on scripture, I hate it, because it means they didn't do an hour of research before deciding that's what scripture meant. They believe that because in many of our English translations the Bible states the earth is coveted by something called a firmament. Or technically it says there is a firmament in between the waters above, vs the waters below. And most assume that waters below obviously means earth surface waters, lakes, oceans, rivers, and such, and that the waters above must be some kind of undefined layer of water, or dispersed moisture either in the atmosphere, or in space or sonething. The first assumption they never question is that waters below mean earth's surface water. There's actually plenty of reason fron the texts to assume it means subterranean water, and not surface water, but that gets into hydroplate theory,which I think holds a great deal of evidence, and explanatory power, but it isn't the topic at hand here so I won't go into it. The other issue they have is not questioning what the word firmament means, or where it came from. The English word firmament came from the Latin word firmamentum, which only existed as a result of early Latin translators imprinting what they thought to be the obviously true cosmology of theor day into scripture. That being the ancient Greek cosmology of thinking the sun, moon, and stars were all held in place around earth in some sort of solid crystal structure, and that it either spun around the earth, or the earth spun around in it. This is also why the geocentrist iew was prevalent in the medical, and renesaunce church. It was also imported from that same anciently Greek cosmology trying to be read into the scriptures. The original word from the original OT scriptures in Hebrew is the word 'rquia. Which has a few meanings depending on context. It either means an expanse of something, usually always referring to the sky, or ocean. Or in specific uses relying to metallurgy, it can mean to hammer out a Plat of copper, brass, or any other metal. You hammer it out to "expand" it. The Latin translators choose to think more towards the metalirgymeaning because they already had it in their head from the Greek cosmology that the sun, moon, and stars all all Contained in some kind of solid crystal layer. But a more natural reading without that importation of Greek cosmology just shows thar context demand the word Sim l y be used as the regular "expanse" not relating to solids, and metallurgy. With all this shade being thrown at biblical flat earth's, I do feel compelled to even thevplaying field by mentioning how many people believe blatantly wrong falsehoods about what would be considered secular science in general because they equally do not do an hour of research before settling on a position. One of the first things that comes to my mind is how shockingly few people, even well learned people with degrees in some scientifuc fields are just still under the impression that fossils are simply permineralized cases of where bones once were. This has been demonstrably false for almost 20 years by a landslide, but the ignorance remains. Pretty much any fossil we actually test it fir has at least some, and usually quite a bit of original biomaterial from the organism. Yes some permineralization has taken place, but the entire structure is not replaced by minerals. Some of the structures that we regularly find in things like dinosaur fossils, is original bone, and collagen, including ostiocites. Nerve fibers, ligament fibers. Blood vessel, blood clots in said vessel, even distinguishable individual red blood cells. And I think my favorite us there's evidence of in very fragmentary original DNA in some of these fossils. Now it's only like 6 -12 base pairs long per stretch, but still. Native Dino DNA is a big deal even if we can't really do any jurassic park nonsense with it. Though many will contest some of these finds, the vast majority of the secular scientifuc body had conceded that these do exist, and are original to the animal from which the fossil came from. Given that this is a normalcy, and a pretty sensational topic, I mean who doesn't love awesome fossil finds, I am gobsmacked by the amount of people who are still solidly convinced fossils are nothing but rock in the shape of bone.
How? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451 God with immeasurable intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge, does not know what a day is in context with the finite lifespan of humans, give me a break. A light to rule the DAY and a light to rule the NIGHT, its that simple to anyone with common sense.
Hugh aknowledges all of the fundamental truths of the Christian Faith and moral stances like Pro-life, i am a young earth creationist too, you should be ashamed of using such hostile language as "destroyed" towards a fellow Christian, Jesus calls us to love one another even those in error not to "destroy" fellow believers.
But that is what the Bible says: Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@xavierowino nope. Way before Darwin people new the earth was old. And Christians since the first centuries understood Genesis to be a none scientific account of creation. Many modern evangelicals are very naive and lazy when it comes to biblical interpretation.
@@Solideogloria00 can you give examples of early Christians who thought the earth is old and aiso that genesus was non scientific ? Was it a mainstream or fringe view
No he does not and is not. Please read your Bible. I have yet to find a YEC that reads and trusts the Bible. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
No he does not and is not. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
No, read your Bible, it is what he is quoting. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
Dr. Ross seems like an arrogant fool that thinks saying it’s all debunked makes it true. He reasons from science and the Bible the same way the atheist he likes so much do.
Dr. Ross says that God is unchanging and therefore the Laws of Nature are unchanging, yet the Bible is replete with examples of these laws being suspended, not the least of which the one on which Christianity was built: the Resurrection! Also, the longevity of humans pre-flood was drastically different from post-flood.
The Bible says," the laws of physics can not be changed?" Not in my Bible. That's adding to scripture. You can't believe in miracles if you really believe that.
Lisle makes me think of when Dr Mike Licona says no one at doctorate level theology conventions agrees with the Jehovah Witness views because they are widely considered as baseless among experts. It seems Lisle, hamm and YEC are among a small outlier group when it comes to docrorate level astonomy conventions. I have to ask myself, if Hamm and Lisle capitualted to Ross' position, would there be many people visiting Hamm's creation/ark museaum? Again, Ross believes the Bible is innerant, just as Hamm, but is Hamm and company forcing a square peg in a round hole?
Not sure how you guys are saying Lisle did better here. All he did was argue why rosses arguments are bad, but didnt present evidence of his own for a young earth
“Some book says a thing.”
The laws of physics changed when Adam and Eve sinned.
Bingo! Entrophy!
I wouldn't listen to a single bit of biblical teaching from a man who claims to be Christian, but worships at the altar of evolution.
You have three choices: either 1. find a way to explain away the inconsistencies between your book of fables and observed reality, 2. commit to ignoring empirical reality (probably fine if you’re a beautician but impossible if you’re a geologist), or 3. ditch the fables and face reality courageously and honestly. Ross is trying to help you people do #1, but you’re committed to irrationality.
@Detson404 HEBREWS 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. PSALM 14:1 " The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good".
@@davidgraham2673 so… “play make believe with me” and “if you don’t, you’re dumb.” Please. Look, the flesh is weak and eternity is scary, I get it, sometimes it helps to play pretend. The risk is that you’ll dissuade new generations from studying reality, and the world needs smart young people more than it needs comforting lies for us old farts.
Dr. Lisle is INCREDIBLE! What a great defender of the faith!
Yes he is patient in instructing the foolish.
Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” referring to the whole time of the six days, The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
I love that Dr Lisle always brings it back to the bible. Great question from the man who asked Dr Ross what age Adam would be if a scientist takes a guess
But Ross is also basing everything on what the bible says. Just cause he understands all the science doesn't mean that he isn't recognising the Bible as the ultimate source. Ross knows and understands the bible as well as anyone does. He just knows that a day in ancient Hebrew does not necessarily mean 24 hours. And if it did why would the bible say evening and morning to mean 24 hours when everyone knows that from an evening to a morning is 12 hours anyway? A day is a morning to the next morning, God knows that doesn't he, so why would he describe a day of 24 hours as an evening to a morning? He couldn't have made such a basic mistake could he? Therefore a day must mean something else. And the bible tells us that a day can be like a thousand years and. vice versa to God. And as we all know a day can mean a period of time. And many of the people commenting here are treating Ross as an evolutionist which simply isn't true. HE has strongly refuted evolution in virtually every video he has ever made. So many people misunderstand so badly then make their conclusions based on rubbish which neither man has even said
Also you forget Ross's brilliant answer to why God creates a full grown chicken before the egg-because an egg can't look after itself. If Adam was a baby alone on the earth he would soon starve wouldn't he.
Turek shouldn’t be asking the questions, it should be cross examination by each one. You can tell he’s got a bias and takes Ross’ side
In Ross’s rebuttal, he makes the very arguments that Lisle disproves in his opening statement.
The problem is that people look at the same evidence properly and their presuppositions influence the interpretation of that evidence. I am with Dr. Lisle in that I trust the Biblical worldview (Bible) as the proper filter for interpretation of data. The other guy, not so much.
Dr. Lisle rejected the Bible: Rejects: Hebrews 4:9-10 Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 Romans 5:12 Romans 1:20 Psalm 19 1-4 Leviticus 25:2 and Exodus 23:10-11
@@djsarg7451 Bro, take your glasses off and put your GRASSES on!!! Oh, & chill out.
Jason lisle turned in an old earth thesis to earn his doctorate. If he is so certain of a young universe why didn’t he present a young earth thesis to earn his degree.
@@Terrylb285 What was his thesis? Have you read it? That said... Even tenured professors with irrefutable evidence for a young universe will be fired. Any geologist teaching a global flood in Noah's day, even though tenured, will be fired. One can't obtain a Ph.d without telling Academia what it wants to hear. Academia doesn't want to hear the Word of God.
Why does Jason Lisle refer to Dr. Ross as a secular scientist?
All YEC leaders teach if you are not with us (YEC), you are an atheist evolutionist. Falsely claiming there are only two world views YEC and atheist evolutionist. (Thus Old Earth creationism is not even real). YEC call Christians atheist evolutionist all the time. YEC are very sick leaders. All scientists are evil lying bad men in this YEC world view.
He didn’t. He specifically said “I’m not talking about Dr. Ross”.
He specifically said that Dr. Ross is relying upon the consensus of modern science of which secular scientists are the driving force. Hos arguments being from uniformitarianism and some from naturalism; so Dr. Lisle is demonstrating how that line of reasoning is false. In a way he is appealing to a Christian brother to change his mind. If we were trying to convince a fellow believer they were embracing gnostic ideas it would be better to argue against the gnostics that against the brother.
This Lisle guy is unfortunately confused about the Einstein Special Theory of Relativity Time Dilation Theory. He claims the light from distant stars reaches us instantaneously but that's utter rubbish. What the Special Theory actually says is that for the light photons travelling at the speed of light there would actually be no time, that's true, but we as an observer have a different "reality". For us the speed of light C is still a constant and we know how fast it is. We have had many opportunities to verify the speed of light and Lisle even contradicts himself when saying the light from distant stars reaches us instantly as the same equations needed for that special Theory of Relativity use the speed of light C as we know it. It's a bit pathetic that Lisle tries to confuse the listener with his seemingly educated vocabulary but if you really understand what he's talking about you will know that he is actually either not saying the truth or doesn't understand what he's talking about. The implications of instant light btw would be dramatic as the universe would be flooded with light and gama rays. Btw, being that even we humans explain complicated matters using simple stories to our children who is to tell God didn't do that? We can see that parts of Genesis can't be taken literally " they will become one flesh.....". The "apple" might also not literally be an apple so why must the rest be 100% literal? Fact is we humans have a IQ between 100-200. God's IQ however is so huge it couldn't be measured, like billions. That means for God to explain to us the creation story necessitates that he uses figurative/ poetic formulations because our IQ isn't adequate to fully understand what really happened. As Christians we should be humble and accept that God created in 6 days/ periods, there is no evolution, Adam is 6000 years old but going into detail how he did it and how old the universe is, is taking things too far.
But Genesis isn’t written in poetry. It’s in the Hebrew narrative. And do you know Jason wrote a pier reviewed paper on Einstein’s “theory of special relativity”. And many scientists agree with Jason and many agree with Hugh. Which simply proves science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. The James Webb telescope has begun the unraveling of things scientists thought were facts just 5 years ago.
@@mynonameyt "Genesis isn't written in poetry". Oh... you would know? You know the intentions God had? Of course. I'm not sure how much you understand about physics, theoretical physics and astronomy but if you do you should understand what I wrote above and conclude Lyle is very confused about the conclusion to be made of Einstein Special Theory of Relativity in regards to the speed of light. Dr Hugh Ross has a much better and deeper understanding of these issues.
@@platzhirsch4275 Anybody with an understanding of Hebrew poetry can tell you Genesis isn't poetry. It's genre is historical narrative. Hebrew poetry is written in a style called parallelism. Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd demonstrated conclusively Genesis isn't Hebrew poetry. That said, there is one instance of poetry in Genesis and it occurs in Chap 4 verses 23-24. It's the only instance of parallelism in Genesis.
@@scottb4579 that's your opinion and I wouldn't blame anyone for that opinion. It's nevertheless wrong. To claim Genesis is to be understood completely wrong and use Hebrew to proof it has been disproved by Jews themselves that hold a contrary opinion to you- pls be honest about that. To pick out one Jewish scholar that supports your position and neglect others that don't isn't honest. Pls be honest in this debate. What I do understand very much about is the Physics of Einsteins special and general theory of Relativity and I can therefore 100% tell you that Lyles hypothesis is more than wrong, it's even deceptive. I can't believe he actually believes that and I come along with a 100% proof: gravitational lenses. What are they? Huge galaxy clusters are known to have such a huge pull ob light that they curve light coming from behind it. A galaxy that has moved behind such a galaxy cluster emits light that reaches us, but that light is bend like a lense around the cluster like a lense ( general theory of relativity) and we can see that effect here as the image of the emissing galaxy gets blurred plus forms multiple images as long as its behind that cluster. We can see this astronomical effect very clear. This observance proofs that light doesn't reach us instantaneously but relativ to us light takes different lengths of time to reach us leading to these multiple images. I however know where Lyle is confused in his hypothesis: the special Theory of Relativity concludes that the light photons don't experience time, as they travel at the speed of light ( special Theory of Relativity). Relative to the viewpoint of a photon they don't experience time at their speed C, but we have a different perspective. From our perspective that same photon travels at the speed C that then leads to the effect stated above. He contradicts himself even further when claiming the speed of light towards us is so much different that when leaving us 1. How does light "know" its moving towards us and has to change its speed? Why would it do that? 2. That hypothesis is in strong conflict to the vary laws of the special Theory of Relativity he likes to quote that says the speed of light in empty space is a constant C!!!!!! Btw: the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel are not literal 70 weeks either. Actually we know today a day in that week counts for a year. It's therefore also not literally 70 weeks and thus proof that scripture isnt always 100% literal. I hope I could help you.... Don't ask for human interpretation but for the Holy Spirit to guide you. Pray for God's wisdom, not mans wisdom. Shalom and Amen ❤
@@platzhirsch4275 Thanks for your reply. Well, I'm aware scholars disagree, but we can see paralellism in the scriptures. Years ago, before I understood what it was, I noticed the change in writing style as I read through the bible. Boyd uses statistical analysis to show Genesis isn't poetry except in the two verses I cited. I'm fine with his view. I don't know of any others who differ on that, but I know some refer to Genesis 1 as "high prose." I'm not a physicist, but I am aware of the principles you mention. Lisle uses the anisotropic synchrony convention with regard to the one way speed of light which Einstein talked about. He has an article about it entitled "Distant Starlight-The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention" on the Answers in Genesis website if you choose to read it. I have no opinion on the truth of this view. I also know the 70 weeks are weeks of years. What you don't seem to take into account is, the Bible, and history, make clear they are weeks of years, while the Bible makes clear the days of Genesis are 24 hour day. Just because some words are to be taken literally doesn't mean none of them are literal. Text, context, and co-texts make the meaning clear.
JWST just proved Ross wrong. I guess we can’t look back in time and see God create the universe. It also proved that distant galaxies look identical to nearby ones, showing that they are all the same age. This means that we are NOT seeing back in time, the farther we look away.
This is not True. Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. We have the Hubble telescope, JHTS telescope and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). All these tools are real and tell us the universe (time, space, and matter) began 13.7 billion years ago. So beyond is the one that brought the universe into existence.
I guarantee and would wager dollars to doughnuts that’s not what JWST shows.
Thank God for Dr Hugh Ross 😊
For without him, we wouldn’t know what wrong was.
@@SpaceDad42To say that God created everything with an appearance of age would suggest that God is deceptive. As far as Adam is concerned, God created him as an adult male..there is no appearance of age. It clearly and plainly states that Adam was a man. He didn't have the appearance of a man. He was, in fact a man. To suggest then, that God created everything else with an appearance of age is ridiculous. You can't use this one poor example then assume He did it with everything else when there is absolutely no indication of Him doing so.
@@mtino7509correct Adam was brand new . No liver spots , chipped teeth etc. just like a car coming off the assembly line , it looks brand new and does not have the appearance of age.
Hugh Ross also says that when God said "Let there be light" he doesn't think it happened right away. As if creation would hesitate to obey the Creator. Thomas Newberry can say it better than I can... "Let-there-be light." "In the Greek there are two forms of the Imperative. The imperative aorist, expressing a command, positive, decided: "Do at once." And the imperative present: "Do, and continue to do." In the Hebrew there is an imperative form which is positive and decided, corresponding with the imperative aorist of the Greek. The long tense is also employed in Hebrew as an imperative, corresponding with the Greek imperative present, and expressing continuance. In the sentence "Let_there_be light," the long tense is used as an imperative. The force of this is "let light be, and continue," not "let there be a temporary flash." "And 'there_ was light." Here the long tense is used, the "vau" or "and" being connected with the verb "was," because not the temporary appearance of light at that definite period is intended to be expressed, but the permanent continuance of the light now brought into the scene. This is not, I consider, the creation of light properly speaking, but the bringing in of light upon the darkness surrounding the deep. In Isa. xlv. 7 God says "I form the light, and ... create darkness." The word "form" is to manipulate skilfully and artistically; to "create" is to bring into being. This seems to imply that light is normal, and darkness an unnatural thing, a thing brought in. God is represented as dwelling in light which no man can approach unto; dwelling eternally in light. At His command light was brought continuously into the darkness which surrounded the chaotic earth.
I will say that in reference of Jer 33...Jer 33 is a chapter that speaks to the assurance of the health, healing, peace and truth that God will bring to Israel and its people. This prophecy is given while Jeremiah is confined to the courtyard and the houses and palaces have been torn down in defense of the Babylonian siege. God says "The Chaldeans are coming to fight and to fill those places with the corpses of the men I will strike down in My anger and in My wrath", but despite this, while and before this happens, God makes promises of restoration. This continues with his promise of the Righteous Branch, whose promises ultimately do not happen in Christ's time but are still yet to come. As long as there is a throne to sit on and a temple to sacrifice in, David's offspring will sit on the throne and Levitical priests will offer the sacrifices. This covenant is as sure as God's covenant with day and night. Yet God stopped the sun in Joshua's day and also had long periods where there was no king on the throne. It is not about the laws of physics but the promises of God, which can be stalled in his timing or given a waiting period. Notice also that God says "If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that day and night cease to occupy their appointed time". He does not say that it cannot or will not happen, but that "if man can make it happen", which is rhetorical yes, but the point is that his covenant with Israel will continue as his covenant with day and night will continue, it will not be defeated (פָרַר disannul). He is making the point that if man can disannul God's covenant with day and night so that they cease to be in their season, then his covenant with Israel, David, and the Levites may be broken...but since that cannot be with day and night, so can it not be with Israel. yet, there was no night at the appointed time during the battle of Joshua 10:12-14 12At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. 14There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel." So the "breaking" or disannulling spoken of in Jer 33 must be more than a a pause but more of a complete stop where the sun stood still for about 24 hrs. Therefore, the entire beginning premise of Hugh Ross is mistaken
Hugh Ross is great, God Bless Lisle is part of a mad cult called YEC
117:12 Jason won the debate.
Lisle argument: "Don't look at the evidences, we know nothing that's why I'm correct, and I'm the greatest Christian ever" He's just crazy, and he's part of a cult called YEC invented by the Seventh Day Adventists
I love how Turek basically bought into Ross’ presuppositions right from the beginning, assuming the Bible is not accurate history and is not a source by which to decide what is or isn’t true. The whole point of the debate that Lisle was making is that the Bible is our source and that is supreme, and does not need to be interpreted in light of a greater scientific authority, it IS the greatest scientific authority itself. Turek is clearly an evidentialist old earth “science should be lord over the Bible” person and wasn’t really a fair moderator
You are spot on about Frank Turek. He does elevate secular science over the Bible on a regular basis. That’s why he, Hugh Ross, and other old earth creationists reinterpret Genesis in order to uphold their viewpoint. And that’s why he didn’t want to touch the question regarding Noah’s Flood, because that also has to be reinterpreted in order to explain the rock layers and fossils as being deposited over millions of years instead of from the flood. Ultimately, these interpretations undermine the authority of the Bible and create all sorts of discrepancies regarding sin, death, and the need for a savior. Hugh Ross in his summary touched on an irony that I think he missed: because God can’t lie, if scripture and nature disagree, then we either haven’t interpreted scripture accurately or we don’t know enough. Hugh and Frank need to ponder that statement and get some self-awareness.
The Bible is the Word of God and Hugh not only believes this he wrote a book on it. Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense By Hugh Ross. This is why Hugh Teachies and YEC reject: Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Job 12:7-10 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.
@@djsarg7451Those verses don’t prove the YEC wrong and I don’t see the point of your comment. Quoting scattered verses out of context with no explanation doesn’t prove your point whatsoever. YEC do not reject those verses as you suggested, and in fact I think they could be equally quoted by YEC to prove their side as well.
Ross's ''pre-suppositions'' as you call them is actually scripture-that the laws of physics are constant-the bible says this. It is actually Ross who is using the bible as his measuring rod then comparing what science tells us to that, you and Jason Lisle are trying to lie about that. at least in Lisle's case I believe he is stupid enough to believe this part of what he's arguing
@@michaelmichael2121 Have you read any of Lisle’s work? Also, when you read the word “days” in the Bible, do you think that if you came to the text without imposing modern scientific knowledge on it that it would read “millions or billions of years”? You think that “millions of years” is the correct understanding of “days” in the text of Scripture?
Wow two profoundly untrustworthy theists having a battle of unsustainable lies with absolutely no relationship with reality or how it works. Here's the present and age of the universe (ignoring the "red shift" measurement"). We know that supernovas give out a fixed levels of light (lumens). Let's replace that with a candle: If I place a candle 1 meter away I can measure that light. if I move the candle 2 meters away I can measure it is 1/4 as bright, 4 meters away 1/16th as bright. So think of supernova as a candle, they are all approximately the same brightness as they explode. If we use geometry to measure the closest supernova we can calculate it's exact distance, say 4 light years. If we see another supernova and it is 1/16th as bright, like the candle, we can say it is 4 times as far or 16 light years. We can watch these supernovas exploding all the way back to almost the beginning of the the universe using such as Hubble or JWT and based on our measurement of light emitted by them compared with the closest supernova calculated by geometry we can calculate the distance (which we do in "light years" which are an abbreviated term for the number of miles light will travel in those number of years). So when we say the universe is 13.8 billion years old it means we have seen a supernova explode (via a telescope at a distance it took 13.8 billion years for the light to travel to our telescope based on how dim the light is. And yes it is beyond dispute or debate). NOTE HERE: This is not making estimates or presumptions based on the past as Lisle tries to deceive you, it is actual measurement on what we are seeing now as the supernovae explode. Since the Apollo missions left reflectors on the moon we measure the distance of the moon to earth made by a laser reflecting off the moon reflectors which is half the time it takes the laser light to get to the moon and back i.e. the time from when the laser was turned on (in the past) to the time we see it turned on (reflected back to earth) in the future. Note: The estimates given on this and other information the moon would have been 15,000KM from earth 5 billion years ago. Repeat: Science is not making ANY presuppositions other than what is known as the standard candle value of a supernova which we observe to be true. We can measure the magnetic field geologically and it undergoes a minor shift every 200 million years. Lisle knows this and is lying. Lisle lying again, no we can't prove the Oort cloud yet but we know we have all the ice we need create comets in the Kuiper belt. I demolished Jasons Lisles book on Proof of God which included all this rubbish and lies on his site with links for proof. He immediately deleted it, twice, because liars can't sell books. Personally, I believe it is wilful fraud. Both Hugh Ross and Jason Lisle know that is how universe dating takes place so they both know the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old and everything they say to contradict that fact is a wilful lie used to deceive you. But don't believe me, there's hundreds of REAL scientific sites confirming it. And note: As astrophysicists, neither could get a PhD in astrophysics without recognising the above as true throughout their entire education including being tested on that being the truth and claiming it was. So, they are either liars who lied their way through their degrees which makes their degrees fake or they are lying to you and deceiving you now. Feel free to ask both about the "Supernova standard candle method of dating the age of the universe." and if they refute it, I'll contact the dean of their university to confirm that's what they were taught and accepted. Or you can look up the university where they got their PhD and ask their astrophysics department the same question. They are liars.
How does Jason explain gravity waves that came from blackholes (collapsed stars) merging billions years ago when he says stars formed 6000 years ago
Probably the same way he describes how light from distant stars reached us instantly. Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light as well.
Black holes are science fiction
The fact God used 6 days does anyone think WHY 6 days? 6 days And day is like a thousand years I’ve declared the END from the BEGINNING (creation days) Each day in creation tells a PROPHECY about each 1000 years The 6th day is not over yet, we have not hit the 6000 years old, it’s NEARLY exactly 2000 years after Jesus’ resurrection, WE ARE in the LAST DAY (5000-6000 years) I reckon the end, Jesus’ return is between 2028-2032 Remember our calendars are off and the original calendar had 30 days in each month! HE is coming soon people 🙏😎😬
"And day is like a thousand years " this about God not bening a man, limited to our time, not about the age of the Earth., Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451 a DAY is ONE rotation of the earth!!!!!!!! Don’t try and change the meanings of words to fit your heretical views!!!!! The TWO verses describing a “day is like a thousand years” is PROPHETIC VERSES about the earth will end in in 6 days (6000 years) then a new earth with Christ and his followers for the 7th day (last 1000 years) !!!!! Study biblical prophecy mate Gap theory goes against Gods word AND science!
I've been thinking along the same lines. Scholars place the death of Christ at either A.D. 30 or 32. So we're almost 2000 years since his death. But the 70th week of Daniel has to come before his coming. So maybe the 70th week commences 2030 or 2032? We'll see.
@@scottb4579 correct brother, most scholars put Jesus’ death/resurrection around 30-32ad My view with others I’ve studied is 28AD because our calendars have been messed with over the millennia Months should of been lunar/ 30 days We changed our calendars over time and go by solar calendar, we add and take away months, adding leap years etc I believe the Lord will return feast of trumpets (sep) 2028 but is 2028 OUR 2028 or is it the REAL 2028 where we have strayed away from ? I’ve been trying to figure this out for some time now You know any links or videos on this topic brother ? I also did a video on this
So...bad guy fight?
Worst moderator ever.
You apparently have never watched a recent presidential debate.
Jason proved he doesn't understand Science.
How so?
Jason’s problem is he has predetermined that his interpretation of genesis is infallible,therefore the science has to be wrong if it disagrees with him.
Or the Bible.
And you do?
@@Terrylb285He puts more authority on the word of God rather than the word of man, ad we all should
Jason Lisle doesn't have a brain of a scientist.
tuama
Young Earthers always label Old Earthers as "evolutionists". That seems to be because all nontheists believe in an old earth. They are "materialists" an evolutionists. But, there are many scientists, like Hugh Ross, who are Christians that believe in Old Earth cosmology for very scientific reasons. And, as he states he does NOT believe in Evolution. Find books and vids by S. Meyer, J.Lennox and others.
Before the Big Bang proved that the universe had a beginning , evolutionists believed the universe was eternal and that allowed for trillions of years for evolution to take place . A universe that is only 13.7 billion years old severs any possibility of evolution.
The evolution that Old Earthers ascribe to is cosmological and geological. They just reject the biological evolution.
If you want that distinction then you also need to own that your position opened the door for Macro Evolutionists who have the most Anti-God world view and the Theistic Evolutionists welcomed them in. Your interpretation of the Bible destroys the plain reading of scripture. If you’re my brother in Christ I appeal to you to look at the whole counsel of God and realize Jesus (the God-Man) affirmed Genesis 1&2 as literal History. That Adam and Eve were at the beginning of all God began to Create. Don’t exalt Science over the Word of God.
So one thing that never got pointed out to hugh, that i think is a big deal for his case. He states that god upholds the physics of thr universe consistently so no change in physical process can habe ever happened if we are to belive scripture. But in scripture theres a part where got makes the sun stand still and extends the day so that isreal can win a battle. Right there god is using his supreme power, to miraculously halt a natural processby some way. That is a dirrect example in scripture of god interviening, altering the course at which events proceed naturally. So his entire case that god will never alter physics, or the way physical processes work is demonstratably false, and it fails there. Sometime else i gotta say is that jason, got hugh pretty good with that one line. Where hugh had been bringing up the idea that no scientist would come to the conclusion of a young earth outside of scripture, and jason finally responded to that by pointing out that theh would never come to the conclusion of jesus resurection without scripture either, i was like holy crap. I felt that one. But thatd what you get for trying to apply one hermanietic to a topic, abd a different one to the others. Your workdview cant stand. And on that point i dont think its true anyways that the only reason that people can think the earth is young is scripture. Theres two things to be said about that. The first is that if you find yourself convinced the earth is young by evidences apart from the bible, then you are probably going to start believing in the bible since it has been saying the earth is young for more than 2000 years. So its kinda a selection bias thing to try to say that nobody believes the earth is young apart from scripture, because anyone who comes to that conclusion by any route will end up beloving in scripture because they have seen it is correct. The other thing to say is we cant ignore the secular naturalist bias at play in such an assertion. One of the biggest reasons so many evidences for a young earth, ate recieved, or are ognored by secular scientific institutions is precisly because they ascribe themsekves as secular, so they are going to steer clear from acknowledging things thag would be to big a boon to a nonsecukar outlook like scripture. If chrsutianity didnt exist, or if it was a small hardly known religion there would 100% be a harsh divide between old earth, and young earth scientists in secular science because acknowldging evidences for a young earth would not be seen as a concession to a religion.
Please read your Bible. Jeremiah 33. I have yet to find a YEC that reads and trust the Bible. Unchanging physical laws: According to the Bible, the laws of physics are unchanging. In Jeremiah 33, God, speaking through the prophet, contrasts human wavering with his own immutability by referring to the “laws governing the heavens and Earth” (verse 25). Just as they remain “fixed,” as in constant and unchanging, so does God. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451 the day age theory/metaphorical day theory is very weak for a variety of reasons But one very big one is that we can find exactly zero ancient jewish literature that supports the idea that they ever took ot as a metaphore. If anyone should understand what genesis was talking about, it should be the initial audience god supposedly gave it to, but they never took it to mean that. So either God wasn't the one who wrote it, abd it's a bunch of hokey from the middle east, God did providentially give it yo them, but was unable, or unwilling to make it clear what it was supposed to mean, Or God did provodentialky give genesis to Moses, and it means exactly what the ancient Hebrews took it to mean. A literal creation account.
@@anthonypolonkay2681YEC do not trust the Bible. it is like Hebrews 4:9-10 is not in the Bible. It is like Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 are not in the Bible. literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ).
@@djsarg7451 so what you are doing is a very intellectually dishonest way to read something. You are attempting to redefine the context of one part of the Bible, with cheery picked passages from a competly different part that has no explicitly stated relation. Like dog the topic of hebrews is paul talking to hebrew judeaziers who are attempting to go back to the temple sacrifices. Hebrews at most only makes passing remarks about creation, it never gives an explicite teachings thereof. And you are also doing so while trying to actively ignore the context put forwards in genesis itself. That isn't how a consistent hermeneutic works, you don't get to redefine explocite teachings in one part of the Bible, with implicit meaning you are trying to draw from compettly unrelated parts. Something else that needs to be mentioned here, is deep time, abd evolution are false irregardless of Christianity. That's something you can learn just by studying the basic facts thereof. It's not the popular secular opinion, but that's because it's all the secular world has to work with. If they admit they don't even have that, then they cannot defend a secularist ideology.
A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural. Hugh Believes in miracles.
Hugh always claims that the Bible says that the laws of physics don't change. That is false, because the word "physics" isn't in the Bible. Hugh is just giving an interpretation.
Ross does NOT say that the Bible says anything about the laws of Physics. It says nothing re. change or not.
@@jaybennett236What does "re. change or not" mean? I've listened to a lot of Ross's debates and lectures. He frequently says that the Bible says that the laws of physics don't change. How much have you listened to him?
Read Jeremiah 3, I have yet to find a YEC that reads and trusts the Bible. Unchanging physical laws: According to the Bible, the laws of physics are unchanging. In Jeremiah 33, God, speaking through the prophet, contrasts human wavering with his own immutability by referring to the “laws governing the heavens and Earth” (verse 25). Just as they remain “fixed,” as in constant and unchanging, so does God Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
Need to read the Bible: Jeremiah 33:25 Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant with day and night does not stand, and if I have not established the fixed patterns of heaven and earth, [the whole order of nature,] Jeremiah 33:25 This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth. "laws of heaven and earth." = physics in Bible wording.
@@Aspect762 Jeremiah 33:25 Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant with day and night does not stand, and if I have not established the fixed patterns of heaven and earth, [the whole order of nature,] Jeremiah 33:25 This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth. "laws of heaven and earth." = physics in Bible wording.
Hugh Ross is correct. Their scientific model for an old earth over the last several decades has gotten stronger and they can present there testable model ,and readily ask for those in opposition to critique it.
Not really. At least not wothout assuming it's conclusion. When it comes to having to prove itself without begging the question the secular models are very bad.
His model is not a secular model .
@@Terrylb285it isn’t secular, but it is circular, as it begs the question and uses the same untestable assumptions that secular models use uncritically.
@@ryankelly9032 this is a testable, falsifiable model. It is not circular,for this model welcomes critique, that’s how scientific models work. Your goal is to try to prove yourself wrong.😑
@@Terrylb285 it welcomes critique, but the assumptions underlying the model are not themselves falsifiable. There’s no way to test whether or not the rates of decay have always been the same. Uniformitarianism is unfalsifiable.
If I was there I would have asked Hugh about the war in heaven and the fact that the powers of darkness have been roaming the world for nearly 100,000 years . I think the earth would be destroyed by now with the evil.
The war in heaven didn’t happen till after the birth of Christ ,Rev 12. But I think you are on track though ,spiritual beings can influence human behavior which is why God sent a flood to destroy wicked humans. And then the Tower of Babel to keep man from getting out of control again. And then the resurrection which stripped Satan and the rebellious angels of there authority.They know that there time is short and continue to try and influence mankind to destroy themselves and Gods creation.But God will intervene ,Matt 24:22
I think Jason forgot that scientist corrected the Geocentric biblical view ,Science didn’t disprove God and the Bible but help the church to correctly interpret the passages that were used to support the sun revolves the earth.
You should watch a person by the name of Dr Robert sungenis defend a Geocentric biblical view against scrutiny on the channel standing for truth
The thing is that geocentrism is a bit of a red harring of a topic. And it was a stupid hill to die on for the renesance church because no scripture teaches it. The thing everyone, including the renesance church(or more accurately some of the church) points to is a passage in the psalms that talk about how the earth is fixed on its pillars, abd immovable. But the psalms are by defintion poetry. That's why it's a psalm. They aren't teaching literal technical facts about stuff. You can even compare it to other scripture like in job which describes that the earth is hung upon nothing. So which would it be? Is it immovable on fixed pillars, or hung over nothing? Is it a contradiction in scripture? The answer is no, its not a contradiction. The original author, and intended audience of the psalm in question was not trying to teach literal technical truths about the earths structure, he was writting a poem about the glory of God, abd how he his the creator of the heavens, and the earth. I Don't think job is intending to give a science lesson about the earth either, but at least it isn't explicitly a poetic praise(though some party's of jobs speeches, abd stuff are written poetic) but if you are gunna go with either go with job since it's a histiricle narrative, and not a peom.
I'd be curious what percentage of young earth folks also believe flat earth.
@@Truth_Distillery It's probably higher than it should be. The flat earth's who believe it based on scripture, I hate it, because it means they didn't do an hour of research before deciding that's what scripture meant. They believe that because in many of our English translations the Bible states the earth is coveted by something called a firmament. Or technically it says there is a firmament in between the waters above, vs the waters below. And most assume that waters below obviously means earth surface waters, lakes, oceans, rivers, and such, and that the waters above must be some kind of undefined layer of water, or dispersed moisture either in the atmosphere, or in space or sonething. The first assumption they never question is that waters below mean earth's surface water. There's actually plenty of reason fron the texts to assume it means subterranean water, and not surface water, but that gets into hydroplate theory,which I think holds a great deal of evidence, and explanatory power, but it isn't the topic at hand here so I won't go into it. The other issue they have is not questioning what the word firmament means, or where it came from. The English word firmament came from the Latin word firmamentum, which only existed as a result of early Latin translators imprinting what they thought to be the obviously true cosmology of theor day into scripture. That being the ancient Greek cosmology of thinking the sun, moon, and stars were all held in place around earth in some sort of solid crystal structure, and that it either spun around the earth, or the earth spun around in it. This is also why the geocentrist iew was prevalent in the medical, and renesaunce church. It was also imported from that same anciently Greek cosmology trying to be read into the scriptures. The original word from the original OT scriptures in Hebrew is the word 'rquia. Which has a few meanings depending on context. It either means an expanse of something, usually always referring to the sky, or ocean. Or in specific uses relying to metallurgy, it can mean to hammer out a Plat of copper, brass, or any other metal. You hammer it out to "expand" it. The Latin translators choose to think more towards the metalirgymeaning because they already had it in their head from the Greek cosmology that the sun, moon, and stars all all Contained in some kind of solid crystal layer. But a more natural reading without that importation of Greek cosmology just shows thar context demand the word Sim l y be used as the regular "expanse" not relating to solids, and metallurgy. With all this shade being thrown at biblical flat earth's, I do feel compelled to even thevplaying field by mentioning how many people believe blatantly wrong falsehoods about what would be considered secular science in general because they equally do not do an hour of research before settling on a position. One of the first things that comes to my mind is how shockingly few people, even well learned people with degrees in some scientifuc fields are just still under the impression that fossils are simply permineralized cases of where bones once were. This has been demonstrably false for almost 20 years by a landslide, but the ignorance remains. Pretty much any fossil we actually test it fir has at least some, and usually quite a bit of original biomaterial from the organism. Yes some permineralization has taken place, but the entire structure is not replaced by minerals. Some of the structures that we regularly find in things like dinosaur fossils, is original bone, and collagen, including ostiocites. Nerve fibers, ligament fibers. Blood vessel, blood clots in said vessel, even distinguishable individual red blood cells. And I think my favorite us there's evidence of in very fragmentary original DNA in some of these fossils. Now it's only like 6 -12 base pairs long per stretch, but still. Native Dino DNA is a big deal even if we can't really do any jurassic park nonsense with it. Though many will contest some of these finds, the vast majority of the secular scientifuc body had conceded that these do exist, and are original to the animal from which the fossil came from. Given that this is a normalcy, and a pretty sensational topic, I mean who doesn't love awesome fossil finds, I am gobsmacked by the amount of people who are still solidly convinced fossils are nothing but rock in the shape of bone.
Hugh gets destroyed here... he makes good arguments other places... just not here.
How? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451 God with immeasurable intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge, does not know what a day is in context with the finite lifespan of humans, give me a break. A light to rule the DAY and a light to rule the NIGHT, its that simple to anyone with common sense.
Hugh aknowledges all of the fundamental truths of the Christian Faith and moral stances like Pro-life, i am a young earth creationist too, you should be ashamed of using such hostile language as "destroyed" towards a fellow Christian, Jesus calls us to love one another even those in error not to "destroy" fellow believers.
The fact that Ross believes God made Adam and Eve 90,000 years ago is ridiculous.
But that is what the Bible says: Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
Ask Genesis scholars. Most are old earth creationists.
The old earth interpretation is informed by science only after it found hard-to-refute evidence for an old earth
@@xavierowino nope. Way before Darwin people new the earth was old. And Christians since the first centuries understood Genesis to be a none scientific account of creation. Many modern evangelicals are very naive and lazy when it comes to biblical interpretation.
@@Solideogloria00 can you give examples of early Christians who thought the earth is old and aiso that genesus was non scientific ? Was it a mainstream or fringe view
Huge loss
Hahhahahahahahahaha.. honestly lolol.. ur hilarious
Funny 😂
Ross wants to be accepted by “science”
No he does not and is not. Please read your Bible. I have yet to find a YEC that reads and trusts the Bible. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
@@djsarg7451So believing in a young earth, means I don't read or trust God's word? Im guessing you didn't pick up the Bible as a child.
Ross wants to be accepted by “science”
No he does not and is not. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
That’s why many atheists think we Christians are dumb. We should be learning about science like our Christian predecessors.
No, read your Bible, it is what he is quoting. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
He wants to face reality. I get it, death is scary, but some people need to face reality with courage or society would collapse.