I'm not deaf but often use CC especially when watching British shows. Sadly, often the CC's are horrendous -- often absolutely not what's actually being said. So yes, anyone taking the time to put REAL CC's that are accurately rendered is a treat. It shouldn't be this way. It ought to be illegal for TV stations to permit shoddy CC creation. It's as if hearing-impaired folks aren't as important as the rest of us.
When I heard a little bit about quantum theory, I realized human beings don’t have a clue about much of anything. Trust the Word of God, and obey Jesus.
Do you use digital equipment? Calculators, washing machines with an embedded computer. Quantum theory was part of the reason we are able to use devices with silicon chips in them. So quantum theory has its uses.
Why should we trust that the Bible is from God if you say humans don’t have a clue about much of anything? Reject science but blindly follow the Bible? How does that make sense?
@@blackdynamite3288 I’m not blindly following the Bible. I’ve been learning how to live by its principles all my life, they work and are faithful in every way. Jesus isn’t way off yonder. He dwells with his followers, and his spirit lives in us.
@@wtillett243 Yes you’ve been learning how to live by its principles, because you were already convinced it’s true. How often do you question the foundation though? How often do you question Jesus’ resurrection or this God’s existence? Do you place the same scrutiny and skepticism in these things as you do for science?
As I was reading the Scriptures and contemplating the passage about how Jesus cursed the Fig Tree, and how quickly it withered, I realized that this curse increased the corruption process. It withered and shriveled immediately. The rate of decay increased exponentially. Matthew 21:19-20 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, HOW SOON is the fig tree withered away! The great curse aged our universe without regard to time just like the fig tree aged!
so based on one parable from the NT you're going to extrapolate that onto all of the physical sciences and countless hours and years of work done by different scientists who have come up with a consensus and just brush off their opinions to fit your theological model? Thats just dandy
@@eg4848 I'll take one parable inspired by our creator over the consensus of every scientist put together. Scientists say a man can be a woman and be pregnant. They also say a piece of paper strapped to your face will prevent a microscopic virus from entering your body. It seems to me some scientists will say whatever the people that are funding them wants them to say. My faith is in the work accomplished by Jesus Christ on that cross, not some guy with a degree in guessing.
@@eg4848 ....first you seem to not understand the difference between a “parable” and a record of an occurrence......second, you seem to have not actually researched what scientific evidence there is regarding the age of our earth. Would you like some help? I will be happy to provide you with information.
This is very good ~ what is The Lord actually doing here? Petulantly cursing a tree because it’s got no fruit yet? Or Showing what is being done to “The Jews “ ~ the fig tree is them! Followed up my casting the mountain into the sea ~ Jerusalem temple built on the mount Jesus is showing what HE is doing ~ spiritual battle against HIS enemies But in the middle of the passage (mark 11) is for us ~ forgive your enemies So we don’t go off on a self willed tangent. This is prophetic drama metaphor The temple was indeed thrown down & as far as Yehovah is concerned Let No fruit come from it ever again! Jesus Christ certainly did replace Judaism. Then now and forever! ✝️🕊♥️
Listened for one hour to learn that the earth looks old because: 1. The Fall of man 2. God wanted to make us whole 3. God understands why and that should be good enough for us. I also gathered from the talk that when science and theology collide we must side on the inerrancy of the Bible, otherwise Theology will suffer.
I’m so glad I read your comment. Gap theory(taking Genesis 1 at its word) explains everything. It make everything make sense. And he didn’t even mention it.
Theology suffers when one forces their own Bible interpretation. The hypocrisy of YEC...they read Genesis one literally though Scripture doesn't define "day" as 24 hours; and yet, when it comes to John 6 and eating His flesh and drinking His blood it somehow isn't literal
I also was frustrated by the lack of supporting info provided especially when there exists so much scientific evidence that reveals why the earth looks so young and reveals the multitude of unverifiable assumptions astrophysicists employ as a foundation for their theories.
For it is written, "I figured myself one of those romantic gentlemen that one reads of in sixpenny magazines." The Riddle of the Sands, by Erskine Childers, p. 82 An equally deep truth-telling excerpt, and made even more profound by putting "for it is written" in front. But I should have also added, "Lo, and it came to pass."
That verse refers to those who are perishing (vs 18) who see the preaching the cross as mere foolishness. By contrast (vs 20) "But unto *us which are saved* it (the preaching of the cross) is the power of God." And (vs 24-25) "To them that are called" (i.e. saved) Christ is the power and wisdom of God, and (the preaching of Christ) is wiser than human wisdom. Paul repeatedly makes clear he's talking about those who reject the Gospel of Christ. But you're stretching that verse over the top of the age-of-the-earth question like a fitted crib sheet on a king sized bed. That's exactly the bad exegesis Moehler criticizes old-earthers for doing in his lecture. Old-Universe Christians can accept the preaching Paul's referring to and the reality of God's wisdom. They repent. They pray and obey. They're as Christian as you are. But if this verse applies to them too, then they must not be saved, right? If so, shouldn't they all stop helping with OCC, stop leading music service, stop witnessing, stop speaking on apologetics, stop giving out tracts, and stop teaching Sunday School -- all until their answer to the age of the cosmos matches *yours* ?
I love this guy. He's so easy to listen to...to understand...to get everything he's saying without drifting or losing one's attention. Keep them coming!
It's 4am I couldn't sleep so I put this lecture on Bluetooth Speaker. Maybe I'm too tired to take what he's saying in, but I disagree with what you have said, I think he talks a lot of waffle, long winding with very little impact. I find him very difficult to get what he was trying to put across. I am a Christian with the view: because God is a spiritual being therefor not subject to any of the laws of physics as we/sciences understand, he is outside time/space/matter yet is in everything he created, "he holds everything together by the power of his word", we don't get to tell God how to play the game he designed, he of course can make a new thing appear old, hen or egg first proves that. There's no such thing as evolution as science states itself, everything is naturally degrading, there's no driving force for nothing to become matter, then that matter to improve itself or in some way upgrade, upgrade, the fundamental problem with that is, formless matter has no desire for development into rock then eventually life, no intellectual driving force to better itself. I'll try to listen to this guy again tomorrow, even though I think he a poor teacher.
@@martinmuldoon603 Hi! I agree with you, Mr. Muldoon. I found this talk disappointing, non-edifying and confusing. Instead, I really enjoy the uplifting approach of Ray Comfort at Living Waters. Also I am greatly encouraged in my Christian faith by the many speakers and scientific presentations at Answers in Genesis.
I do too. I also am greatly blessed by all of the Ligoniers teaching felllows. R.C. Sproul has left behind a wonderful legacy that keeps on blessing the body of Christ. I miss him greatly, and sometimes I speak with his son. Please keep R.C. Jr. and his wife Lisa in your prayers.
I found the presentation underwhelming. After spending a lot of time pointing out what was wrong with other options he fails to anchor ⚓ his alternative. He lives us more confused than when he first began. It is as though he welcomed us into his mental processes while trying to deal with an issue logically and ends up making a conclusion devoid of the same logic he used to dismiss other alternatives
Before I listen to this, I have to wonder if he is going to speak about the first recorded miracle when Jesus turned the water to wine. [ The wine that Jesus created, appeared to have been sewn from seeds, grown until harvest, gathered and crushed, then fermented and aged for many years. However, the wine was only a few minutes old ... [ A scientist would be able to analyze it with the best instruments and every observation would confirm that it is impossible for the wine to be less than 10 years old ... [ The simple answer is: God created the world in a condition that it appeared to take billions of years for it to get that way, but it only took 6 days. [ If you dare to believe the first verse of the bible, you should not have any trouble believing that God made the world in six days and He governs everything that has happened since then and everything that will ever happen from now to the end of the age . [
It's not that I have trouble believing that God can create the world in six days. He could have created in a millisecond, or a billion millennia at His Will. He created Adam from dust, and Adam was full grown. I have no doubt science would say it was impossible for Adam to be less than 20 years old the minute after he was created. What I struggle with is the math of the star light. In order for the Universe to be young, God would have needed to create the light (and life cycles) of stars that never existed. There is very, very good evidence for the speed of light (namely, that the laws of physics function). With that said, there is light from stars that are so far away that they would have needed to have been born, lived their life cycle, and died before the universe was created in order for their light to reach us. I have no doubt God COULD have created the light in transit and the illusion of the life of the stars, but WOULD he? Is that not authoring confusion?
@@jumpingjflash That's true, but only because life would be literally impossible if it wasn't always the same. Even Jason Lisle will admit the evidence is very overwhelming for the speed of light never changing, and he posits other alternatives that are interesting but not developed enough.
@@Jerry-zz2eu ,.. you could say the same about the wine, He made a well aged wine in the blink of an eye, and He is obviously the architect of the atom, elements and all the fine tuning we see, so if it is His desire to place the light from a star to have, not simply arrived at the speed of light, but to be immediately visible from Earth as part of His Creation then just as the wine bypassed ALL the physical happenings it takes to make such a fine wine, then I personally can't see a problem with the light being made to be immediately visible from Earth.
There is a big difference , Christ turn water into wine not create wine , what we as christians have failed to see is the time between the creation and the creation of Man.
Ive listened to RC on the radio he is gifted a calm in the mist of a storm, proberly the most beautiful speaker and i dont think he even trys to be , it just comes out.
One thing I'll say is that I've always thoroughly enjoyed listening to RC Sproul though I don't agree with him I guess theologically on many issues I enjoyed his wit and even somewhat sarcastic humor. I absolutely do believe that RC Sproul was gifted Because it was like sitting with somebody at a table and talking. That is one man I wish I could have met for sure.
@@mannycano4599 I'm the same way in my opinion of RC Sproul. I don't agree with his view on all subjects, but he was brilliant as a thinker, and blessed by God. Just because we don't always see the same way on all positions in the Bible, doesn't discount everything we believe.
How in the world did Ligonier seemingly back Mr Mohler .Why not have a debate with Hugh Ross ; Mr Mohler is a good speaker but is completely blind to science.
...i'm a biology student... and i was thinking through all the different scenarios on how to reconcile the appearing age of the earth to my faith in the God of the scriptures... and what amazes me in this very monent is that brother mohler came to the exact same conclusions as i did... praise be to Christ, who will also defeat the enemies of his adressed in that sermon!
But Dr. Mohler did NOT address your biology question whatsoever. Neither did he tell us how any other scientific proof of an old earth can be disproven. A key element in any debate is to disprove the key arguments of the opposing side. In other words, in more than an hour's presentation, he did not adequately answer the question at hand, "Why does the earth look so old?"
Kent Hovind give 100 scientific facts that point to a 10,000 (+/-2,000) year old earth. He debates and makes 100+ TOP university professors look ridiculous with their theory of old earth and evolution. Look him up!
@@elizabethryan2217 i believe brother mohler gave a perfect argument. The question is what's your epistomology? How do we know what is true? Can we even know if anything is true? Well, scripture is true. It has itself proven to be the word of God. So the question is not how old does the earth look but rather how do we look at the earth in light of scripture. Now the reason Mohler gave why the earth sometimes appears so old is because God made it whole and working... instantly! Now if you view the world without considdering God, some rock formations for example must have taken millions of years to be formed. But they didn't because God made them instantly but no scientist would or could ever find out, due to their epistomology... that was his point
I don't understand how an "evangelical" Christian, who accepts the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the world wide flood, burning bush, Jonah and the fish, the redemption of sins through the grace and mercy of God, and yet cannot believe in a young earth. Lord, please help these people to understand that your word is the absolute TRUTH in each and every word, jot, and tittle! Amen!! Glory be to Jesus, creator of the universe and redeemer of souls.
Hooligan Haines in case you see this, as you deleted your original message, to answer your question; no, your salvation does not rest on your belief in the age of the earth. It is only the blood of Jesus Christ and His mercy that our salvation rests, not our belief in the age of the earth. I hope you see this. I love you brother , and I wish you a Happy New Year! God bless you and keep you!🙂
It was addressed already, but I think folks make too big a deal over this issue. Ancient writers such as Philo, Origen, and Augustine did not believe in a literal 7 - 24 hour-days creation, which seems to me to be the main reason some insist upon a young earth. To me, just from the Biblical text, it doesn’t make sense. Our concept of time is based upon movement, and specifically with a “day” it is approximately 24 hrs (as I recall a day 6,000 years ago is slightly shorter than today, but still roughly 24 hrs). Was time created before the movement of the planets? However, I don’t think old-earth creationists should look down on young earthers. Believing one or the other has nothing to do with being conformed to the Image of Christ. I see Christlike people in both camps, and I see a lot of impious folks in both camps. I just don’t think it should even be an issue. I get that it’s a hot topic because of atheistic views of natural history, but we should be careful of forming reactionary views. To say, “I can’t see why an evangelical can accept X but not Y” I find problematic. For instance, my Catholic friends use a similar argument, “If you believe Christ’s miracles, why can’t you accept The miracle of transubstantiation?” Well, I can’t accept it because it doesn’t make sense to me that Christ meant the bread and wine were literally his body & blood. Then they press me on why I don’t read those words literally - (as if a non-literal reading is a unserious reading). Because I read in John 6 that the food he gives us in his body & blood are non perishable. Yet the elements of the sacrament are perishable. If it is literally the body and blood of Christ, then the wicked partake of it as well as the faithful. But the scripture says the wicked have no union with Christ. Also, for me, the scriptures simply do not support a literal 7 day creation. And since it has no bearing on salvation, it just shouldn’t be an issue.
@@bricaaron3978 Whenever yom or day is mentioned in the bible with a number with it - like the first day or 200 days - it always means that many days. One day always means one 24hour period. Except for Genesis where God declares the first, second, third days, morning and evening and so on. Morning and evening, the first day. That could be 1 billion days, one billion years, one trillion years, but obviously not one day. So obvious. It could mean anything except a 24 hour period, really. So some say.
It terrifies me, that a cult that spread by crusades, genocides, wars, slavery across the globe is still spreading its brainwashing bs by guilt tripping children for some random gurus death and threats of hell to make them obedient cultists. With such people we are doomed.
I used to be a 'Day Ager' but after spending 20+ years looking at the scientific evidence, I am amazed the amount of evidence there is for a young earth world view. We must be careful to not let this divide us as Christians. We must also not let this be a hindrance when we evangelizing nonbelievers.
@@neiljohnson7914 why aren’t you a smart fellow and humble too! In your pompous hubris you failed to mention your credentials to discredit PhDs in the variety of scientific disciplines that make up the YEC cohort!
There are a couple of things I will say about this topic. First, let me say that I completely agree with Dr. Mohler. This is a very, very serious issue for the Church. And, I believe that stems from two points. 1) The account in Genesis is a person's first test of faith in God's Holy scripture. Are you going to believe God when He said He created? And, if a person refuses to believe that, what else in scripture are they going to ignore. I believe this is the cornerstone test of faith for the entirety of the Gospel God has laid out before us. Either we believe Him or we don't. This issue has that profound an impact upon a person's faith. 2) This entire issue started in the garden of Eden, when Satan deceived Eve. Is this not the same lie? Did God really say? People are still falling for this trap, even after all this time. As I told another guy on this video. The very thing that grieves me about this topic is that professing Christian's are falling for the lie and are fighting to propagate the lie. We as the Body of Christ need to be more vigilant in teaching the issues related to this topic and why it is so dangerous for us to ignore what God said about creation.
I disagree, it is VERY important. Because the literal sin of Adam caused his literal death (i.e. he had eternal life before he sinned), as Romans 5 teaches. If we deny such events, we deny the reason Jesus came to restore everything. Believe in an old age, and Jesus' sacrifice is reduced to symbolism at best. I believe the proof points toward YEC, but more than that, only YEC keeps the theological picture sound, so it MUST be true !
I like how he tied everything together in a polite concise manner. what many here are asking now is, "God capable of being God?" I say if God is capable of everything that The Bible tells us He is, He is surely capable of creating a mature universe. The how He did it is what science should explore not the telling of how He should have done it.
@Drake Joseph "The simplest forms of communication" You mean the way God can speak to the hearts of men who seek Him? Or the way He made our cells communicate information that science is only now beginning to see, (but not understand yet) or the way God made animals be able to understand their own languages? what "simplest forms" are you talking about????
@Drake Joseph "the fact that he can't even talk like a normal living breathing human being." He did when He was here with us. And He left His words for us in The New Testament in The Bible.
@Drake Joseph "very convenient for him that he never shows his face." He showed us His face in the Person of Jesus Christ Who gave His life for us. What do you believe?
From what I've seen of God I don't even question his Word. I mean, who am I to analyze God's power? His Word is what he wants us to know and that's fine with me!
@@mcmanustony He would not be sitting on this panel unless he was one of the best. More importantly, I got my degrees under him. So I know the man personally. I am from another continent and can speak with no bias. What do you have against him. Say it.
The most compelling reason for believing the Genesis account (besides the injunction that we ARE commanded to obey Scripture) is that God is not wasteful! When Jesus created food for the masses, NONE of it was wasted. Time is God's creature, and He does not waste it. We are here in the theater of redemption for the purpose of redemption, and that does NOT require a billions of years old earth!
Careful there. Yes they collected the extra food, but if I am understanding your meaning correctly, then instead Jesus should have made 'just enough' and there would have been none left over. It is wasting to take a long time to do something that can be done quickly? We cannot presume to know God's thoughts outside of when he reveals them to us. In the same way that perfect justice requires perfect knowledge, for us to comment on the motivations of God outside of Him telling them to us is risky. Rather, God seems to be extravagant, making more than enough food. But I say seems, because we are not told why there were left overs.
The same physics that explains the “24 hour day” also explains the 13 billion year old universe. The Scripture proclaims the glory of God but so do the heavens
I would have rather seen him address John Lennoxs' points in Seven Days That Divide the World. Scientists get things wrong all the time and their historical record isn't great on their infallibility. The Word of God gets everything right especially regarding human nature and that is a key component of the Bible.
What seems to be presented is that espousing this perspective is better as it is simply easier to hold than try to make sense of our world and the evidence it presents. So, let's close our eyes and minds and call a day a day. Not for me, but let's agree that this is not a hill to die on.
@@jamesparson I get some Christians hold to things that don't make sense. Holding to a literal 6 day creation and saying there is no room for discussion or critique is not helpful or Christian for thst matter, hence my reference to hills and dieing. Tx
@@brucedb8306 The bible isn't even particularly important. 1. Closed off communities are 2. Childhood indoctrination 3. Marriage Are what keep churches going. Once they have a lock on those, they can cherry pick the bible any way they want
I would definitely fall under the "day age" group. "Yom" is used in Genesis to describe both the days of creation and creation in its entirety. It is regularly used to describe different lengths of time. I believe the Earth is old without believing in evolution and I think it's silly to say you shouldn't believe in old Earth because evolution also believes in old Earth. I always try to humblely consider what is the truth. To date my convictions remain unchanged. All I can pray for is, if I'm wrong that the Lord may change my understanding. God created time when he created the universe. He is not constrained by it.
@@mlafi7 That is the English translation. The word in Genesis that is translated into "day" is "yom". Yom is also used to describe creation in its entirety. English lacks the depth of the original text. This is true of the Greek as well. The original Greek, for instance, has many levels of love that are lost when translated to English. In English agape and eros are both translated as just "love" but they have completely different meanings. Yom can literally be translated as, "a period of time.". Even Yom Kippur lasts longer than 24 hours (25 hours). That is why many believe a strict 24 hour translation is incorrect
I asked this question early after trusting Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins. My pastor explained it very similarly. He said God created with the appearance of age. The answer hasn’t changed. Makes total sense to me.
Yes, it makes total sense if you want to believe that. Then again, if you want to believe something enough, you'll believe it regardless of the evidence around you. Good luck.
@@Fricc-sg4np please tell me about this evidence. I have an open mind and so will enjoy weighing it against the evidence pointing to the world being billions of years old.
@@scrumpymanjack well scrumpy. I did say more than one thing. I was saying there is evidence to believe the Bible is true. So first are you against my whole thought? But I have a question for you. If Christianity were true would you become a Christian?
@@hansweichselbaum2534 CS Lewis said this while talking about how those who God redeems will live forever - which is longer than any current galaxy will hold together. I hope that is the reason this quote was given by @Ray Conger . It is from an address he gave titled ‘Membership’ and is included in ‘The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses’ published by Harper/Collins in 1949.
Very good summary of the dilemma that the philosophers of Science and Spiritual Interpretation Philosopher’s of Theology face & debate…. Good job, Dr Robert!
As someone who tries to explain and defend Christianity to skeptics and outsiders, I can say that we've made the mistake of trying to use the Bible as a scientific text. The Bible is written in pre-scientific language and trying to construe it otherwise leads to confusion and aid to those who oppose our message. For example, Psalm 84:11 refers to the rising of the sun and of course the sun does not rise at all. An early scientist and Christian, Galileo, made the statement "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go." Genesis establishes that God is the Creator and that's the point we should take from it and not try to use it as a literal description of the process of creation.
The Psalms are not meant to be taken as historical fact but as poems. Furthermore the term of the sun rises is based on a man's seeing the sun rise. The writers of the Psalms and the Bible were not astronomers. They wrote according to the knowledge they had at that time in history. You are saying there is an error where there is not an error.
I have never been a good student and probably never will be, I’ve been the kind you show me how to tear something apart and put it back together I’d be able to do it. I’ve always have trusted what the Bible says and believe it to be 100% correct, for me to think of how old the Earth is just blows this old country boy away, but listening to this message has really made the scriptures more clear. Thank you
The bible can't be 100% correct. The translation and transliteration problems alone make that impossible. I hope you look up what those words mean and consider how they apply to the bible.
So which of the two creation stories in the Bible is the one that is 100% correct? Which of the 3 widely different stories regarding the resurrection of Jesus is 100% correct? Part of being a good student is being willing to ask questions and just not accept what others tell you without looking it up for yourself
Shawn, I have no interest in undermining your faith - you can believe whatever you want, and I'm happy for you. But how can the Bible be 100 per cent correct if it tells different versions of the same story? If there are two differing accounts, one of them has to be incorrect.
I agree with the conclusion, but is it just me, or is the question in the title never answered in this talk? It looks old because of the fall? Is that what I'm to understand?
@Sage Antone. "The universe looks old because it was created whole." It appears to us as if it would have taken many millions/billions of years for everything in the universe and on earth to form because there is great complexity in nature. If we look for a naturistlistic cause and discount the power of God, people tend to end up with an old earth view. Hopefully, this helps but it is only my opinion after watching this video and other research on this topic.
“By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible.” Hebrews 11:3 NASB2020
I grew up being taught young earth but since becoming an adult and STUDYING the Bible for myself, with the Holy Spirits guidance, I have been shown that our universe is extremely old!!!!! Get outside of your comfort zone and listen to some equally brilliant followers of Jesus who believe in an old earth!
Exactly!! Reading Genesis as about TO them and FOR us and obvious science changed me. The literal wooden method of reading Genesis doesn't do justice to the text!
@@knightday1973 I think the literal wooden interpretation of the text is excellent in Hebrew. The problem seems to be the English translation of the Hebrew.
All great stories involve great conflict, including “His”tory. By God’s Grace, the Scripture cannot be broken. His sovereignty is True and Holy in Being. His Word says what He is, and His Word does not return void. Knowledge of the Holy IS understanding. Thank you, Father, for Your redemption is marvelous; written in heaven and made available to men through Jesus Christ and the in dwelling of Your Holy Spirit.
He took an hour to say, "it's the chicken, not the egg," and "it's not the years, it's the mileage." 😄 They guy actually is very easy to listen to largely because his style and voice are so great. But he does take a long time to make a point. My whole problem is not that the world doesn't look old. Kinda funny that Dawkins had a speech about why does the universe look like it was designed. I mean, it only looks old if you buy into their presuppositions.
Dr. Mohler is a great speaker. I very much enjoy listening to him lecture or preach. He does a podcast called The Briefing that is fantastic. He also does a thing called Ask Anything that is really good. Dr. Mohler is the President of Southern Seminary for the SBC. Of course, you could look at it from the perspective of these people's presuppositions. I submit to you that it goes much deeper than that. I believe that it is simply the original lie of Satan that drives this conflict. Did God really say? It is as simple as that. And, of course, people are still falling for that trap, even after all this time. The very thing that grieves me the most about this topic is the fact that professing Christians have fallen for the lie and fight to propagate the lie.
@@zap0918 So a Calvinist is president of a Southern Baptist seminary? That's great. I thought Calvinists were marginalized in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Question, how would a person know what looks old and what does not look old? As it relates to the age of things, the universe, and all created things? God made Adam and Eve as grown man and woman. Not embryos or babies. So why not everything else He created. I am not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand and clarify your point. I know what a young man looks like I know what an old man looks like. I don't know how to compare that to the earth, the planets the universe. I find the assumptions made by modern day old earth scientists absurd and unprovable.
Dr. Al Mohler, like R C Sproal, Dr. John MacArthur & others a Brillant Theological mind made only possible by our Creator God (YHWH, Jehovah)-Thank You God!!
Dr Mohler gave a very good Theological Argument for the age of the earth, which is plausible. I was hoping that he was going to talk about (As it states in the Title) the age of the Universe. He made only one comment about the age of the universe @ 13.5 Billion years old, but other than that There was no mention of the actual age of the universe, only discussions about the age of earth. Hopefully he will address in other lectures. For me personally the Hubble Deep Field Project and the images it returned make it very hard to believe that the Universe as a whole is only 6000 years old. May God Grant us all wisdom and understanding.
It does not really matter ,we are only here for few years and the bible is only teaching what's important for the soul not food for speculative minds , similarities of all life forms raises eye brows ,it is either a common ancestor or God created all different stages at once . If the way of creation is through controlled evolution not as a way of learning from mistakes than all is according to scriptures , when God regretted creating man life cycle was altered ,it is only due to sin because God's mind is never according to our expectation But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong .
Except that we see spiral galaxies that would have entirely wrapped up beyond recognition in just 100M years. And even worse, distant “new” galaxies are identical to nearby “old” galaxies. And quantized redshifts. And the completely arbitrary inflation theory changing the speed of light and expansion (if the speed of light is allowed to be changed to fit your theory maybe it was much higher in the past and that’s how it got here quickly). And much more, graceful exit problem, uneven cmb radiation. It’s hard to believe and understand that the mainstream scientific community can be dogmatic and using their smarts to try and prove things, but that is happening.
@@ibperson7765 Why is it that constants cant change ,300 years observations don't tell enough of it ,the origin of constants and viruses cant be materialistically explained in depth .
@@rovidius2006 I agree. We dont know that they have never changed. And on top of that even if we assumed they didn’t change, all the things I said still wouldnt fit the old universe
Scientists disagree on many things, and science is not a monolithic dogma. It is constantly seeking new information, evidence, to help clarify what we understand to this point. Science merely tries to find the best explanation for our surroundings based on what we know. As we learn new stuff, science's explanations can change, unlike religion, which has dogmatic doctrine unsupported by any evidence at all. To question this dogma is not permitted, being heresy. In some cults, questioning can get you killed, even today.
Darwin, himself, didn't fully believe in the theory that has become to be called evolution, which today carries his name. He laughed at those who took it so seriously, claiming the absurdity that they had made a religion out of it. “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them.” Charles Darwin wrote: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which the facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those which I have arrived. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one. - Origin of Species by way of Natural Selection When Darwin was an old man he was asked of his favorite book. Hebrews, still Hebrews. "The Royal Book" I call it. Christ Jesus and His salvation. Is not that the best theory? - Article entitled “Darwin on His Deathbed” - Christian Reader's Digest, December 1941 "The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." - Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
There is simple history to observe. In the days of Darwin people believed in the 'miasma' that could cause illness so strived for highest ceilings to keep them out of the air they breathed. They superstitiously believed that things could come to life ie food rotting on a bench came to life and from this could believe that over time that life could "evolve". Darwin gathered and published this superstition. It was a decade or so later that Pasteur did his elegant yet simple experiment where he boiled (sterilized) 2 flasks of meat broth. Then left one open to air and the other closed and showed that the evolution of the broth was actually contamination by flies etc who laid eggs and the maggots observed were actually feeding on, not evolving from, the broth. Science lept forward, and to this day we pasteurise milk to prolong its shelf life. If Pasteur had done his work earlier, Darwin would never have done his. I think he must have realised this truth, but the notoriety he had achieved probably intoxicated his human nature, until he knew he was about to face God. Other notable scientists have acknowledged the impossibility of Darwinism, and have suggested our earth was seeded from space! I suggest it takes more faith in these false religions than our Father in heaven requires of us. Come, said Isaiah, let us reason together. Glory to You Lord Jesus Christ 🙏.
Because He did that in so many other places in scripture... created things fully mature.... rather than starting from a seed. So many references. Like verse ... um...
God made the plants, sea life, animals, and man. When He made these things, He made it all of full age and fully grown, ready and able to reproduce. He made the trees and plants fully formed and giving nuts and fruit necessary to be received for food to the full grown animals that needed that for sustanance. He made Adam and Eve as a fully grown human. He didn't make anything as a baby. Babies need to be cared for by their parents. Since this is undoubtedly true, since God knew all of the things that mankind would need to live, why couldn't He create an earth that had stores of things such as oil, iron, copper, etc that man would use to make things for tools. People who disbelieve God can make the assumption that the earth is old since these natural elements are here and they think it takes a super long time to form. God could have (and I believe) made the earth with those things in the earth for man to use. Also, when God was making the things on the earth, He made plant life on day three, then the sun on day four and finally land dwelling mammals on day six. Since plants need the sun to make their food, that is a problem for old earth believers. If the day is really a long long span of time, then the plants would all die out, for they couldn't make any food to keep on living. Also, the plants need oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide. If the days that transpired from the third to the sixth day was a very very very long period of time, then the plants would undoubtedly use up all of the carbon dioxide and give off so much oxygen that they would also die out. Science would tell them that this could not be. We need to just take God at His word. We need to believe the Word of God and turn our lives to Christ. Repent and live. Revel and die.
That's a good point, that God can create ex nihilo, man without a foetus stage, a galaxy without the pre-galactic dust... granted. But would He create misleading evidence to throw us of the track? What of a million years of polar ice core sample data? What of a 2 million year long photon stream from here to Andromeda? The Bible is no more about cosmology than it is about fixing carbureters. It is about God and man.
The sun and moon appeared on day 4 when the very thick and dense water vapor existing in the atmosphere up to that time finally fell on earth as rain, allowing for the direct visualization of sun, moon and star lights. The earth was created in the beginning as a very watery world. I believe the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 hinges on ‘how’ God revealed His creation process to Moses, then Moses wrote down what he saw. There is no hint that Moses (or whoever given the revelation initially) was simply handed to him as a copy of written document or that God dictated it to him, which then became what the Hebrews have been reading known as the Pentateuch, including the book of Genesis. I believe God gave Moses (or author of Genesis) revelation of Genesis 1-2 a visual or sequential pictorial way, much like when we watch a movie or video clip. The important hint is that Genesis 1-2 recorded the process of creation in a series of ‘days’, not given as an all-at-once (instantly appearing) or ‘all-in-one day’ process. I personally as a trained physician, never believe that the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and all his followers can satisfactorily explain the origin of life, species, as well as giving account of the material and condition of the inorganic world that’s required for evolution to get started and continued, no matter how much time. There are just way too much layers of extremely complexity organizations that need to develop in order for all living things to exist. So I am not believing in the old earth story because of the threat of Darwinism. I am cognizant of the reality of modern astronomy and astrophysics showing convincingly, both theoretically and experimentally, the space & time that is very huge and old indeed. Dr. Hugh Ross has been very helpful in researching, organizing and presenting the view or story of old earth and old universe, without apparent stretching or imagination not based on observable facts. So to me his presentations and reconstruction of the creation process is very convincing and can give atheists, nonbelievers run for their money, and also provider seekers and skeptics alike, a comprehensive, reasonable and understandable explanation about the most fundamental issue of knowledge and faith: the Genesis of heavens and earth and all that are in it. There are many TH-cam videos addressing different titles related to these important biblical and existential questions. I suggest you invest serious time to find out for yourself whether the creation of an old earth & old universe is an honest, satisfactory and rational explanation is what we Christian’s answer to the lost world at large. This view will not save the lost, but a sound Genesis exposition can remove rise blocks on many doubters’ minds so that the Holy Spirit can save them. I am not saying man or woman cannot be saved directly by Holy Spirit convicting him/her. But we must be sensitive to the need of many wandering souls who are deceived by Satan using misinformation about the story of Genesis.
@@theresa42213 I don't think he has gone that route as he has never publicly endorsed BLM or CRT, and has pronounced himself against them many times in The Briefing. But sadly when it has come time to condemn or signal those who have fallen in those currents within the SBC, he has been awfully quiet.
The title: "Why does the universe look so old?" Answer (in the last 5 min of the video): #1 "Because God simply made it complete" and #2 "Doing so is the best way to reveal his majesty in his creation". Answer #1 Is an interesting point once he mentions how Adam and plants were made fully-formed. Not a slam dunk, but it's worth considering. Answer #2 can be just as easily used to support an old-earth Christian viewpoint. What bothers me is how Moehler goes out of his way to erase distinctions between OE Christians and hardened, God-hating Dawkins-brand atheists. That's really crummy. Slimy and heartless, really. There are hard-working, long-suffering OE Christians serving in all kinds of ministries. Not *once* does he admit they are brothers in Christ, changed by grace and serving God's kingdom, but add they're simply wrong. Finally, *nowhere* does he refute a specific scientific evidence with contrary explanation that's biblically sound. You know -- like actually answer the question that's the title of this video!? What's the closest he gets to doing that? He says, "Science gets stuff wrong sometimes." Wow. Super impressive. Moehler is super articulate. But he's also misleading and fantastically talented at weaving narrative that makes it sound like the OE Christian is a fake and not saved.
Never connected the dots of Darwinism and intellectual elites with those who REJECT the literal interpretation of Scripture, like Dr M does in this lecture…. Thank you for this incredible presentation.
So, you are saying people who accept the literal truth of the Bible are not the intellectual elites? Well, I have agree with you there. Since most, if not all of them have never learned to apply critical thinking to their beliefs
He speaks very well, he speaks with great authority in his voice. I guess I am just disappointed in his answer. He isn't disputing that the universe and the earth look old, for it just is too hard of a mountain to overcome. For why do we have trees that appear to be 10,000+ years old (because they have that many rings)? Why can we see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years away (and determining their distance is a very trivial calculation)? It seems to me, that if the answer is, "Because God made it mature...", that that will cause many people to never accept the Gospel. A simple objection would be, "Why does the universe look old if you say it is so young? Is this God deceiving me?" A point of clarification, I do believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis is a more popular in the 18th and 19th centuries than previous. Again, this answer just felt so disappointing and almost feels like "blind faith". Just ignoring plain thoughts on the subject and not trying in the least to reconcile what you see to scripture at all.
Have you really looked into the Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism theories? I used to believe adamantly in an old earth but never knew the evidence for Catastrophism. Astronomically speaking, the speed of light may not have been as constant as it is presently. Multiple theories exist that work quite well in lieu of a big bang theory. Remember from scripture that God stretched out the heavens. That statement should help you grasp the light, time and distance issue. I'd be happy to discuss this topic if you would like.
Tree ring dating assumptions... What if multiple rings occurred in the same year. No scientific method can verify with certainty initial conditions and growing seasons following the global flood. 4400 years ago is still a long time.
@@knightclan4 I haven't heard the terms uniformitarianism and Catastrophism, however, I have looked into it and I don't really see how Catastrophism solves anything with the fossil record even if it did happen. It used to be where people would claim there were no "missing links" between different creatures, until we found tons and tons of them. Do we just ignore these bones of creatures that seems to be a "transition" between others? But, if you have a link you can send me that shows why you think Catastrophism is more plausible for the observations we see, I would be happy to read it. It just seems unlikely considering we already know major catastrophes happened like the dinosaurs (We can literally see the crater that formed from the Asteroid hitting [which is located in the Yucatan Peninsula], plus a lot of other observations that show it). I have heard the "stretching theory, but it seems like a "stretch" (like what I did there? ha.. I couldn't help it [not trying to make fun, just dad humor]) for a few reasons. First, lets say that God stretched the stars/galaxies away from us to make them super far away, well, this would show us a much more massive red shift in the stars than we currently see for sure (which we don't see), unless again, you say that God not only moved the stars but also decided to manipulate all the light between us and the stars as well. And why would he decided to manipulate that light between us and the stars anyway? So that thousands of years later when we figured out how red shift works and parallax and the speed of light that we would then find this and then be like "well God must have changed it"? It seems much more simple and straight forward, that the stars were just there, and it took a really long time for the light to get here. Otherwise, it seems almost like God is trying to "trick" us in some way. I just don't know why he would make it appear old to us so much later. I'm not trying to assume much with the tree rings. Again, it just seemed simpler that if there are really old trees, that they actually just were very old and are how old they seem to be. It seems like you are trying to "inject" ideas (not trying to put words in your mouth) for why something appears to be one way, but is actually another way. If it actually was another way, I think you would have to show a lot more evidence when it seems to be more naturally a different way.
@@jrmitchell12 The "missing links" have been manipulated. Many have been hoaxes or colonies of diseased individuals.-- Natural selection does occur. -- Why would God "trick" you is a strange question. The point is that odd things do happen-- not merely day to day time. I've found petrified wood that is not over 200 years old. Different conditions cause different things to happen. Dating isn't necessarily accurate.
I just take the words as true and trust God word regardless what men say this is faith to trust it’s not the past that is on my mind but the future where will I spend eternity the bible tells me by faith in Jesus I am saved forever. If I question one part I must question all
Shalom Barrie. I agree with your sentiment… my wife has simple faith - and it’s beautiful. That said, I came to faith by diligent, honest skepticism. Abba Yahweh responded to my sincere questions… He’s big enough to handle our honest questions. There are people like me that need answers. Not that I have to have all the answers… this is where sincere seeking is abandoned for pride and arrogance. Pride is the biggest barrier to truth… see Richard Dawkins. But I do think it’s essential to be ready to give an answer… not to the prideful and arrogant - but to those who are sincerely seeking, and have nagging questions.
Ok but this is for giving others who are skeptical an answer. You’re fortunate if you aren’t plagued with tough questions. Others aren’t so lucky. And especially unbelievers need logic. And God is logical. We don’t have a blind faith, we have a reasoned faith.
Excellent analysis and conclusion. The very title does, though, beg a more basic question, on what grounds does anyone reach the conclusion that the universe 'looks old', and the answer is that atheistic, secular scientists have foisted on us the very criteria that they say determines an ancient age, without considering that their criteria may have a more obvious explanation that does NOT indicate age. Dr. Mohler touched on these en passant: uniformitarianism and the fossil record, versus the Flood. IF all the igneous, metamorphic and especially sedimentary rocks [in which we find fossils] have always only formed at the rate they are CURRENTLY forming, and if tectonic plate movement has ALWAYS been as slow as it is today, then we must allow for a long passage of aeons; However the worldwide flood detailed in Genesis provides ALL the explanation required for the VERY rapid development of the rock layers of our modern crust, AND for the presence of 'billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth' [Ken Ham, as I'm sure you know!] As a medic I recognise signs of ageing that others might not see - the white hair and wrinkles are obvious, but there are other more subtle changes that very few film makers recognise, and the real age of the actor is always given away on close-ups! But I have a friend who suddenly went totally white at eighteen. Then there is the genetic condition progeria which makes a young child look like a shrunken and wizzened old person. And of course our multi-millionaire starlets of the screen can maintain a youthful look by means of botox and plastic surgery! So it is important to find out what reasons a person has for thinking then universe 'looks old', and challenge those assumptions as well.
There is so much more than the fossil record. Why can we see trees with rings that indicate that they are over 10,000 years old? I don't think the flood is going to "add rings". Why can I see stars that are millions of lightyears (and it is pretty simple to see and calculate that they are millions of lightyears away using parallax [I did the calculation myself in college]) away if it takes millions of years for the light to get here? Tons and tons of simple observations like this are hard to just ignore. To questions like these we could just say "Well he made it look old", which is definitely a choice we could make. But, since there are alternate ways of looking at it (because the Bible allows for it), perhaps we should look at reconciling what we see with the Bible to see if there is a way they can both make sense. If they can both make sense at the same time, then we don't have to make the assertion that a miracle happened.
@@jrmitchell12 I agree. Around 1600 you would be condemned if you doubted that the sun and planets circle around the earth. Now most christians agree with science that the planets encircle the sun. Why? the Bible does not teach that. Other example: Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed, yet we know that sesame seed and chia seed are much smaller. Didi Jesus lie? Of course not. The parable would not be understood by his hearers if He used the chia seed as an example, because that seed was not known to them. But the question is how do we read scripture? If I deny what logic tells me and it contradicts a literal interpretation of scripture, we have a problem indeed. The age of the universe has not been established by biologists, but by astrophysicists. And by the way: the Big Bang was resisted at first, because it points to a beginning, which most scientists did not like. Denying well established facts, because it does not fit your view of scripture is not fair in my opinion. it is not nice to turn down someone who is honest enough to recognize scientific facts and try to rethink and reinterpret scripture in light of this (Peter Enns)
These examples are exceptional. God speaks of Himself in creation in Job 38-42 to appeal to our wonder of His acts that are traceable for our appreciation. Implied is His desire to be traced also by natural law, so it would be out of character for Him to change natural physical law to cause an exceptional time lapse for age processing. Also, to characterize people who are of the faith as followers of atheistic and secular science seems wrongly founded when there is a solid scriptural basis for an aged earth, established long before such ‘science’ or ‘Darwinism’ took root in our education system
@@jrmitchell12 God makes stars? What have we missed? Quite a lot actually….God makes starlight! You might have missed this many do. BEFORE God makes sun moon and stars, what does He make? Light! So the starlight problem…too easy. God makes star, God makes stars LIGHT…Any LENGTH HE WANTS…SIMULTANEOUSLY
Reason is a gift from God. With that gift, Man refined thought and developed the tools of thought collectively known as formal logic. Using those tools, Man has questioned and investigated and discovered.
God also gave man the word of God. By the presuppositions of truth therein, man can properly organize and interpret the world. Logic is no better than the presuppositions, just as a conclusion is no better than the premises it's based upon.
As a person with many questions; I find this argument to be completely without evidence. It is based entirely on the "cost" of the infallibility of the text to believers. Faith is required to ignore or discount all other evidence. I was hoping there was some piece of evidence besides the same old boilerplate. He does a great job presenting the problem, then completely fails to present a case that might sway a non-believer. He doubles down on the "because the Bible says so" argument and that just isn't an argument unless a person already accepts the Bible . It is circular reasoning.
It's not circular reasoning. It might not be good reasoning, but in this case not circular. Would only be circular if the argument was, "we know the earth is young because the Bible says so" "We know the Bible is accurate because we know the earth is young."
@@kaufmanat1 - well sorta. It usually goes more like this: - the earth is young, because 'for the Bible tells me so' - but why should I trust what the Bible says given that it seems to contradict (specific to creation account) what we continually unravel through scientific exploration? - the Bible should be trusted because the Bible says it should be trusted.
I fully sympathize with you. I thought this way until a couple of Mormons came along.and said that their aim was to bring me closer to Jesus. I never became a Mormon. They visited me once per week and every time they came I had one more reason not to become a Mormon. I had checked everything in the Bible and could easily show them that their beliefs were unscriptural. In fact,. One scripture alone disqualified Mormonism - Galatians 1 : 8 Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to tell you anything other than what we tell you, let him be accursed What I am getting at is that this stimulated my interest in the Bible which I am continuously researching and I am not getting the same conclusions that mainstream religion is getting. My view of the creation days comes from an understanding of the nature of God and how he works. For instance, when Jesus came he informed us that he did nothing on his own that he only came to do the will of the one who sent him. He also said that I only speak the words my Father tells me to speak. When the apostles asked Jesus how they would be able to remember everything he said, Jesus told them that he would help them remember every word he said. So the appostles writings in the new testament are not exactly the appostles weighting their own words, but the words put in their minds by Jesus. This brings us back to Moses, who originally took dictation, but would wright it down as he understood it. I would day that when he recorded the creation days he actually thought that they were 24 hours each and indicated that in the way he presented the Hebrew word for day. However, a closer look at the recording indicates more than 24 hours days. For instance, when the animals and birds were created, they were told to increase and multiply and fill the earth. Why would they be told to do this if the earth was already filled. To be consistent, the earth was not suddenly filled with humans near the end of the sixth day - only two humans were created and told to fill the earth. Also, Adam could not have done what he was required to do within a few hours and still be within the sixth 24 hour period. Adam needed time to become aware of his suroundings and to add to this he had to name all the animals. A thousand species named at the rate of thirty seconds each would take 9 hours to do. This is when his need for a mate was made known to God. God now entered into his rest day from creation, just after creating Eve. We are still in this rest day which had gone on for 6000 years and have one thousand years to go. If all the days are of equal length then each creation day was 7000 years each. my view here is that the creation of the heavens and the earth were not included in the first day that God directed his attention to an already created earth. I find it hard to believe that God created the universe on 24 hours and made it look old. The universe appears to have been fully established before God turned his attention to the earth. 7000 year days allows plenty of time for God to now control the geological activaty of the earth to form it the way He wanted it. This is why the earth is evidently old according to human years. the earth as a planet is possibly billions of years old. Radioactive decay does not lie. Massive non fossilized sedentary beds take more than a day to form. I would say that what we see today is a planet that has been around for an indefinite amount of time and it has now been 48,000 years since God began attending to project earth, with 1000 years left to go before the earth is brought back to perfection where righteousness will once again dwell. I have never believed in a 24 hour creation day. If something does not make sense, I believe that God wants us to think rationally, using evidence that supports a sensible conclusion. Like I say, I don,t support mainstream Christianity. They have it all wrong and often look like fools in their lack of ability in representing true Christianity. If you want to know what I think true Christianity is, let me know.
@@ardbegthequestion edited for clarity. but youve added that bit about, "trusting the Bible because the Bible says it can be trusted" That is indeed circular reasoning. But I've literally never heard an actual apologist make that argument. And that's not the argument he's presenting here. A far more typical argument would be, "why do we trust the old testament?" "because Jesus trusted the old testament" "why trust Jesus?" Because he was God "how do we know he was God," "he claimed to be God" "how can we trust his claims?" "because he claimed he would die and come back to life in three days, and he followed through on that so... The guy seems like he's a closer" "how do we know he came back from the dead?" "An entire religion was spawned after hundreds of people claimed to see him after he was dead." "how do we know they weren't just making it up?" "they were tortured and killed and never recanted their beliefs".... Etc etc etc. It goes on and on. But yea, you might think it's bad reasoning but it isn't circular reasoning. If you want to claim trusting ALL CLAIMS in the new testament is circular reasoning, well, there are other sources that back up much of the NT and at the end of the day, taken to far, trusting any history book would be considered circular reasoning. How do we know this book is a history book? It's labeled "history book" That's not circular reasoning. So, as always, it's a lil more complex than, "trusting the Bible because the Bible says it's trustworthy". Never heard anyone actually make that argument sincerely.
Why the Bible? Right? I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. Their reports..supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of SPECIFIC prophecies and claim that their writings are DIVINE rather than human in origin. Not satisfying still? Watch the TH-cam video: Is Genesis history. Created by real scientists. :)
Forgive me for commenting before listening, which I fully intend to do as time permits, I simply could not resist giving my short answer to the question posed in the title to this video, "Why does the earth look so old?" Some questions, especially for people of faith in God's word, require little scientific inquiry. Here's my answer. According to the bible, when God created Adam and Eve He did not create them as babies to grow up: they were made as fully mature adults. Further, they immediately had food available to them--things that normally take some degree of time to sprout, grow, bud and bring forth fruit or vegetables. The earth, along with Adam and Eve came pre-aged. Within a literal six 24 hour period, God made the animals and their environment including all they would need to survive. That means fully developed trees and plants. God is outside of time, which He also created. There's no reason for me to doubt that God could have created the earth itself in a pre-aged condition. Whether a few months a few years or millions of years, this is no problem for an omnipotent Creator. I believe God preaged the earth for reasons we do not yet understand. Blessings.
Thank you! The answer is right in front of us! In praying about this I came to see that there is a gap between creating heaven and earth (v1) and it being formless and void. (v2). Our Father doesn't make something formless! I believe Satan wrecked it. Remembering from Ezekiel that Satan was already cast out of the 3rd heaven I believe this is directly connected. The making of our earth as we know it now was done in 6 days and was complete, mature and functional. Still, sadly, with Satan but now with man, in His image to oversee it (like the parable Jesus told of the owner of the vineyard). Our Father does not need us to explain or justify Him. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out. Prov 25:2 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29: 29. Father please give us eyes to see and hearts to give You glory in Jesus' name 🙏🕊✝️🔥.
@@jenniferread8884 Yes, Jennifer, I've heard this explanation before, and of course we're making educated guesses about Satan's activity concerning the gap between Gen. 1:1& 1:2. God doesn't tell us specifically and I really like your handling of that fact using what God has revealed to us. Amen to your prayer and keep studying and growing. See you in eternity.
@@Deucenheimer I say we continue to find flaws in the scientific method of dating bones, rocks, fossils, etc.. The world (main-srteam science) begins with the presupposition that the earth is very old, and so they monkey with the data until it fits their assumptions--that's not true science. It's true that we may make a hypothesis and then test it, but theiir testing is not to discover the truth; they squeeze their theory into the mold they've already prepared. They use radiometric dating, measuring the amount of decay of carbon and other things. But in doing so they assume that no conditions have changed which affect that rate of decay. They base it on the belief that all the conditions have remained as they are today. But temperature, pressure and many other factors would affect how rapidly or slowly those elements actually decay. Their error is discovered in their own explanations: "Radiometric dating relies on the PREDICTABLE decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements..."-- An evolutionist Blessings, and thanks for the honest question.
@@Deucenheimer Thank you for your question. I believe that at the time of Gen 1:1 there may have been creatures on the earth. Jurassic or whatever. I imagine the remains of such creatures would have persisted after the destruction which must have occurred in the gap between verse 1 and 2. There are only Bible records to support this concept, and no real way to know how long the created earth lasted, before it was at the mercy of an angry being cast out of God's presence. It was only in the new creation, day 6, that they ( the Trinity) decided to make man in Their image. How wonderful for us! Before then I imagine only prehistoric creatures roamed. I think there are remnants of them. They are amazing. But we have to consider that we should not consult the dead for the affairs of the living. Where we are going is much more important than where others have been. All returns to dust when God's breath is removed.. We are insignificant next to our God, it is only pride and foolishness that could boldly question Him. Our faith, designed to give us trust in Him, is so easily manipulated into belief in only what we ourselves can conceive. (We can be as God). We hear people defend systems of dating ancient materials, but most never actually DO the procedure. They would be sorely disappointed if they did. I remember doing it, and the error margin had many 0s. It was so subjective and non- reproducible as to be pointless. I remember ( in the 70s and 80s) the relentless campaigning against fossil fuel use. I was so concerned about it running out. It had all been 'dated' and declared to be in limited supply because it would take MILLIONS OF YEARS to make more. I was from the country, and so confused to visit a city lookout at night and see all the multitudes of lights burning through the night. It seemed the alarmists could ignore what they needed if it made the streets more user-friendly. I mention this because in later years clever-er scientists discovered they could make coal etc rapidly by adjusting temperature and pressure in new ways. This is not to argue about energy use but rather to highlight how wrong the accepted dogma can be. With regard to old bones I think they are fascinating, but I accept the Bible and work out how they fit around its teaching not the other way around. +
The end is near my friends. Time to get ready, be sober minded and deliver the Gospel before the door is shut. No worries about this age old deception, because Jesus already addressed this as God weeds the garden. If it were possible, even the elect would be deceived but praise be to God, it’s not possible because He holds us in His own POWER!!! Blessed be the name of the Lord- In closing- well done Al- always a pleasure to hear you teach
Dr. Chuck Missler has some amazing information about Creation in his Genesis audio commentary and also his book “Learn the Bible in 24 Hours.” Great stuff!!!!
@@mshafer1021 You need to look up that word "slander". To qualify as slander what I said about Missler would have to be false. I said that he was a halfwit. Given that he was indeed a halfwit, calling him a halfwit is not false, and hence not slander. No, I'm not a believer in Christ.....
Thank you for being so dismissive of the actual question presented to you by throwing your “evidence” at the end of your conclusion and then waving your hand over it to just say we cannot know and “ only God knows why.” I waited an hour to be able to have a good answer to the question and instead only heard attacks on other explanations. How can this be used with a unbeliever?
I couldn't care less what any science scholar thinks about the age of the universe. My triune God created the universe in 6 days and to be honest He probably could do it in 5. I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and I know truth. If evolution was real why has there been no fossils of partly formed animals or humans? So blessed to have a loving relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
This has also been my (theory) for some time and the first time I heard someone else express it. As a history teacher I spent seven of my 43 years teaching in a private Christian school, resulting in a desire to study theology one day as a lay person. This came about 1993 (long distance study) and in 1997, when I transferred to a Presbyterian seminary and earned a Master of Arts in theological studies - a good route to go for laity who want a seminary education but avoid the divinity route necessary for ordination. I have struggled with this question for some time. It is true that there is debate even in conservative seminaries about the age of the earth. Professors held both to the literal six-day 24 hour and to the age old position, as it is understood that the Hebrew word for day "yom," could refer to both. Everything is interrelated in God's creation- The Fall affected everything, even creation - it does appear old and, as Paul alludes to the fact that even creation groans awaiting renewal. I still question the dating methods, I know there are measures of error, but I do not understand them enough to say that they are all wrong, but there are scientists who question the dating methods. I have not completely reconciled my understanding of the age with science and the Genesis account, but Mohler's explanation is compelling.
How do you say the word yom could be either in regards to the length of day. What do we do with the statement in the evening and the morning were the first day and the evening and the morning were the second day. Also as far as the aging of the Earth I'm sure that sin and the flood has distorted quite a bit of information that science is looking at. But I also have to take into account Adam and Eve. It seems like decaying, and any form of destruction would not have occurred in the garden. Scripture is not clear as to how long they were in the garden. But let's say they've been out of the garden of Eden for one year. One year has passed after sinning against God. Now every doctor that's ever lived or ever will live on this Earth, if you gave them no other information than putting Adam and Eve in front of them, how many of them do you think would get their age correct. How many of them would be able to say something must have happened a year ago. What I'm getting at is I think we should trust what the word of God says even though our understanding of what we're looking at say something different.
I think Dr Randy White’s MANTRA to “Question our Assumptions” is demonstrated by Dr M. in this presentation. I like the phrase “It could be possible…..”
Strange as somebody trained as an ingineer and mathematician I can't remember hearing about the assured results of modern science, at least not in the words Mohler uses. I tend to follow Popper: "The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan."
Classic straw man fallacy. You lay out only three possible options, you then use your own explanation of what those three positions must mean, instead of using the explanations used by the proponents of those positions, and you then eliminate the positions you hold. It's a fallacious argument that would crumble before anyone who holds one of the two positions you disagree with. You treat those holding those positions as idiots who simply refuse to consider your position as obviously the only one that makes sense. This is disingenuous.
Why does the universe look so old? Because it is… The opposition of religion to science is as equally blind as science in opposition to religion. Science merely attempts to prove how God did things. You have to realize that the first few chapters of genesis are a description of ALL of creation. I can’t fully describe yesterday in a few chapters. People get so caught up in the word “day”, but ignore the fact that there was no sun or moon for the first few “days”. And who are we to tell God how long His “day” last? Roughly 14.5 billion years! I’m not saying God couldn’t create a universe in 6 literal days, and make it appear billions of years old, but… What’s more impressive? Creating a new universe to look old, or planning more than 14 billion years of events so perfectly that it would take 14 billion years to produce the desired humans? I feel that God planning and creating the chain of events that would lead specifically to a man named Jesus, who would be the sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins…. 14.5 billion years in advance is way more impressive and in my mind makes God so much bigger and above all human knowledge, than just creating a rock and people in 6 days.
He keep saying the theological cost of believing old earth is high. He is afraid of the consequences of his proof and "push" his belief. This is not how thought process works. Only check whether the proof of old earth is true. Not considering what the Bible says. Not considering the consequences of the fact. Not considering even whether the fact is affecting our beliefs and agenda. That is if he is claiming he tries to cling to the truth. Our God loves the truth. This preacher is afraid of the fact. He is far away from the truth.
Mohler repeatedly refers to biologos and those with similar views, but there are many old earth creationists who do not agree with biologos. Mohler fails to address the most difficult aspects of the question in the title, "Why does the universe look old?" His short answer at the end of the video is that God made it mature and it is affected by sin. But these answers do not address much of the evidence for an old universe. If the universe looks old but is really young, it feels like God designed the universe to deceive us. I don't believe that. That would be a huge theological problem, yet Mohler does not seem to address it.
Would Adam have deceived us? Would Adam look old yet was really just made? That's the point. I understand we should look at the evidence but there is quite enough disagreement and assumptions being made that the evidence isn't definitive.
You don't need a sun to have light. Do you suggest otherwise? If you hold to the big bang theory then you will know that light is one of the very first things that will emerge without a celestial bodies.
@@stephentranquilla7785 how do you measure a day? If you are a heliocentrist, it's how long it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis a full rotation and see the sun move about in its sky. The creation account was marked by daytime and night time. You don't get daytime and night time without a sun in your sky.
uniformitarianism: huge assumption. Also, ridiculous that from some primordial soup, through random mutations, we now have human beings who can think about and communicate with one another about the whole process.
Vegetarian T Rex? This is comic gold. There’s a recent 180 million year old fossil find of an ancient squid eating a crustacean while being eaten by an ancient shark.
@@JeanmarieRod are you familiar with paleontology and the dating methods utilized by them and other earth sciences? I can maybe recommend a course or book. Feel free to google the find yourself. Also I’ve found that sincere inquiry to regional public college earth sciences departments provides great insight and resources. Admittedly, if you’re a flat and/or young earther they may ignore you.
@@zach2980 I know that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate and the average institution of higher learning spews utter nonsense in things that matter like whether the Bible is true or not.
@@zach2980 No, not consciously on the lower levels.I think they turn their backs on what they know to be true, namely that creation had a creator. Do you think the various men who wrote the Holy Bible throughout the centuries conspired to make it LOOK like it was full of predictions that all came true and layered in wisdom to make it LOOK like God inspired them?
Some scientists suggest to the public that they are nearing a complete understanding of nature--"a theory of everything". If you ask some of the actual practitioners, they indicate that as we learn more, the distance left to answering the big questions of Cosmology (i.e. Origin of the Universe) and Evolution (i.e. Origin of Life) are getting FURTHER AWAY (harder to even imagine). If Science was say 85% of the way to understanding the principles of reality, we could have some sympathy with their optimism. But if the are 0.85% of the way there, OR if the truth is that the distance to go to understand the creation of the infinite God is actually Infinite, they will be forever stuck at 0% (maybe in eternity Christian scientists will get there). Answering these questions likely will requires inventing techniques to allow the EMERGENCE of entirely New sciences--even sciences that start to overlap what we know call "SPIRITUAL" reality. And just as Science Paradigms change every few generations and Scientist have to throw out some of the old and adopt a new Paradigm, it is possible that future discoveries may completely invalidate key premises of current Cosmology & Evolution and prove the timeline Scientists love for the ORIGIN of the universe to be entirely wrong, AND SHORTER. (After all, IF there is a Creator who created everything by Speaking, why would we doubt that he could create everything in the 7 days of Genesis. Given the premise, even atheistic scientists could not give a credible reason why not.) The premises of gradualism are so deep in scientific thinking that Scientists would be laughed out of the profession to consider (even if just to exclude the possibility) things that COULD have happened to create everything we see in 7 days of time in our Universe. For example, 1) God could freeze or speed up time around local areas to "cure" his creation--or he could have done it on other worlds, or in other "dimensional" realms, or in His MULTIVERSE Workshop. (We see such things in SCI FI STORIES regularly--why not in actuality by God?). The timeline in Genesis apparently is based on the length of the earth day, Einstein showed us that time can and does flow differently in different locations. 2) A slightly fancier concept: God could have done creation of dinosaur worlds, Ice-age worlds, bug worlds, plant worlds, or worlds of what we know as parasites living and minding their own business in a vast ocean of gore, etc. -- all of this done and over in the first days of creation using accelerated time in other places in our universe (or in other Space and Time systems unconnected to our universe)) for God's own purposes and not covered in the Bible (which is only OUR STORY, the Story of Human Beings on Earth). And when those projects were over, He ended them and recycled the material into our universe to bulk up the earth maybe as part of the cosmic expansion pauses or accelerations [this could have been done as part of the curse after the fall of Eden and even during the Flood upheaval. [Eden could have been a small world literally with no evolution and no death. God could slide his recycled material in as fossil layers from other places under the Eden surface layer (giving us fossil discontinuity layers in geology). God could have even imported more surface area, more ecosystems, and more species from other worlds and placed them on a larger earth, outside of Eden. After that, all the new species would move to find their own place on the earth--including those horrible parasites, that could only live by burrowing into another creatures," etc.). All of this is fantasy (invented without evidence, except that it could conceivably result in the world we see, strictly in agreement with the 7 day creation in Genesis and the rest of the Bible--WHICH IS MY POINT.] If something like this is conceivable by me, God surely could have made the earth in harmony with His Word, and resulting in the reality we see in the the universe. My point is that with God, literally ANYTHING is possible, from fiat creation with fake ages just to test our faith, to actual age per some amazing method. TO EXCLUDE every possible explanation for how God could accomplish this is impossible. So, YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE that can pin down God in a lie. Atheists will object this would be God cheating, but in reality God has not limited himself except in what he says in Scripture. Consider this, we scientific laymen cannot be expected to EXPLAIN the paradoxes that unbelieving Scientific theories create relative to the Genesis Account--it is not our Job. Indeed, all we need say is God has not revealed anything more than he has revealed and we have no logical reason to doubt that 7 day creating of a big universe it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE given God's power and knowledge. WHAT IS UNFAIR AND UNJUSTIFIED is for Scientists to libel God and the Scriptures. They are the ones that need evidence to PROVE that the Bible is wrong--AND NOT JUST A HYPOTHESIS whose premises exclude God and Genesis. What they need is to spend however long it takes to understand the Spiritual reality and God's reality that is beyond what science knows now COULD NOT EXIST, that is, THERE IS NO WAY THAT EVEN AN OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT GOD, who existed (somewhere) before our universe COULD HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN HARMONY WITH GENESIS. I do not see that ever happening. SO, I personally am content to say that whatever scientistic hypotheses claim and whatever they observe in the universe now, is no threat to my faith or to God's revelation in Scripture. AND THEY ARE LOGICALLY OVERREACHING REALITY to claim THEY HAVE DISPROVED SCRIPTURE. WHATEVER the truth is, I am confident that that we will all see it is in complete harmony with Scriptures, without trickery--that the HHHUUUGGGEEE miracles that God did creating all universes will explain the apparent paradoxes just fine.
This presentation was technically skilled and well-delivered. However, after listening, I'm left with the feeling that I know not much more about the age of creation than I did before. This seems largely to be theological dancing on nuance and intellectual nods. The concern appears to be more about saving face for the Christian church and avoiding entanglements than it is about any substantive defense of a young earth.
I think that Christian’s have made the age of the earth too big of an issue. How this was fought, especially by the young earth side, is also an issue. Instead of disputing the evidence I think the young earth side should have asked questions about the assumptions going into the old earth views. Was the universe created with age? Well, science can’t get to the first cell because chemical evolution is impossible. So the evolutionists are left with the first cell popping into existence. But does not the cell contain the lion’s share of the complexity of life? So we have to have the lion’s share of the complexity of life popping into existence. And not just one cell. You need the whole eco system and likely many cells for life to get going. That looks aged to me even though it just popped into existence. If you must have cells popping into existence then why not a whole species?
@@michaelanderson4849 really? When was it falsified? How about on a scale of zero to one million on progress they are at a zero on demonstrating that chemical evolution is possible. Show me some actual experimental research where they are constructing dna starting with chemicals.
Albert Mohler, speaks of the great truths of Christian faith. But what are the great truths of Christian faith when we must realise that faith is not a truth, but rather the acceptance of a belief?
I want that hour and 5 minutes of my life back....an hour of explaining why all of the arguments he reads in support of the bible come up short, a minute of explaining why there has to be an explanation and then a few minutes of assuring people there is a simple on....and I still have no idea what he is trying to claim other than God did it...it's amazing people think their is some reasonable argument there
65 minutes to get around to saying that the answer to the question of why the earth looks so old is …‘er…we don’t know - but an old earth doesn’t agree with my theology so I’m just going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing loudly’ Ridiculous!
This presentation makes a good job of covering the scope of interpretations on the issue raised. However, the conclusions presented are lazy and do not address the reality of the "book of nature". This presentation reaffirms the position of the audience and saves them from challenging thinking. He could not get away with giving this same presentation to an audience of scientists, be they Christian, agnostic or atheistic. It does not present a credible position for successful evangelism at all. Searching the wonders of nature is a privilege of man and we should never fear discovery of truth in nature or of in the bible. Sharing a sense of wonder of nature and being willing to admit we don't know some things will get you much further sharing the good news about Christ to agnostics than a dogmatic presentation of a particular interpretation of Genesis.
He pretty much blew past the idea that the universe looks old because it actually is old. He also overlooked the fact that god allegedly created plants in the pitch dark before he created light. Lesson here is that it is not a great idea to take your concepts of astrophysics from bronze age goat herders who would have dropped on their knees in awe at the sight of a wheelbarrow
@@dalenincehelser5747 Slagging off bronze age goat herders does not advance your view. Some things are just as apparent to "primitive " people as to highly educated e tech people, the difference being that the more educated person has more detail to illuminate the obvious or sometimes in fact to create a haze to complicate a clear view of evidence. When you listen to Dawkins, his basic proposition of abiogenesis (which he affirms we don't know how it happened but "believes" science will probably find out) his underlying determinant of his position is a philosophical position that the answers to the origin of life and biodiversity "must" exclude God. It's truly wonderful being privileged to live in this age of scientific knowledge, but when it comes to origin of life and acknowledgement of God, the same available evidence is used by creationists, Christians and evolutionary biologists, atheists alike to strengthen their beliefs. Bronze age goat herders such as King David, Job and Abraham speak eloquent words of wisdom to millions of people today that are just as relevant now as then.
He argues that 24hr understanding of day was always the standard view of the church until the enlightenment but then he later argues that Scripture should be understood in the way it has been since the reformation. This was not how the church understood scripture for most of its existence. The Church choose which books make up scripture and therefore held authority to how to interpret Scripture. Mohler then wants to interpret Scripture as he chooses and as Evangelicals want to interpret it - He proves himself to be a break from the early church
I agree. I hope my previous response to what was argued that the apparent age of the earth, as opposed to its actual age would make God a liar was clear
One simple answer I can give my non-believing friends (who usually have never read the Bible from Genesis to revelation) is that I Believe in the creation because when I read the accounts of Creation through Moses who was led by the Holy Spirit, it speaks to me.. it speaks to my heart and mind differently than any man made textbook has spoken to me. I don’t have to give any other answer, simply that it’s truth is revealed to me through Gods authoritative words and descriptions in my heart and mind. If anyone challenges you on creation simply ask them to read all the science books from beginning to end and then read the Bible all 66 books from beginning to end and make the decision for themselves. Don’t try to argue with them, just simply challenge them to do their research thoroughly on both sides. Then come to their own conclusion.
I read the Bible as a child. I was unmoved and unconvinced. BTW, you should know that the Israeli antiquities authority has determined that there is zero evidence of Moses, Jewish enslavement, or the exodus. Also, in general, you should not expect other people to have 5he same visceral reaction to similar experiences. Your epiphany when reading the Bible is not evidence of anything other than your own feelings and I can tell you that I had the opposite reaction.
Excellent presentation. I especially liked the emphasis on the theological problems we have with an evolutionary old earth. By one man sin entered the world and death by sin! The hominid argument is theologically bankrupt.
But scientifically proven by evidence. All you have to do is present evidence to the contrary and submit it for peer review so your findings can be duplicated. The idea that germs cause disease and it is not gods punishment for some imagined sin was once theologically bankrupt. Goddidit is not a sound argument for anyone older than 8 years old.
Why do we let science keep us on our heels and on the defense? There are plenty of scientists with the same pedigree who are Christian and are pushing right back on the many, many, many holes in old universe theories. Why do we have to prove our scripture according to secular theory? Point out their flaws, stand on the truth that theories are just that: theories, and hold to God's word.
Yes, but this secular stumbling block is being used to derail the faith and turn many away from the path which will ultimately reveal the truth that is Christ. These are questions that many young and even aged ppl have today. The adversary is using these lies to claim the eternity of millions. We as the Body of Christ have a responsibility to refute these lies and to reveal the solid intellectual truths for God's written Word.
@@new_comment that's exactly what I'm saying, is to refute the lies, not by trying to mold scripture and make excuses, but to hammer right back at whatever scientific theory is trying to hammer scripture. What I'm saying is, science says "we have this theory on evolution" and a lot of theologians then try to fit scripture around that, saying "God can use evolution" or "Genesis is poetry" etc, as if we owe an explanation to fit science's theory. Instead, we should go right after the theory itself, showing the lack of proof, errors, inaccuracies, etc, and most of all, that they're just that: theories. We almost rush to accept theories as fact and then attempt to fit scripture around it.
@@jeromeschmidt7805 People act as if they are intimidated by scientists -- as if they are the truth tellers of our generation and we must follow them or be left behind.
one of the most fascinating discoveries (more study needed ) is the finding by some archeologists of intact soft tissue on dinosaur bones. Hard to believe that would of remained for millions of years. For me, I’m very content in the belief that God knows what he’s doing , is merciful, saved a wretch like me. I think most science is good but don’t idolize or worship it. As much as I want to know everything, I’m ok not taking another bite of the apple.
@@Lighthousepreserve let's talk about it then. We have soft tissue preserved, and we don't know how. There's two possibilities: either it's been preserved by mechanisms we don't understand, or it's less old than we think. I say the former, because the latter would go against the other clues we have from stratigraphy, genetics, plate tectonics, and all the methods we have to date the sample. They'd all have to be wrong, in the same way, to the same degree
@@a.i.l1074 hang onto your presuppositions because this corroborated young earth. There s many out there that don t see it your way. Similar to the bombardier beetle. Atheists will get more hardened, just a fact.
The first tree, eyeball, fish, and man had to have appeared fully developed in the first week that Yahuah created them. The infinite universe did as well, mentioned at Barashith (Greek, Genesis) chapter 1 verse 1. There are many things one could ponder. After the first week, the testing began. Yahuah had a body that Adam & Kuah "heard" walking in the Garden after they had eaten the fruit they were told not to eat.
So, I hate to be that guy, and I am saying this in effort to inform, so please take it with the charity I mean this.. No hebrew scholars support the transliterations of yahuah for the Tetragrammaton. YHWH or יחוח has no indication that the vowels would render out that way it is much more likely that it would be Yahweh. It's related to the word for I Am, and the pronunciation of that word informs the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Also barahsheet is hebrew. I recommend the youtube channel Aleph with Beth to learn ancient Hebrew for free! Also dr Michael brown and Dr Michael Heiser are fantastic Semitic scholars.
If the universe were as old as some claim, why are there still spiral galaxies? Why are there still blue white stars? And just how does one look at the universe and give an accurate age? The Genesis account makes sense, just as he said.
According to Genesis, God created light and separated it into day and night on the first day, then he created the Sun on the 4th day. That makes no sense. Light comes from the Sun.
@@brianstewart23 Big Bang > expansion & cooling > massive hydrogen cloud formations > gravity collapsing these dense clouds into stars. Sounds like it would take at least 4 days to me. 🤓
A very intellectual and well constructed talk! I would love to have such blind faith in every word of Genesis 1, but how can it be fathomed that God according to our understanding of him, could have created the biggest deception imaginable. There are literally hundreds of ways to be scientifically led to believing in an old earth. I’m genuinely surprised that there are still people that can believe this. Evolution is another story with holes like a sieve. I think it best is to accept that while on earth we will never know just how God did all this, but that he was lovingly involved in the entirety of creation.
The carbon dating is a very deficient method and scientists have been able to create fossils in one day that are identical to real fossils, only need enough pressure and for the animal or plant to be buried right after death.. The great flood created the conditions for fossils and for erosion and all the processes that made the to earth look old. Also, since no one was there, it is better to trust the one who was there and wrote the description for us.
@@Gordon_2000 Hello Gordon, I agree on carbon dating, but you point me to the scientific paper. Many fossils occur from water seeping into to the cavities and mineralising over a very long period, such as quartzite. Pressure would simply crush the structure of ammonites for example. If the earth is so young, I find it hard to comprehend when the ice ages occurred for example. For my PhD I studied post glacial recolonisation patterns of freshwater fish in to highland lakes. All evidence that I have seen suggests there was a very long ice age, and a couple of even earlier ones as well, which does not fit into a 10 thousand year old earth.
If you take the assumption that general relativity is correct, and that the universe is not infinite, then the universe will have a gradient across it from the center to the edges. This gradient is caused by net gravity forces and causes what is at the center to be deeper in the gradient and have time running the slowest. If we are at or near the center of the universe, then time would be slowest here and increase as you go farther out. How much this has affected the universe vs how much God created mature stars and planets, I dont know, but perhaps soon we will all know.
I think there is evidence for it. There was a science channel that recreated the original experiment, and his top error bar was 1% below the accepted value.
If you accept that the speed of light is decreasing and that the simplified e = MC^2 then mass has to be increasing as well. I think there is evidence that either gravity was less of mass was less in the past. Stegosaurus Im looking at your neck.
@@PeterRickert it’s the other way around. For YEC theory to hold, you would need light to speed up ALOT for light from distant stars to reach us in under 10k years. Or that light speed remains constant and the galaxies are in fact much closer to us than all our instruments tell us Or that between the earth and every star & galaxy there are wormholes that allow their light to tunnel to us and hence reach us within time of a young earth Or that…… look I can carry on, but all of these wacky theories have been ruled out by robust mathematics and measurements.
@@jedexc no it would need to be slowing down not speeding up. Slowing down to the speed we have today. Much faster in the past in order to reach us by now. Perhaps not a constant decline but more of an asymptotic curve with a steep decline down at the beginning and almost undetectable decline now.
The literal interpretation of scripture is ... to my armature's understanding of chuch history... a modern protestant tradition, and introduces all sorts of issues. This type of literalism was largely a reaction to science's challenges. All the scary hypotheticals and implications he raises have been well answered and are consistent with Catholic orthodoxy
You seem confused. Catholic orthodoxy accepts both evolution and big bang, deep time mythologies. However, a literal, plain reading of Genesis as historical narrative is faithful to Scripture and the church fathers, including great scientific luminaries such as Isaac Newton, James Clark Maxwell, Kepler and many others, who all held to a 6 day creation several thousand years ago as well as the Flood 1500 years thereafter. The problem for the Catholic church goes way back even before Galileo, in that it accepted the secular scientific establishment consensus on a geocentric cosmogony.
@@garrygraham7901 it's good that you are so astute, but others are confused. thank you for clearing up all the confusion, in one self serving statement.
@@garrygraham7901 Young earth literal creation is an acceptable interpretation in Catholicism... but Catholicism does admit for the book of nature infuencing our interpretaion of the Bible. The Bible bares multiple interpretations (as evidenced by the thousands of protestant denominations convinced their plain reading is correct). There are many places in Catholicism where divergent theological opinions are consistent with orthodoxy.
Mmmmm.... I was waiting for and HOPING for something besides "Because the bible tells us so" OR "because any other perspective threatens what we believe to be true and therefore, it can't be true." Disappointed.
Jesus taught creation, Noah ,Jonah, and more . I believe Him . What must we do to do the work that God requires they asked Jesus . Jesus replied believe in the one he sent.
@Richard Fox Jesus said….Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.…
@Richard Fox Matt. 12:39Jesus replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now One greater than Jonah is here.…
@Richard Fox Mark 10:5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
@Richard Fox Jesus said “through their message “John 17: 20 I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.…
@Richard Fox The scripture was written down by people who were servants of God and carried along by the spirit of God the Holy Spirit. So the answer to your question would be there was somebody there to hear or record it ,,,,,God was there to record it. 2 Peter 1:21 For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The third heaven where God dwells is eternal. This is why God who is also eternal has a place to dwell, for his eternal life. But the Cosmos where the Stars and Galaxies exist and the expansion of the Cosmos is only 6000 years old. It's all in the book of Genesis!
@Brandon Goss. Keeping it simple to what God said is always best. Great post. "In the beginning, Elohim created Heaven and the Earth" Heavens were seperated later in Genesis 1. The division of verses is a catastrophe, as Genesis Chap 1 & 2 are not seperate, they are continuous (without breaks in thought, time, or event) telling the story up until Chap 3 (should be Chap 2) of how perfect creation fell, because man brought sin (pride) into the God's Perfect Creation. I could expound more, but I believe you know. Thank you
This was a good discussion of the theological problems we encounter as Christians if we accept Genesis Creation explanations that don't accept the six days of Creation to be literal, 24-hour days. I am grateful for that perspective. Thank you. However, it did very little in the way of actually answering the primary question of the topic: "Why Does the Universe Look So Old?", except for the fairly shallow and unsatisfying comments at the very end of the presentation. I was hoping for a more thoughtful discussion of how a faithful reading of the literal days of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (and Moses' commentary interpreting these timeframes as literal "days" in Exodus 20:11) can and does reconcile with the current geological and cosmological findings of an old earth, and an older universe. I believe both these realities can and do exist simultaneously (the days of Creation were literal days, just as we experience today, and yet the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old). I believe the path to reconciling this reality is already underway, with this biggest hurdle already overcome (namely, the universe did indeed have a beginning, which was very commonly denied by science until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1964). Now it is a simple matter of understanding the relationship and nature of the events of God's Creation, with the formation and evolution of the universe. Frankly, with the proven universal Law of Relativity discovered by Einstein, I don't think this reconciliation is far off at all.
Thank you for adding actual captions for the Deaf, this makes it so much clearer and easier to understand and follow.
I'm not deaf but often use CC especially when watching British shows. Sadly, often the CC's are horrendous -- often absolutely not what's actually being said. So yes, anyone taking the time to put REAL CC's that are accurately rendered is a treat. It shouldn't be this way. It ought to be illegal for TV stations to permit shoddy CC creation. It's as if hearing-impaired folks aren't as important as the rest of us.
This is the most sufficient explanation of what is, why it is and Who made it. The purpose remains forever unchanged : For God's Glory. Amen.
When I heard a little bit about quantum theory, I realized human beings don’t have a clue about much of anything. Trust the Word of God, and obey Jesus.
Very good point
Do you use digital equipment? Calculators, washing machines with an embedded computer. Quantum theory was part of the reason we are able to use devices with silicon chips in them.
So quantum theory has its uses.
Why should we trust that the Bible is from God if you say humans don’t have a clue about much of anything? Reject science but blindly follow the Bible? How does that make sense?
@@blackdynamite3288 I’m not blindly following the Bible. I’ve been learning how to live by its principles all my life, they work and are faithful in every way. Jesus isn’t way off yonder. He dwells with his followers, and his spirit lives in us.
@@wtillett243 Yes you’ve been learning how to live by its principles, because you were already convinced it’s true. How often do you question the foundation though? How often do you question Jesus’ resurrection or this God’s existence?
Do you place the same scrutiny and skepticism in these things as you do for science?
As I was reading the Scriptures and contemplating the passage about how Jesus cursed the Fig Tree, and how quickly it withered, I realized that this curse increased the corruption process. It withered and shriveled immediately. The rate of decay increased exponentially. Matthew 21:19-20 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, HOW SOON is the fig tree withered away! The great curse aged our universe without regard to time just like the fig tree aged!
so based on one parable from the NT you're going to extrapolate that onto all of the physical sciences and countless hours and years of work done by different scientists who have come up with a consensus and just brush off their opinions to fit your theological model? Thats just dandy
@@eg4848 you’re making a false argument
@@eg4848 I'll take one parable inspired by our creator over the consensus of every scientist put together. Scientists say a man can be a woman and be pregnant. They also say a piece of paper strapped to your face will prevent a microscopic virus from entering your body. It seems to me some scientists will say whatever the people that are funding them wants them to say. My faith is in the work accomplished by Jesus Christ on that cross, not some guy with a degree in guessing.
@@eg4848 ....first you seem to not understand the difference between a “parable” and a record of an occurrence......second, you seem to have not actually researched what scientific evidence there is regarding the age of our earth. Would you like some help? I will be happy to provide you with information.
This is very good ~ what is The Lord actually doing here?
Petulantly cursing a tree because it’s got no fruit yet? Or
Showing what is being done to “The Jews “ ~ the fig tree is them!
Followed up my casting the mountain into the sea ~ Jerusalem temple built on the mount
Jesus is showing what HE is doing ~ spiritual battle against HIS enemies
But in the middle of the passage (mark 11) is for us ~ forgive your enemies
So we don’t go off on a self willed tangent.
This is prophetic drama metaphor
The temple was indeed thrown down
& as far as Yehovah is concerned
Let No fruit come from it ever again!
Jesus Christ certainly did replace Judaism.
Then now and forever! ✝️🕊♥️
Listened for one hour to learn that the earth looks old because:
1. The Fall of man
2. God wanted to make us whole
3. God understands why and that should be good enough for us.
I also gathered from the talk that when science and theology collide we must side on the inerrancy of the Bible, otherwise Theology will suffer.
I’m so glad I read your comment. Gap theory(taking Genesis 1 at its word) explains everything. It make everything make sense. And he didn’t even mention it.
They say that until they or a family member get sick and then suddenly science is accurate again.
Theology suffers when one forces their own Bible interpretation. The hypocrisy of YEC...they read Genesis one literally though Scripture doesn't define "day" as 24 hours; and yet, when it comes to John 6 and eating His flesh and drinking His blood it somehow isn't literal
I also was frustrated by the lack of supporting info provided especially when there exists so much scientific evidence that reveals why the earth looks so young and reveals the multitude of unverifiable assumptions astrophysicists employ as a foundation for their theories.
@@truthinvestors What is the “scientific evidence that reveals why the earth looks so young”?
Thank you for this message. I have had my mind changed by it. Helpful. Praise God.
Praise God.
You've had your mind changed by complete nonsense?
For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
1 Corinthians 1:19
He hasn't destroyed my wisdom
@@georgerigby2705 That's most likely due to God's chronic inability to exist. Non-entities can't really do anything at all.
For it is written, "I figured myself one of those romantic gentlemen that one reads of in sixpenny magazines."
The Riddle of the Sands, by Erskine Childers, p. 82
An equally deep truth-telling excerpt, and made even more profound by putting "for it is written" in front. But I should have also added, "Lo, and it came to pass."
That verse refers to those who are perishing (vs 18) who see the preaching the cross as mere foolishness. By contrast (vs 20) "But unto *us which are saved* it (the preaching of the cross) is the power of God." And (vs 24-25) "To them that are called" (i.e. saved) Christ is the power and wisdom of God, and (the preaching of Christ) is wiser than human wisdom.
Paul repeatedly makes clear he's talking about those who reject the Gospel of Christ. But you're stretching that verse over the top of the age-of-the-earth question like a fitted crib sheet on a king sized bed. That's exactly the bad exegesis Moehler criticizes old-earthers for doing in his lecture.
Old-Universe Christians can accept the preaching Paul's referring to and the reality of God's wisdom. They repent. They pray and obey. They're as Christian as you are. But if this verse applies to them too, then they must not be saved, right?
If so, shouldn't they all stop helping with OCC, stop leading music service, stop witnessing, stop speaking on apologetics, stop giving out tracts, and stop teaching Sunday School -- all until their answer to the age of the cosmos matches *yours* ?
@@georgerigby2705 Perhaps because you have none.
I love this guy. He's so easy to listen to...to understand...to get everything he's saying without drifting or losing one's attention. Keep them coming!
It's 4am I couldn't sleep so I put this lecture on Bluetooth Speaker. Maybe I'm too tired to take what he's saying in, but I disagree with what you have said, I think he talks a lot of waffle, long winding with very little impact. I find him very difficult to get what he was trying to put across. I am a Christian with the view: because God is a spiritual being therefor not subject to any of the laws of physics as we/sciences understand, he is outside time/space/matter yet is in everything he created, "he holds everything together by the power of his word", we don't get to tell God how to play the game he designed, he of course can make a new thing appear old, hen or egg first proves that. There's no such thing as evolution as science states itself, everything is naturally degrading, there's no driving force for nothing to become matter, then that matter to improve itself or in some way upgrade, upgrade, the fundamental problem with that is, formless matter has no desire for development into rock then eventually life, no intellectual driving force to better itself. I'll try to listen to this guy again tomorrow, even though I think he a poor teacher.
@@martinmuldoon603 I suggest you don't listen to him again. You're already bewildered enough.
@@martinmuldoon603 Hi! I agree with you, Mr. Muldoon. I found this talk disappointing, non-edifying and confusing.
Instead, I really enjoy the uplifting approach of Ray Comfort at Living Waters. Also I am greatly encouraged in my Christian faith by the many speakers and scientific presentations at Answers in Genesis.
I do too. I also am greatly blessed by all of the Ligoniers teaching felllows. R.C. Sproul has left behind a wonderful legacy that keeps on blessing the body of Christ. I miss him greatly, and sometimes I speak with his son. Please keep R.C. Jr. and his wife Lisa in your prayers.
I found the presentation underwhelming. After spending a lot of time pointing out what was wrong with other options he fails to anchor ⚓ his alternative. He lives us more confused than when he first began.
It is as though he welcomed us into his mental processes while trying to deal with an issue logically and ends up making a conclusion devoid of the same logic he used to dismiss other alternatives
Before I listen to this, I have to wonder if he is going to speak about the first recorded miracle when Jesus turned the water to wine.
[
The wine that Jesus created, appeared to have been sewn from seeds, grown until harvest, gathered and crushed, then fermented and aged for many years. However, the wine was only a few minutes old ...
[
A scientist would be able to analyze it with the best instruments and every observation would confirm that it is impossible for the wine to be less than 10 years old ...
[
The simple answer is: God created the world in a condition that it appeared to take billions of years for it to get that way, but it only took 6 days.
[
If you dare to believe the first verse of the bible, you should not have any trouble believing that God made the world in six days and He governs everything that has happened since then and everything that will ever happen from now to the end of the age .
[
It's not that I have trouble believing that God can create the world in six days. He could have created in a millisecond, or a billion millennia at His Will. He created Adam from dust, and Adam was full grown. I have no doubt science would say it was impossible for Adam to be less than 20 years old the minute after he was created. What I struggle with is the math of the star light. In order for the Universe to be young, God would have needed to create the light (and life cycles) of stars that never existed. There is very, very good evidence for the speed of light (namely, that the laws of physics function).
With that said, there is light from stars that are so far away that they would have needed to have been born, lived their life cycle, and died before the universe was created in order for their light to reach us. I have no doubt God COULD have created the light in transit and the illusion of the life of the stars, but WOULD he? Is that not authoring confusion?
@@Jerry-zz2eu That's assuming the speed of light has always been the same. No confusion, just unfounded assumption.
@@jumpingjflash That's true, but only because life would be literally impossible if it wasn't always the same. Even Jason Lisle will admit the evidence is very overwhelming for the speed of light never changing, and he posits other alternatives that are interesting but not developed enough.
@@Jerry-zz2eu ,.. you could say the same about the wine, He made a well aged wine in the blink of an eye, and He is obviously the architect of the atom, elements and all the fine tuning we see, so if it is His desire to place the light from a star to have, not simply arrived at the speed of light, but to be immediately visible from Earth as part of His Creation then just as the wine bypassed ALL the physical happenings it takes to make such a fine wine, then I personally can't see a problem with the light being made to be immediately visible from Earth.
There is a big difference , Christ turn water into wine not create wine , what we as christians have failed to see is the time between the creation and the creation of Man.
Ive listened to RC on the radio he is gifted a calm in the mist of a storm, proberly the most beautiful speaker and i dont think he even trys to be , it just comes out.
One thing I'll say is that I've always thoroughly enjoyed listening to RC Sproul though I don't agree with him I guess theologically on many issues I enjoyed his wit and even somewhat sarcastic humor. I absolutely do believe that RC Sproul was gifted Because it was like sitting with somebody at a table and talking. That is one man I wish I could have met for sure.
@@mannycano4599 I'm the same way in my opinion of RC Sproul. I don't agree with his view on all subjects, but he was brilliant as a thinker, and blessed by God. Just because we don't always see the same way on all positions in the Bible, doesn't discount everything we believe.
How in the world did Ligonier seemingly back Mr Mohler .Why not have a debate with Hugh Ross ; Mr Mohler is a good speaker but is completely blind to science.
The RC Ligonier study Bible is great (dispute my capitalization errors). Praise Jesus Christ!
...i'm a biology student... and i was thinking through all the different scenarios on how to reconcile the appearing age of the earth to my faith in the God of the scriptures... and what amazes me in this very monent is that brother mohler came to the exact same conclusions as i did... praise be to Christ, who will also defeat the enemies of his adressed in that sermon!
But Dr. Mohler did NOT address your biology question whatsoever. Neither did he tell us how any other scientific proof of an old earth can be disproven. A key element in any debate is to disprove the key arguments of the opposing side. In other words, in more than an hour's presentation, he did not adequately answer the question at hand, "Why does the earth look so old?"
@ZoneFighter1
What does Darwinism have to do with the age of the universe ?
@@72gradUK my thoughts exactly.. I was very interested to hear his thoughtson that. 🤷♀️
Kent Hovind give 100 scientific facts that point to a 10,000 (+/-2,000) year old earth. He debates and makes 100+ TOP university professors look ridiculous with their theory of old earth and evolution. Look him up!
@@elizabethryan2217 i believe brother mohler gave a perfect argument. The question is what's your epistomology? How do we know what is true? Can we even know if anything is true?
Well, scripture is true. It has itself proven to be the word of God. So the question is not how old does the earth look but rather how do we look at the earth in light of scripture. Now the reason Mohler gave why the earth sometimes appears so old is because God made it whole and working... instantly! Now if you view the world without considdering God, some rock formations for example must have taken millions of years to be formed. But they didn't because God made them instantly but no scientist would or could ever find out, due to their epistomology... that was his point
Every christian should watch this!
I don't understand how an "evangelical" Christian, who accepts the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the world wide flood, burning bush, Jonah and the fish, the redemption of sins through the grace and mercy of God, and yet cannot believe in a young earth. Lord, please help these people to understand that your word is the absolute TRUTH in each and every word, jot, and tittle! Amen!! Glory be to Jesus, creator of the universe and redeemer of souls.
Hooligan Haines in case you see this, as you deleted your original message, to answer your question; no, your salvation does not rest on your belief in the age of the earth. It is only the blood of Jesus Christ and His mercy that our salvation rests, not our belief in the age of the earth. I hope you see this. I love you brother , and I wish you a Happy New Year! God bless you and keep you!🙂
How do you arrive at the conclusion that a "young earth" is Biblical?
It was addressed already, but I think folks make too big a deal over this issue. Ancient writers such as Philo, Origen, and Augustine did not believe in a literal 7 - 24 hour-days creation, which seems to me to be the main reason some insist upon a young earth.
To me, just from the Biblical text, it doesn’t make sense. Our concept of time is based upon movement, and specifically with a “day” it is approximately 24 hrs (as I recall a day 6,000 years ago is slightly shorter than today, but still roughly 24 hrs). Was time created before the movement of the planets?
However, I don’t think old-earth creationists should look down on young earthers. Believing one or the other has nothing to do with being conformed to the Image of Christ. I see Christlike people in both camps, and I see a lot of impious folks in both camps. I just don’t think it should even be an issue. I get that it’s a hot topic because of atheistic views of natural history, but we should be careful of forming reactionary views.
To say, “I can’t see why an evangelical can accept X but not Y” I find problematic. For instance, my Catholic friends use a similar argument, “If you believe Christ’s miracles, why can’t you accept The miracle of transubstantiation?” Well, I can’t accept it because it doesn’t make sense to me that Christ meant the bread and wine were literally his body & blood. Then they press me on why I don’t read those words literally - (as if a non-literal reading is a unserious reading). Because I read in John 6 that the food he gives us in his body & blood are non perishable. Yet the elements of the sacrament are perishable. If it is literally the body and blood of Christ, then the wicked partake of it as well as the faithful. But the scripture says the wicked have no union with Christ.
Also, for me, the scriptures simply do not support a literal 7 day creation. And since it has no bearing on salvation, it just shouldn’t be an issue.
@@bricaaron3978 through proper exegesis.
@@bricaaron3978 Whenever yom or day is mentioned in the bible with a number with it - like the first day or 200 days - it always means that many days. One day always means one 24hour period. Except for Genesis where God declares the first, second, third days, morning and evening and so on. Morning and evening, the first day. That could be 1 billion days, one billion years, one trillion years, but obviously not one day. So obvious. It could mean anything except a 24 hour period, really. So some say.
So thankful to God for these faithful men and their wisdom through the scriptures! We are blessed!
Thank you!
It terrifies me, that a cult that spread by crusades, genocides, wars, slavery across the globe is still spreading its brainwashing bs by guilt tripping children for some random gurus death and threats of hell to make them obedient cultists.
With such people we are doomed.
They are hucksters who prey on the ignorant
I used to be a 'Day Ager' but after spending 20+ years looking at the scientific evidence, I am amazed the amount of evidence there is for a young earth world view. We must be careful to not let this divide us as Christians. We must also not let this be a hindrance when we evangelizing nonbelievers.
I have investigated every single young earth "evidence" and found a flaw in each one of them.
@@neiljohnson7914 why aren’t you a smart fellow and humble too! In your pompous hubris you failed to mention your credentials to discredit PhDs in the variety of scientific disciplines that make up the YEC cohort!
There are a couple of things I will say about this topic. First, let me say that I completely agree with Dr. Mohler. This is a very, very serious issue for the Church. And, I believe that stems from two points.
1) The account in Genesis is a person's first test of faith in God's Holy scripture. Are you going to believe God when He said He created? And, if a person refuses to believe that, what else in scripture are they going to ignore. I believe this is the cornerstone test of faith for the entirety of the Gospel God has laid out before us. Either we believe Him or we don't. This issue has that profound an impact upon a person's faith.
2) This entire issue started in the garden of Eden, when Satan deceived Eve. Is this not the same lie? Did God really say? People are still falling for this trap, even after all this time. As I told another guy on this video. The very thing that grieves me about this topic is that professing Christian's are falling for the lie and are fighting to propagate the lie. We as the Body of Christ need to be more vigilant in teaching the issues related to this topic and why it is so dangerous for us to ignore what God said about creation.
@@1stCor15-58 I was 10 years old when I realised that young earth theology was incongruent with nature around us.
I disagree, it is VERY important. Because the literal sin of Adam caused his literal death (i.e. he had eternal life before he sinned), as Romans 5 teaches. If we deny such events, we deny the reason Jesus came to restore everything. Believe in an old age, and Jesus' sacrifice is reduced to symbolism at best.
I believe the proof points toward YEC, but more than that, only YEC keeps the theological picture sound, so it MUST be true !
1:02:17
so beautifully said. This was very well communicated
quite flawed all the same.
@@jedexc which part?
@@neverbememe we’ve discussed this at length in other comment threads.
I like how he tied everything together in a polite concise manner. what many here are asking now is, "God capable of being God?" I say if God is capable of everything that The Bible tells us He is, He is surely capable of creating a mature universe. The how He did it is what science should explore not the telling of how He should have done it.
@Drake Joseph "because he's extremely busy!"
cute; but personally meeting Jesus is a direct way to God.
@Drake Joseph . "you could try emailing him."
wow! You are on fire. are you cribbing? or is that original material?
@Drake Joseph "The simplest forms of communication"
You mean the way God can speak to the hearts of men who seek Him? Or the way He made our cells communicate information that science is only now beginning to see, (but not understand yet) or the way God made animals be able to understand their own languages? what "simplest forms" are you talking about????
@Drake Joseph "the fact that he can't even talk like a normal living breathing human being."
He did when He was here with us. And He left His words for us in The New Testament in The Bible.
@Drake Joseph "very convenient for him that he never shows his face."
He showed us His face in the Person of Jesus Christ Who gave His life for us. What do you believe?
From what I've seen of God I don't even question his Word. I mean, who am I to analyze God's power? His Word is what he wants us to know and that's fine with me!
Thank you Dr. Mohler. What a blessing you are to the body of Christ!
"Dr" Mohler.....he has a "doctorate" in magic from a religious diploma mill. It might be of use in wrapping fish....little else.
@@mcmanustony That's because you can't stand his intelligence.
@@onelife7850 Keep trying....it's not that.
@@mcmanustony I am from outside the US. I got my degrees under Dr. Mohler. He is one of the best out there. No bias.
@@mcmanustony He would not be sitting on this panel unless he was one of the best. More importantly, I got my degrees under him. So I know the man personally. I am from another continent and can speak with no bias. What do you have against him. Say it.
Bravo, my arms are wide open to a truth I had not fully put in written form
The most compelling reason for believing the Genesis account (besides the injunction that we ARE commanded to obey Scripture) is that God is not wasteful! When Jesus created food for the masses, NONE of it was wasted. Time is God's creature, and He does not waste it. We are here in the theater of redemption for the purpose of redemption, and that does NOT require a billions of years old earth!
Careful there. Yes they collected the extra food, but if I am understanding your meaning correctly, then instead Jesus should have made 'just enough' and there would have been none left over. It is wasting to take a long time to do something that can be done quickly? We cannot presume to know God's thoughts outside of when he reveals them to us. In the same way that perfect justice requires perfect knowledge, for us to comment on the motivations of God outside of Him telling them to us is risky.
Rather, God seems to be extravagant, making more than enough food. But I say seems, because we are not told why there were left overs.
The same physics that explains the “24 hour day” also explains the 13 billion year old universe. The Scripture proclaims the glory of God but so do the heavens
I would have rather seen him address John Lennoxs' points in Seven Days That Divide the World. Scientists get things wrong all the time and their historical record isn't great on their infallibility. The Word of God gets everything right especially regarding human nature and that is a key component of the Bible.
Since when is the scientific method claimed to be "infallible"?
COVID for example and how the science changed every day.
What seems to be presented is that espousing this perspective is better as it is simply easier to hold than try to make sense of our world and the evidence it presents. So, let's close our eyes and minds and call a day a day. Not for me, but let's agree that this is not a hill to die on.
But they are so ready to die on that hill.
Have they ever changed their minds on anything?
@@jamesparson I get some Christians hold to things that don't make sense. Holding to a literal 6 day creation and saying there is no room for discussion or critique is not helpful or Christian for thst matter, hence my reference to hills and dieing. Tx
@@brucedb8306 The bible isn't even particularly important.
1. Closed off communities are
2. Childhood indoctrination
3. Marriage
Are what keep churches going. Once they have a lock on those, they can cherry pick the bible any way they want
I would definitely fall under the "day age" group. "Yom" is used in Genesis to describe both the days of creation and creation in its entirety. It is regularly used to describe different lengths of time. I believe the Earth is old without believing in evolution and I think it's silly to say you shouldn't believe in old Earth because evolution also believes in old Earth. I always try to humblely consider what is the truth. To date my convictions remain unchanged. All I can pray for is, if I'm wrong that the Lord may change my understanding. God created time when he created the universe. He is not constrained by it.
In six days the heaven and earth and all in em created and completed,book of Jubilees.
@@mlafi7 That is the English translation. The word in Genesis that is translated into "day" is "yom". Yom is also used to describe creation in its entirety. English lacks the depth of the original text. This is true of the Greek as well. The original Greek, for instance, has many levels of love that are lost when translated to English. In English agape and eros are both translated as just "love" but they have completely different meanings. Yom can literally be translated as, "a period of time.". Even Yom Kippur lasts longer than 24 hours (25 hours). That is why many believe a strict 24 hour translation is incorrect
I asked this question early after trusting Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins. My pastor explained it very similarly. He said God created with the appearance of age. The answer hasn’t changed. Makes total sense to me.
Yes, it makes total sense if you want to believe that. Then again, if you want to believe something enough, you'll believe it regardless of the evidence around you. Good luck.
@@scrumpymanjack there is evidence. You have to look.
@@Fricc-sg4np please tell me about this evidence. I have an open mind and so will enjoy weighing it against the evidence pointing to the world being billions of years old.
@@scrumpymanjack well scrumpy. I did say more than one thing. I was saying there is evidence to believe the Bible is true. So first are you against my whole thought? But I have a question for you. If Christianity were true would you become a Christian?
“We shall live to remember the galaxies as an old tale”
- C.S. Lewis
And what is this supposed to mean? That galaxies don't really exist?
@@hansweichselbaum2534 CS Lewis said this while talking about how those who God redeems will live forever - which is longer than any current galaxy will hold together. I hope that is the reason this quote was given by @Ray Conger . It is from an address he gave titled ‘Membership’ and is included in ‘The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses’ published by Harper/Collins in 1949.
God has huge plans for us.
We are in it for the glorious Long Game!
Very good summary of the dilemma that the philosophers of Science and Spiritual Interpretation Philosopher’s of Theology face & debate…. Good job, Dr Robert!
As someone who tries to explain and defend Christianity to skeptics and outsiders, I can say that we've made the mistake of trying to use the Bible as a scientific text. The Bible is written in pre-scientific language and trying to construe it otherwise leads to confusion and aid to those who oppose our message. For example, Psalm 84:11 refers to the rising of the sun and of course the sun does not rise at all. An early scientist and Christian, Galileo, made the statement "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go." Genesis establishes that God is the Creator and that's the point we should take from it and not try to use it as a literal description of the process of creation.
The Psalms are not meant to be taken as historical fact but as poems. Furthermore the term of the sun rises is based on a man's seeing the sun rise. The writers of the Psalms and the Bible were not astronomers. They wrote according to the knowledge they had at that time in history. You are saying there is an error where there is not an error.
I have never been a good student and probably never will be, I’ve been the kind you show me how to tear something apart and put it back together I’d be able to do it.
I’ve always have trusted what the Bible says and believe it to be 100% correct, for me to think of how old the Earth is just blows this old country boy away, but listening to this message has really made the scriptures more clear. Thank you
Amen 💯
The bible can't be 100% correct. The translation and transliteration problems alone make that impossible.
I hope you look up what those words mean and consider how they apply to the bible.
So which of the two creation stories in the Bible is the one that is 100% correct? Which of the 3 widely different stories regarding the resurrection of Jesus is 100% correct? Part of being a good student is being willing to ask questions and just not accept what others tell you without looking it up for yourself
Shawn, I have no interest in undermining your faith - you can believe whatever you want, and I'm happy for you. But how can the Bible be 100 per cent correct if it tells different versions of the same story? If there are two differing accounts, one of them has to be incorrect.
I agree with the conclusion, but is it just me, or is the question in the title never answered in this talk? It looks old because of the fall? Is that what I'm to understand?
That was my thought, considering the curse that God put on creation after the Fall.
I too was disappointed that the “fossil record “ was never addressed.
Yes,
The best questions, were conveniently ignored.
Pretty typical.
@Sage Antone. "The universe looks old because it was created whole."
It appears to us as if it would have taken many millions/billions of years for everything in the universe and on earth to form because there is great complexity in nature.
If we look for a naturistlistic cause and discount the power of God, people tend to end up with an old earth view.
Hopefully, this helps but it is only my opinion after watching this video and other research on this topic.
“By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible.”
Hebrews 11:3 NASB2020
I grew up being taught young earth but since becoming an adult and STUDYING the Bible for myself, with the Holy Spirits guidance, I have been shown that our universe is extremely old!!!!! Get outside of your comfort zone and listen to some equally brilliant followers of Jesus who believe in an old earth!
Same. The more i spend time on this and the more i study , the more I'm convinced it's old.
Exactly!! Reading Genesis as about TO them and FOR us and obvious science changed me. The literal wooden method of reading Genesis doesn't do justice to the text!
@@knightday1973 I think the literal wooden interpretation of the text is excellent in Hebrew. The problem seems to be the English translation of the Hebrew.
All great stories involve great conflict, including “His”tory.
By God’s Grace, the Scripture cannot be broken. His sovereignty is True and Holy in Being.
His Word says what He is, and His Word does not return void.
Knowledge of the Holy IS understanding.
Thank you, Father,
for Your redemption is marvelous;
written in heaven and made available to men through Jesus Christ and the in dwelling of Your Holy Spirit.
Noise.
He took an hour to say, "it's the chicken, not the egg," and "it's not the years, it's the mileage." 😄 They guy actually is very easy to listen to largely because his style and voice are so great. But he does take a long time to make a point.
My whole problem is not that the world doesn't look old. Kinda funny that Dawkins had a speech about why does the universe look like it was designed. I mean, it only looks old if you buy into their presuppositions.
Dr. Mohler is a great speaker. I very much enjoy listening to him lecture or preach. He does a podcast called The Briefing that is fantastic. He also does a thing called Ask Anything that is really good. Dr. Mohler is the President of Southern Seminary for the SBC.
Of course, you could look at it from the perspective of these people's presuppositions. I submit to you that it goes much deeper than that. I believe that it is simply the original lie of Satan that drives this conflict. Did God really say? It is as simple as that. And, of course, people are still falling for that trap, even after all this time. The very thing that grieves me the most about this topic is the fact that professing Christians have fallen for the lie and fight to propagate the lie.
@@zap0918 So a Calvinist is president of a Southern Baptist seminary? That's great. I thought Calvinists were marginalized in the Southern Baptist Convention.
@@johndodson8464 Dr. Mohler has been President of Southern Seminary since 1993.
@John Dodson Yes, yes, and often yes (or so I hear)
Question, how would a person know what looks old and what does not look old? As it relates to the age of things, the universe, and all created things? God made Adam and Eve as grown man and woman. Not embryos or babies. So why not everything else He created. I am not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand and clarify your point. I know what a young man looks like I know what an old man looks like. I don't know how to compare that to the earth, the planets the universe. I find the assumptions made by modern day old earth scientists absurd and unprovable.
Dr. Al Mohler, like R C Sproal, Dr. John MacArthur & others a Brillant Theological mind made only possible by our Creator God (YHWH, Jehovah)-Thank You God!!
Dr Mohler gave a very good Theological Argument for the age of the earth, which is plausible. I was hoping that he was going to talk about (As it states in the Title) the age of the Universe. He made only one comment about the age of the universe @ 13.5 Billion years old, but other than that There was no mention of the actual age of the universe, only discussions about the age of earth. Hopefully he will address in other lectures. For me personally the Hubble Deep Field Project and the images it returned make it very hard to believe that the Universe as a whole is only 6000 years old. May God Grant us all wisdom and understanding.
It does not really matter ,we are only here for few years and the bible is only teaching what's important for the soul not food for speculative minds , similarities of all life forms raises eye brows ,it is either a common ancestor or God created all different stages at once . If the way of creation is through controlled evolution not as a way of learning from mistakes than all is according to scriptures , when God regretted creating man life cycle was altered ,it is only due to sin because God's mind is never according to our expectation But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong .
Makes me wonder just where he begins believing scripture.
Except that we see spiral galaxies that would have entirely wrapped up beyond recognition in just 100M years. And even worse, distant “new” galaxies are identical to nearby “old” galaxies. And quantized redshifts. And the completely arbitrary inflation theory changing the speed of light and expansion (if the speed of light is allowed to be changed to fit your theory maybe it was much higher in the past and that’s how it got here quickly). And much more, graceful exit problem, uneven cmb radiation.
It’s hard to believe and understand that the mainstream scientific community can be dogmatic and using their smarts to try and prove things, but that is happening.
@@ibperson7765 Why is it that constants cant change ,300 years observations don't tell enough of it ,the origin of constants and viruses cant be materialistically explained in depth .
@@rovidius2006 I agree. We dont know that they have never changed. And on top of that even if we assumed they didn’t change, all the things I said still wouldnt fit the old universe
I think it's funny that it's always God vs. science. Science and scientists still disagree on big bang. None of us was there when " In the beginning".
Scientists disagree on many things, and science is not a monolithic dogma. It is constantly seeking new information, evidence, to help clarify what we understand to this point. Science merely tries to find the best explanation for our surroundings based on what we know. As we learn new stuff, science's explanations can change, unlike religion, which has dogmatic doctrine unsupported by any evidence at all. To question this dogma is not permitted, being heresy. In some cults, questioning can get you killed, even today.
Darwin, himself, didn't fully believe in the theory that has become to be called evolution, which today carries his name. He laughed at those who took it so seriously, claiming the absurdity that they had made a religion out of it. “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them.”
Charles Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which the facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those which I have arrived.
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one. - Origin of Species by way of Natural Selection
When Darwin was an old man he was asked of his favorite book. Hebrews, still Hebrews. "The Royal Book" I call it. Christ Jesus and His salvation. Is not that the best theory? - Article entitled “Darwin on His Deathbed” - Christian Reader's Digest, December 1941
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." - Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Thank you for the info
There is simple history to observe.
In the days of Darwin people believed in the 'miasma' that could cause illness so strived for highest ceilings to keep them out of the air they breathed. They superstitiously believed that things could come to life ie food rotting on a bench came to life and from this could believe that over time that life could "evolve".
Darwin gathered and published this superstition. It was a decade or so later that Pasteur did his elegant yet simple experiment where he boiled (sterilized) 2 flasks of meat broth. Then left one open to air and the other closed and showed that the evolution of the broth was actually contamination by flies etc who laid eggs and the maggots observed were actually feeding on, not evolving from, the broth. Science lept forward, and to this day we pasteurise milk to prolong its shelf life.
If Pasteur had done his work earlier, Darwin would never have done his. I think he must have realised this truth, but the notoriety he had achieved probably intoxicated his human nature, until he knew he was about to face God.
Other notable scientists have acknowledged the impossibility of Darwinism, and have suggested our earth was seeded from space!
I suggest it takes more faith in these false religions than our Father in heaven requires of us. Come, said Isaiah, let us reason together. Glory to You Lord Jesus Christ 🙏.
I had come to the same conclusion. God created an adult earth just as he created an adult man showing real signs of age.
Cause he’s a trickster? I’m sorry, you really have to build a strong cognitive split in your head to think that the world appears old because reasons…
Because He did that in so many other places in scripture... created things fully mature.... rather than starting from a seed. So many references. Like verse ... um...
@@joeydutton8074 - 3rd Book of Pyramids, the book about airplanes, 2 Intertubes, and the Gospel according to Elon.
Oh and don’t forget, the tome about how to make dogs.
And adult plants right? Don't think so. Genesis 2 says otherwise about plants.
God made the plants, sea life, animals, and man. When He made these things, He made it all of full age and fully grown, ready and able to reproduce. He made the trees and plants fully formed and giving nuts and fruit necessary to be received for food to the full grown animals that needed that for sustanance. He made Adam and Eve as a fully grown human. He didn't make anything as a baby. Babies need to be cared for by their parents.
Since this is undoubtedly true, since God knew all of the things that mankind would need to live, why couldn't He create an earth that had stores of things such as oil, iron, copper, etc that man would use to make things for tools. People who disbelieve God can make the assumption that the earth is old since these natural elements are here and they think it takes a super long time to form. God could have (and I believe) made the earth with those things in the earth for man to use.
Also, when God was making the things on the earth, He made plant life on day three, then the sun on day four and finally land dwelling mammals on day six. Since plants need the sun to make their food, that is a problem for old earth believers. If the day is really a long long span of time, then the plants would all die out, for they couldn't make any food to keep on living. Also, the plants need oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide. If the days that transpired from the third to the sixth day was a very very very long period of time, then the plants would undoubtedly use up all of the carbon dioxide and give off so much oxygen that they would also die out. Science would tell them that this could not be.
We need to just take God at His word. We need to believe the Word of God and turn our lives to Christ.
Repent and live.
Revel and die.
That's a good point, that God can create ex nihilo, man without a foetus stage, a galaxy without the pre-galactic dust... granted. But would He create misleading evidence to throw us of the track? What of a million years of polar ice core sample data? What of a 2 million year long photon stream from here to Andromeda?
The Bible is no more about cosmology than it is about fixing carbureters. It is about God and man.
The sun and moon appeared on day 4 when the very thick and dense water vapor existing in the atmosphere up to that time finally fell on earth as rain, allowing for the direct visualization of sun, moon and star lights. The earth was created in the beginning as a very watery world. I believe the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 hinges on ‘how’ God revealed His creation process to Moses, then Moses wrote down what he saw. There is no hint that Moses (or whoever given the revelation initially) was simply handed to him as a copy of written document or that God dictated it to him, which then became what the Hebrews have been reading known as the Pentateuch, including the book of Genesis. I believe God gave Moses (or author of Genesis) revelation of Genesis 1-2 a visual or sequential pictorial way, much like when we watch a movie or video clip. The important hint is that Genesis 1-2 recorded the process of creation in a series of ‘days’, not given as an all-at-once (instantly appearing) or ‘all-in-one day’ process. I personally as a trained physician, never believe that the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and all his followers can satisfactorily explain the origin of life, species, as well as giving account of the material and condition of the inorganic world that’s required for evolution to get started and continued, no matter how much time. There are just way too much layers of extremely complexity organizations that need to develop in order for all living things to exist. So I am not believing in the old earth story because of the threat of Darwinism. I am cognizant of the reality of modern astronomy and astrophysics showing convincingly, both theoretically and experimentally, the space & time that is very huge and old indeed. Dr. Hugh Ross has been very helpful in researching, organizing and presenting the view or story of old earth and old universe, without apparent stretching or imagination not based on observable facts. So to me his presentations and reconstruction of the creation process is very convincing and can give atheists, nonbelievers run for their money, and also provider seekers and skeptics alike, a comprehensive, reasonable and understandable explanation about the most fundamental issue of knowledge and faith: the Genesis of heavens and earth and all that are in it.
There are many TH-cam videos addressing different titles related to these important biblical and existential questions. I suggest you invest serious time to find out for yourself whether the creation of an old earth & old universe is an honest, satisfactory and rational explanation is what we Christian’s answer to the lost world at large. This view will not save the lost, but a sound Genesis exposition can remove rise blocks on many doubters’ minds so that the Holy Spirit can save them. I am not saying man or woman cannot be saved directly by Holy Spirit convicting him/her. But we must be sensitive to the need of many wandering souls who are deceived by Satan using misinformation about the story of Genesis.
Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of creation.
I don't think he made the plants old. Genesis 2 says otherwise.
This is the Albert Mohler that the SBC desperately needs right now!
Emmanuel ~ Yea! Apparently he's gone peddle to the meddle WOKE! According to The Jon Harris, and The AD Robles! xD
@@theresa42213 I don't think he has gone that route as he has never publicly endorsed BLM or CRT, and has pronounced himself against them many times in The Briefing. But sadly when it has come time to condemn or signal those who have fallen in those currents within the SBC, he has been awfully quiet.
Well, he has spoken out against Trump so he is not all bad. At least he is consistent, unlike the vast majority of evangelicals
@@dalenincehelser5747 ~ Trump is WAAAY better than Brandon.
The title:
"Why does the universe look so old?"
Answer (in the last 5 min of the video):
#1 "Because God simply made it complete" and
#2 "Doing so is the best way to reveal his majesty in his creation".
Answer #1 Is an interesting point once he mentions how Adam and plants were made fully-formed. Not a slam dunk, but it's worth considering.
Answer #2 can be just as easily used to support an old-earth Christian viewpoint.
What bothers me is how Moehler goes out of his way to erase distinctions between OE Christians and hardened, God-hating Dawkins-brand atheists. That's really crummy. Slimy and heartless, really.
There are hard-working, long-suffering OE Christians serving in all kinds of ministries. Not *once* does he admit they are brothers in Christ, changed by grace and serving God's kingdom, but add they're simply wrong.
Finally, *nowhere* does he refute a specific scientific evidence with contrary explanation that's biblically sound. You know -- like actually answer the question that's the title of this video!?
What's the closest he gets to doing that? He says, "Science gets stuff wrong sometimes." Wow. Super impressive.
Moehler is super articulate. But he's also misleading and fantastically talented at weaving narrative that makes it sound like the OE Christian is a fake and not saved.
Never connected the dots of Darwinism and intellectual elites with those who REJECT the literal interpretation of Scripture, like Dr M does in this lecture…. Thank you for this incredible presentation.
What's Darwinism? Darwin died.....
Who's in the intellectual elite? Is it people who unlike Mohler do science and know stuff? Any ideas?
So, you are saying people who accept the literal truth of the Bible are not the intellectual elites? Well, I have agree with you there. Since most, if not all of them have never learned to apply critical thinking to their beliefs
He speaks very well, he speaks with great authority in his voice. I guess I am just disappointed in his answer. He isn't disputing that the universe and the earth look old, for it just is too hard of a mountain to overcome. For why do we have trees that appear to be 10,000+ years old (because they have that many rings)? Why can we see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years away (and determining their distance is a very trivial calculation)? It seems to me, that if the answer is, "Because God made it mature...", that that will cause many people to never accept the Gospel. A simple objection would be, "Why does the universe look old if you say it is so young? Is this God deceiving me?" A point of clarification, I do believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis is a more popular in the 18th and 19th centuries than previous. Again, this answer just felt so disappointing and almost feels like "blind faith". Just ignoring plain thoughts on the subject and not trying in the least to reconcile what you see to scripture at all.
Christ made grown fish and ready bread. That is enough for me.
Have you really looked into the Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism theories?
I used to believe adamantly in an old earth but never knew the evidence for Catastrophism.
Astronomically speaking, the speed of light may not have been as constant as it is presently.
Multiple theories exist that work quite well in lieu of a big bang theory.
Remember from scripture that God stretched out the heavens.
That statement should help you grasp the light, time and distance issue.
I'd be happy to discuss this topic if you would like.
Tree ring dating assumptions...
What if multiple rings occurred in the same year.
No scientific method can verify with certainty initial conditions and growing seasons following the global flood.
4400 years ago is still a long time.
@@knightclan4 I haven't heard the terms uniformitarianism and Catastrophism, however, I have looked into it and I don't really see how Catastrophism solves anything with the fossil record even if it did happen. It used to be where people would claim there were no "missing links" between different creatures, until we found tons and tons of them. Do we just ignore these bones of creatures that seems to be a "transition" between others? But, if you have a link you can send me that shows why you think Catastrophism is more plausible for the observations we see, I would be happy to read it. It just seems unlikely considering we already know major catastrophes happened like the dinosaurs (We can literally see the crater that formed from the Asteroid hitting [which is located in the Yucatan Peninsula], plus a lot of other observations that show it).
I have heard the "stretching theory, but it seems like a "stretch" (like what I did there? ha.. I couldn't help it [not trying to make fun, just dad humor]) for a few reasons. First, lets say that God stretched the stars/galaxies away from us to make them super far away, well, this would show us a much more massive red shift in the stars than we currently see for sure (which we don't see), unless again, you say that God not only moved the stars but also decided to manipulate all the light between us and the stars as well. And why would he decided to manipulate that light between us and the stars anyway? So that thousands of years later when we figured out how red shift works and parallax and the speed of light that we would then find this and then be like "well God must have changed it"? It seems much more simple and straight forward, that the stars were just there, and it took a really long time for the light to get here. Otherwise, it seems almost like God is trying to "trick" us in some way. I just don't know why he would make it appear old to us so much later.
I'm not trying to assume much with the tree rings. Again, it just seemed simpler that if there are really old trees, that they actually just were very old and are how old they seem to be.
It seems like you are trying to "inject" ideas (not trying to put words in your mouth) for why something appears to be one way, but is actually another way. If it actually was another way, I think you would have to show a lot more evidence when it seems to be more naturally a different way.
@@jrmitchell12 The "missing links" have been manipulated. Many have been hoaxes or colonies of diseased individuals.-- Natural selection does occur. -- Why would God "trick" you is a strange question. The point is that odd things do happen-- not merely day to day time. I've found petrified wood that is not over 200 years old. Different conditions cause different things to happen. Dating isn't necessarily accurate.
I just take the words as true and trust God word regardless what men say this is faith to trust it’s not the past that is on my mind but the future where will I spend eternity the bible tells me by faith in Jesus I am saved forever. If I question one part I must question all
Shalom Barrie. I agree with your sentiment… my wife has simple faith - and it’s beautiful. That said, I came to faith by diligent, honest skepticism. Abba Yahweh responded to my sincere questions… He’s big enough to handle our honest questions. There are people like me that need answers. Not that I have to have all the answers… this is where sincere seeking is abandoned for pride and arrogance. Pride is the biggest barrier to truth… see Richard Dawkins. But I do think it’s essential to be ready to give an answer… not to the prideful and arrogant - but to those who are sincerely seeking, and have nagging questions.
Ok but this is for giving others who are skeptical an answer. You’re fortunate if you aren’t plagued with tough questions. Others aren’t so lucky. And especially unbelievers need logic. And God is logical. We don’t have a blind faith, we have a reasoned faith.
Ìì hp pl ĺĺĺĺlllkĺ
I think you've worked it out.
Excellent analysis and conclusion. The very title does, though, beg a more basic question, on what grounds does anyone reach the conclusion that the universe 'looks old', and the answer is that atheistic, secular scientists have foisted on us the very criteria that they say determines an ancient age, without considering that their criteria may have a more obvious explanation that does NOT indicate age. Dr. Mohler touched on these en passant: uniformitarianism and the fossil record, versus the Flood. IF all the igneous, metamorphic and especially sedimentary rocks [in which we find fossils] have always only formed at the rate they are CURRENTLY forming, and if tectonic plate movement has ALWAYS been as slow as it is today, then we must allow for a long passage of aeons; However the worldwide flood detailed in Genesis provides ALL the explanation required for the VERY rapid development of the rock layers of our modern crust, AND for the presence of 'billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth' [Ken Ham, as I'm sure you know!]
As a medic I recognise signs of ageing that others might not see - the white hair and wrinkles are obvious, but there are other more subtle changes that very few film makers recognise, and the real age of the actor is always given away on close-ups! But I have a friend who suddenly went totally white at eighteen. Then there is the genetic condition progeria which makes a young child look like a shrunken and wizzened old person. And of course our multi-millionaire starlets of the screen can maintain a youthful look by means of botox and plastic surgery! So it is important to find out what reasons a person has for thinking then universe 'looks old', and challenge those assumptions as well.
There is so much more than the fossil record. Why can we see trees with rings that indicate that they are over 10,000 years old? I don't think the flood is going to "add rings". Why can I see stars that are millions of lightyears (and it is pretty simple to see and calculate that they are millions of lightyears away using parallax [I did the calculation myself in college]) away if it takes millions of years for the light to get here? Tons and tons of simple observations like this are hard to just ignore. To questions like these we could just say "Well he made it look old", which is definitely a choice we could make. But, since there are alternate ways of looking at it (because the Bible allows for it), perhaps we should look at reconciling what we see with the Bible to see if there is a way they can both make sense. If they can both make sense at the same time, then we don't have to make the assertion that a miracle happened.
@@jrmitchell12 I agree. Around 1600 you would be condemned if you doubted that the sun and planets circle around the earth. Now most christians agree with science that the planets encircle the sun. Why? the Bible does not teach that. Other example: Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed, yet we know that sesame seed and chia seed are much smaller. Didi Jesus lie? Of course not. The parable would not be understood by his hearers if He used the chia seed as an example, because that seed was not known to them. But the question is how do we read scripture? If I deny what logic tells me and it contradicts a literal interpretation of scripture, we have a problem indeed. The age of the universe has not been established by biologists, but by astrophysicists. And by the way: the Big Bang was resisted at first, because it points to a beginning, which most scientists did not like. Denying well established facts, because it does not fit your view of scripture is not fair in my opinion. it is not nice to turn down someone who is honest enough to recognize scientific facts and try to rethink and reinterpret scripture in light of this (Peter Enns)
These examples are exceptional. God speaks of Himself in creation in Job 38-42 to appeal to our wonder of His acts that are traceable for our appreciation. Implied is His desire to be traced also by natural law, so it would be out of character for Him to change natural physical law to cause an exceptional time lapse for age processing. Also, to characterize people who are of the faith as followers of atheistic and secular science seems wrongly founded when there is a solid scriptural basis for an aged earth, established long before such ‘science’ or ‘Darwinism’ took root in our education system
Well said . Amen
@@jrmitchell12 God makes stars? What have we missed? Quite a lot actually….God makes starlight!
You might have missed this many do. BEFORE God makes sun moon and stars, what does He make? Light!
So the starlight problem…too easy. God makes star, God makes stars LIGHT…Any LENGTH HE WANTS…SIMULTANEOUSLY
Reason is a gift from God. With that gift, Man refined thought and developed the tools of thought collectively known as formal logic. Using those tools, Man has questioned and investigated and discovered.
God also gave man the word of God. By the presuppositions of truth therein, man can properly organize and interpret the world. Logic is no better than the presuppositions, just as a conclusion is no better than the premises it's based upon.
As a person with many questions; I find this argument to be completely without evidence. It is based entirely on the "cost" of the infallibility of the text to believers. Faith is required to ignore or discount all other evidence. I was hoping there was some piece of evidence besides the same old boilerplate. He does a great job presenting the problem, then completely fails to present a case that might sway a non-believer. He doubles down on the "because the Bible says so" argument and that just isn't an argument unless a person already accepts the Bible . It is circular reasoning.
It's not circular reasoning. It might not be good reasoning, but in this case not circular. Would only be circular if the argument was,
"we know the earth is young because the Bible says so"
"We know the Bible is accurate because we know the earth is young."
@@kaufmanat1 - well sorta. It usually goes more like this:
- the earth is young, because 'for the Bible tells me so'
- but why should I trust what the Bible says given that it seems to contradict (specific to creation account) what we continually unravel through scientific exploration?
- the Bible should be trusted because the Bible says it should be trusted.
I fully sympathize with you. I thought this way until a couple of Mormons came along.and said that their aim was to bring me closer to Jesus. I never became a Mormon. They visited me once per week and every time they came I had one more reason not to become a Mormon. I had checked everything in the Bible and could easily show them that their beliefs were unscriptural. In fact,. One scripture alone disqualified Mormonism - Galatians 1 : 8 Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to tell you anything other than what we tell you, let him be accursed
What I am getting at is that this stimulated my interest in the Bible which I am continuously researching and I am not getting the same conclusions that mainstream religion is getting.
My view of the creation days comes from an understanding of the nature of God and how he works. For instance, when Jesus came he informed us that he did nothing on his own that he only came to do the will of the one who sent him. He also said that I only speak the words my Father tells me to speak. When the apostles asked Jesus how they would be able to remember everything he said, Jesus told them that he would help them remember every word he said.
So the appostles writings in the new testament are not exactly the appostles weighting their own words, but the words put in their minds by Jesus.
This brings us back to Moses, who originally took dictation, but would wright it down as he understood it. I would day that when he recorded the creation days he actually thought that they were 24 hours each and indicated that in the way he presented the Hebrew word for day. However, a closer look at the recording indicates more than 24 hours days.
For instance, when the animals and birds were created, they were told to increase and multiply and fill the earth. Why would they be told to do this if the earth was already
filled. To be consistent, the earth was not suddenly filled with humans near the end of the sixth day - only two humans were created and told to fill the earth.
Also, Adam could not have done what he was required to do within a few hours and still be within the sixth 24 hour period.
Adam needed time to become aware of his suroundings and to add to this he had to name all the animals. A thousand species named at the rate of thirty seconds each would take 9 hours to do. This is when his need for a mate was made known to God.
God now entered into his rest day from creation, just after creating Eve. We are still in this rest day which had gone on for 6000 years and have one thousand years to go. If all the days are of equal length then each creation day was 7000 years each.
my view here is that the creation of the heavens and the earth were not included in the first day that God directed his attention to an already created earth. I find it hard to believe that God created the universe on 24 hours and made it look old. The universe appears to have been fully established before God turned his attention to the earth. 7000 year days allows plenty of time for God to now control the geological activaty of the earth to form it the way He wanted it. This is why the earth is evidently old according to human years. the earth as a planet is possibly billions of years old. Radioactive decay does not lie. Massive non fossilized sedentary beds take more than a day to form. I would say that what we see today is a planet that has been around for an indefinite amount of time and it has now been 48,000 years since God began attending to project earth, with 1000 years left to go before the earth is brought back to perfection where righteousness will once again dwell.
I have never believed in a 24 hour creation day. If something does not make sense, I believe that God wants us to think rationally, using evidence that supports a sensible conclusion.
Like I say, I don,t support mainstream Christianity. They have it all wrong and often look like fools in their lack of ability in representing true Christianity.
If you want to know what I think true Christianity is, let me know.
@@ardbegthequestion edited for clarity.
but youve added that bit about, "trusting the Bible because the Bible says it can be trusted"
That is indeed circular reasoning. But I've literally never heard an actual apologist make that argument. And that's not the argument he's presenting here.
A far more typical argument would be, "why do we trust the old testament?"
"because Jesus trusted the old testament"
"why trust Jesus?"
Because he was God
"how do we know he was God,"
"he claimed to be God"
"how can we trust his claims?"
"because he claimed he would die and come back to life in three days, and he followed through on that so... The guy seems like he's a closer"
"how do we know he came back from the dead?"
"An entire religion was spawned after hundreds of people claimed to see him after he was dead."
"how do we know they weren't just making it up?"
"they were tortured and killed and never recanted their beliefs"....
Etc etc etc. It goes on and on. But yea, you might think it's bad reasoning but it isn't circular reasoning. If you want to claim trusting ALL CLAIMS in the new testament is circular reasoning, well, there are other sources that back up much of the NT and at the end of the day, taken to far, trusting any history book would be considered circular reasoning.
How do we know this book is a history book?
It's labeled "history book"
That's not circular reasoning. So, as always, it's a lil more complex than, "trusting the Bible because the Bible says it's trustworthy". Never heard anyone actually make that argument sincerely.
Why the Bible? Right?
I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. Their reports..supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of SPECIFIC prophecies and claim that their writings are DIVINE rather than human in origin.
Not satisfying still? Watch the TH-cam video: Is Genesis history.
Created by real scientists. :)
Here’s the TL;DW synopsis:
- Post-18th Century discoveries pose hard questions
*one hour later*
- “Here’s my point. I will not elaborate.”
Forgive me for commenting before listening, which I fully intend to do as time permits, I simply could not resist giving my short answer to the question posed in the title to this video, "Why does the earth look so old?" Some questions, especially for people of faith in God's word, require little scientific inquiry. Here's my answer. According to the bible, when God created Adam and Eve He did not create them as babies to grow up: they were made as fully mature adults. Further, they immediately had food available to them--things that normally take some degree of time to sprout, grow, bud and bring forth fruit or vegetables. The earth, along with Adam and Eve came pre-aged. Within a literal six 24 hour period, God made the animals and their environment including all they would need to survive. That means fully developed trees and plants. God is outside of time, which He also created. There's no reason for me to doubt that God could have created the earth itself in a pre-aged condition. Whether a few months a few years or millions of years, this is no problem for an omnipotent Creator. I believe God preaged the earth for reasons we do not yet understand. Blessings.
Thank you! The answer is right in front of us!
In praying about this I came to see that there is a gap between creating heaven and earth (v1) and it being formless and void. (v2). Our Father doesn't make something formless! I believe Satan wrecked it.
Remembering from Ezekiel that Satan was already cast out of the 3rd heaven I believe this is directly connected. The making of our earth as we know it now was done in 6 days and was complete, mature and functional. Still, sadly, with Satan but now with man, in His image to oversee it (like the parable Jesus told of the owner of the vineyard).
Our Father does not need us to explain or justify Him.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out. Prov 25:2
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29: 29.
Father please give us eyes to see and hearts to give You glory in Jesus' name 🙏🕊✝️🔥.
With this view… what do you say about bones that are say 10 thousand years old? Im genuinely curious because I like your thinking.
@@jenniferread8884 Yes, Jennifer, I've heard this explanation before, and of course we're making educated guesses about Satan's activity concerning the gap between Gen. 1:1& 1:2. God doesn't tell us specifically and I really like your handling of that fact using what God has revealed to us.
Amen to your prayer and keep studying and growing. See you in eternity.
@@Deucenheimer I say we continue to find flaws in the scientific method of dating bones, rocks, fossils, etc.. The world (main-srteam science) begins with the presupposition that the earth is very old, and so they monkey with the data until it fits their assumptions--that's not true science. It's true that we may make a hypothesis and then test it, but theiir testing is not to discover the truth; they squeeze their theory into the mold they've already prepared. They use radiometric dating, measuring the amount of decay of carbon and other things. But in doing so they assume that no conditions have changed which affect that rate of decay. They base it on the belief that all the conditions have remained as they are today. But temperature, pressure and many other factors would affect how rapidly or slowly those elements actually decay. Their error is discovered in their own explanations: "Radiometric dating relies on the PREDICTABLE decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements..."-- An evolutionist Blessings, and thanks for the honest question.
@@Deucenheimer Thank you for your question. I believe that at the time of Gen 1:1 there may have been creatures on the earth. Jurassic or whatever. I imagine the remains of such creatures would have persisted after the destruction which must have occurred in the gap between verse 1 and 2. There are only Bible records to support this concept, and no real way to know how long the created earth lasted, before it was at the mercy of an angry being cast out of God's presence.
It was only in the new creation, day 6, that they ( the Trinity) decided to make man in Their image. How wonderful for us! Before then I imagine only prehistoric creatures roamed.
I think there are remnants of them. They are amazing. But we have to consider that we should not consult the dead for the affairs of the living. Where we are going is much more important than where others have been. All returns to dust when God's breath is removed..
We are insignificant next to our God, it is only pride and foolishness that could boldly question Him. Our faith, designed to give us trust in Him, is so easily manipulated into belief in only what we ourselves can conceive. (We can be as God). We hear people defend systems of dating ancient materials, but most never actually DO the procedure. They would be sorely disappointed if they did. I remember doing it, and the error margin had many 0s. It was so subjective and non- reproducible as to be pointless. I remember ( in the 70s and 80s) the relentless campaigning against fossil fuel use. I was so concerned about it running out. It had all been 'dated' and declared to be in limited supply because it would take MILLIONS OF YEARS to make more. I was from the country, and so confused to visit a city lookout at night and see all the multitudes of lights burning through the night. It seemed the alarmists could ignore what they needed if it made the streets more user-friendly. I mention this because in later years clever-er scientists discovered they could make coal etc rapidly by adjusting temperature and pressure in new ways. This is not to argue about energy use but rather to highlight how wrong the accepted dogma can be.
With regard to old bones I think they are fascinating, but I accept the Bible and work out how they fit around its teaching not the other way around. +
The end is near my friends.
Time to get ready, be sober minded and deliver the Gospel before the door is shut.
No worries about this age old deception, because Jesus already addressed this as God weeds the garden.
If it were possible, even the elect would be deceived but praise be to God, it’s not possible because He holds us in His own POWER!!!
Blessed be the name of the Lord-
In closing- well done Al- always a pleasure to hear you teach
Commenting for algorithm
looks like it worked.
❤️❤️
Waves hands about for the bot’s attention 👋
Did like for algorithms
Dr. Chuck Missler has some amazing information about Creation in his Genesis audio commentary and also his book “Learn the Bible in 24 Hours.” Great stuff!!!!
Chuck Missler was not a theologians ! He was an engineer and a businessman
@@Veynatulip I don’t entertain “appeal to authority” fallacies
@@mshafer1021 He was also an ignorant halfwit. There is no authority there to appeal to.
@@mcmanustony I hope you’re not a believer in Christ slandering a fellow believer like that.
@@mshafer1021 You need to look up that word "slander". To qualify as slander what I said about Missler would have to be false. I said that he was a halfwit. Given that he was indeed a halfwit, calling him a halfwit is not false, and hence not slander.
No, I'm not a believer in Christ.....
Thank you for being so dismissive of the actual question presented to you by throwing your “evidence” at the end of your conclusion and then waving your hand over it to just say we cannot know and “ only God knows why.” I waited an hour to be able to have a good answer to the question and instead only heard attacks on other explanations. How can this be used with a unbeliever?
I couldn't care less what any science scholar thinks about the age of the universe. My triune God created the universe in 6 days and to be honest He probably could do it in 5. I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and I know truth. If evolution was real why has there been no fossils of partly formed animals or humans? So blessed to have a loving relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
This has also been my (theory) for some time and the first time I heard someone else express it. As a history teacher I spent seven of my 43 years teaching in a private Christian school, resulting in a desire to study theology one day as a lay person. This came about 1993 (long distance study) and in 1997, when I transferred to a Presbyterian seminary and earned a Master of Arts in theological studies - a good route to go for laity who want a seminary education but avoid the divinity route necessary for ordination. I have struggled with this question for some time. It is true that there is debate even in conservative seminaries about the age of the earth. Professors held both to the literal six-day 24 hour and to the age old position, as it is understood that the Hebrew word for day "yom," could refer to both. Everything is interrelated in God's creation- The Fall affected everything, even creation - it does appear old and, as Paul alludes to the fact that even creation groans awaiting renewal. I still question the dating methods, I know there are measures of error, but I do not understand them enough to say that they are all wrong, but there are scientists who question the dating methods. I have not completely reconciled my understanding of the age with science and the Genesis account, but Mohler's explanation is compelling.
To be fair to yourself in your quest for greater understanding, check out Reasons to Believe on TH-cam.
How do you say the word yom could be either in regards to the length of day. What do we do with the statement in the evening and the morning were the first day and the evening and the morning were the second day. Also as far as the aging of the Earth I'm sure that sin and the flood has distorted quite a bit of information that science is looking at. But I also have to take into account Adam and Eve. It seems like decaying, and any form of destruction would not have occurred in the garden. Scripture is not clear as to how long they were in the garden. But let's say they've been out of the garden of Eden for one year. One year has passed after sinning against God. Now every doctor that's ever lived or ever will live on this Earth, if you gave them no other information than putting Adam and Eve in front of them, how many of them do you think would get their age correct. How many of them would be able to say something must have happened a year ago. What I'm getting at is I think we should trust what the word of God says even though our understanding of what we're looking at say something different.
I think Dr Randy White’s MANTRA to “Question our Assumptions” is demonstrated by Dr M. in this presentation. I like the phrase “It could be possible…..”
This is painful. So many bad arguments that don't even come close to addressing the actual issues at hand.
Strange as somebody trained as an ingineer and mathematician I can't remember hearing about the assured results of modern science, at least not in the words Mohler uses. I tend to follow Popper: "The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan."
Classic straw man fallacy. You lay out only three possible options, you then use your own explanation of what those three positions must mean, instead of using the explanations used by the proponents of those positions, and you then eliminate the positions you hold. It's a fallacious argument that would crumble before anyone who holds one of the two positions you disagree with. You treat those holding those positions as idiots who simply refuse to consider your position as obviously the only one that makes sense. This is disingenuous.
Why does the universe look so old? Because it is…
The opposition of religion to science is as equally blind as science in opposition to religion. Science merely attempts to prove how God did things. You have to realize that the first few chapters of genesis are a description of ALL of creation. I can’t fully describe yesterday in a few chapters. People get so caught up in the word “day”, but ignore the fact that there was no sun or moon for the first few “days”. And who are we to tell God how long His “day” last?
Roughly 14.5 billion years!
I’m not saying God couldn’t create a universe in 6 literal days, and make it appear billions of years old, but… What’s more impressive? Creating a new universe to look old, or planning more than 14 billion years of events so perfectly that it would take 14 billion years to produce the desired humans?
I feel that God planning and creating the chain of events that would lead specifically to a man named Jesus, who would be the sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins…. 14.5 billion years in advance is way more impressive and in my mind makes God so much bigger and above all human knowledge, than just creating a rock and people in 6 days.
He keep saying the theological cost of believing old earth is high. He is afraid of the consequences of his proof and "push" his belief.
This is not how thought process works.
Only check whether the proof of old earth is true.
Not considering what the Bible says.
Not considering the consequences of the fact.
Not considering even whether the fact is affecting our beliefs and agenda.
That is if he is claiming he tries to cling to the truth.
Our God loves the truth. This preacher is afraid of the fact. He is far away from the truth.
What is the fact? Origin science makes many assumptions, we cannot definitively state the age of the earth.
Mohler repeatedly refers to biologos and those with similar views, but there are many old earth creationists who do not agree with biologos. Mohler fails to address the most difficult aspects of the question in the title, "Why does the universe look old?" His short answer at the end of the video is that God made it mature and it is affected by sin. But these answers do not address much of the evidence for an old universe. If the universe looks old but is really young, it feels like God designed the universe to deceive us. I don't believe that. That would be a huge theological problem, yet Mohler does not seem to address it.
I agree.
Would Adam have deceived us? Would Adam look old yet was really just made? That's the point. I understand we should look at the evidence but there is quite enough disagreement and assumptions being made that the evidence isn't definitive.
This speaker has just reminded me why I rejected the evangelical fundamentalist Christianity I was brought up in 50 years ago!
If you’re looking for his actual answer to the question, skip to 1:02:00. The first hour reviews the logic of Christian opposition to evolution.
30:55 "I am arguing for the necessity of holding to 24-hour creation days."
Yes, including the first 3 days, that took place without a sun 🤦
You don't need a sun to have light. Do you suggest otherwise? If you hold to the big bang theory then you will know that light is one of the very first things that will emerge without a celestial bodies.
@@stephentranquilla7785 how do you measure a day? If you are a heliocentrist, it's how long it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis a full rotation and see the sun move about in its sky.
The creation account was marked by daytime and night time. You don't get daytime and night time without a sun in your sky.
@@stephentranquilla7785 But the Bible said plants were created before light.
"Because God" can answer any question. Which of course means it answers no question. It has no explanatory power at all.
just because something looks "old" doesn't mean it is. our eyes deceive us.
uniformitarianism: huge assumption. Also, ridiculous that from some primordial soup, through random mutations, we now have human beings who can think about and communicate with one another about the whole process.
@@kevinsolveson5480 ??
"our eyes deceive us." No. God deceives us if the earth is not much greater than a MILLION years. But God is wholly true, no deceit.
The question is only addressed after one hour of explaining why we shouldn’t believe it is old.
Vegetarian T Rex? This is comic gold. There’s a recent 180 million year old fossil find of an ancient squid eating a crustacean while being eaten by an ancient shark.
Oh, yeah? And what is your proof that this fossil is 180 million years old?
@@JeanmarieRod are you familiar with paleontology and the dating methods utilized by them and other earth sciences? I can maybe recommend a course or book. Feel free to google the find yourself. Also I’ve found that sincere inquiry to regional public college earth sciences departments provides great insight and resources. Admittedly, if you’re a flat and/or young earther they may ignore you.
@@zach2980 I know that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate and the average institution of higher learning spews utter nonsense in things that matter like whether the Bible is true or not.
@@JeanmarieRod do you think scientists and educators are engaged in some type of conspiracy? If so, what would you propose is their end goal?
@@zach2980 No, not consciously on the lower levels.I think they turn their backs on what they know to be true, namely that creation had a creator.
Do you think the various men who wrote the Holy Bible throughout the centuries conspired to make it LOOK like it was full of predictions that all came true and layered in wisdom to make it LOOK like God inspired them?
Some scientists suggest to the public that they are nearing a complete understanding of nature--"a theory of everything". If you ask some of the actual practitioners, they indicate that as we learn more, the distance left to answering the big questions of Cosmology (i.e. Origin of the Universe) and Evolution (i.e. Origin of Life) are getting FURTHER AWAY (harder to even imagine).
If Science was say 85% of the way to understanding the principles of reality, we could have some sympathy with their optimism. But if the are 0.85% of the way there, OR if the truth is that the distance to go to understand the creation of the infinite God is actually Infinite, they will be forever stuck at 0% (maybe in eternity Christian scientists will get there). Answering these questions likely will requires inventing techniques to allow the EMERGENCE of entirely New sciences--even sciences that start to overlap what we know call "SPIRITUAL" reality. And just as Science Paradigms change every few generations and Scientist have to throw out some of the old and adopt a new Paradigm, it is possible that future discoveries may completely invalidate key premises of current Cosmology & Evolution and prove the timeline Scientists love for the ORIGIN of the universe to be entirely wrong, AND SHORTER. (After all, IF there is a Creator who created everything by Speaking, why would we doubt that he could create everything in the 7 days of Genesis. Given the premise, even atheistic scientists could not give a credible reason why not.)
The premises of gradualism are so deep in scientific thinking that Scientists would be laughed out of the profession to consider (even if just to exclude the possibility) things that COULD have happened to create everything we see in 7 days of time in our Universe. For example,
1) God could freeze or speed up time around local areas to "cure" his creation--or he could have done it on other worlds, or in other "dimensional" realms, or in His MULTIVERSE Workshop. (We see such things in SCI FI STORIES regularly--why not in actuality by God?). The timeline in Genesis apparently is based on the length of the earth day, Einstein showed us that time can and does flow differently in different locations.
2) A slightly fancier concept: God could have done creation of dinosaur worlds, Ice-age worlds, bug worlds, plant worlds, or worlds of what we know as parasites living and minding their own business in a vast ocean of gore, etc. -- all of this done and over in the first days of creation using accelerated time in other places in our universe (or in other Space and Time systems unconnected to our universe)) for God's own purposes and not covered in the Bible (which is only OUR STORY, the Story of Human Beings on Earth). And when those projects were over, He ended them and recycled the material into our universe to bulk up the earth maybe as part of the cosmic expansion pauses or accelerations [this could have been done as part of the curse after the fall of Eden and even during the Flood upheaval. [Eden could have been a small world literally with no evolution and no death. God could slide his recycled material in as fossil layers from other places under the Eden surface layer (giving us fossil discontinuity layers in geology). God could have even imported more surface area, more ecosystems, and more species from other worlds and placed them on a larger earth, outside of Eden. After that, all the new species would move to find their own place on the earth--including those horrible parasites, that could only live by burrowing into another creatures," etc.).
All of this is fantasy (invented without evidence, except that it could conceivably result in the world we see, strictly in agreement with the 7 day creation in Genesis and the rest of the Bible--WHICH IS MY POINT.] If something like this is conceivable by me, God surely could have made the earth in harmony with His Word, and resulting in the reality we see in the the universe.
My point is that with God, literally ANYTHING is possible, from fiat creation with fake ages just to test our faith, to actual age per some amazing method. TO EXCLUDE every possible explanation for how God could accomplish this is impossible. So, YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE that can pin down God in a lie. Atheists will object this would be God cheating, but in reality God has not limited himself except in what he says in Scripture.
Consider this, we scientific laymen cannot be expected to EXPLAIN the paradoxes that unbelieving Scientific theories create relative to the Genesis Account--it is not our Job. Indeed, all we need say is God has not revealed anything more than he has revealed and we have no logical reason to doubt that 7 day creating of a big universe it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE given God's power and knowledge. WHAT IS UNFAIR AND UNJUSTIFIED is for Scientists to libel God and the Scriptures. They are the ones that need evidence to PROVE that the Bible is wrong--AND NOT JUST A HYPOTHESIS whose premises exclude God and Genesis. What they need is to spend however long it takes to understand the Spiritual reality and God's reality that is beyond what science knows now COULD NOT EXIST, that is, THERE IS NO WAY THAT EVEN AN OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT GOD, who existed (somewhere) before our universe COULD HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN HARMONY WITH GENESIS. I do not see that ever happening.
SO, I personally am content to say that whatever scientistic hypotheses claim and whatever they observe in the universe now, is no threat to my faith or to God's revelation in Scripture. AND THEY ARE LOGICALLY OVERREACHING REALITY to claim THEY HAVE DISPROVED SCRIPTURE. WHATEVER the truth is, I am confident that that we will all see it is in complete harmony with Scriptures, without trickery--that the HHHUUUGGGEEE miracles that God did creating all universes will explain the apparent paradoxes just fine.
This presentation was technically skilled and well-delivered. However, after listening, I'm left with the feeling that I know not much more about the age of creation than I did before. This seems largely to be theological dancing on nuance and intellectual nods. The concern appears to be more about saving face for the Christian church and avoiding entanglements than it is about any substantive defense of a young earth.
Exactly! Well said.
I think that Christian’s have made the age of the earth too big of an issue. How this was fought, especially by the young earth side, is also an issue. Instead of disputing the evidence I think the young earth side should have asked questions about the assumptions going into the old earth views. Was the universe created with age? Well, science can’t get to the first cell because chemical evolution is impossible. So the evolutionists are left with the first cell popping into existence. But does not the cell contain the lion’s share of the complexity of life? So we have to have the lion’s share of the complexity of life popping into existence. And not just one cell. You need the whole eco system and likely many cells for life to get going. That looks aged to me even though it just popped into existence. If you must have cells popping into existence then why not a whole species?
@@timefliesasyougetolder6815 Oh so chemical evolution is impossible? Pray tell me, how and when was that falsified?
@@michaelanderson4849 really? When was it falsified? How about on a scale of zero to one million on progress they are at a zero on demonstrating that chemical evolution is possible. Show me some actual experimental research where they are constructing dna starting with chemicals.
Because the idea of a "young earth" is indefensible. Best to not address it closely
Albert Mohler, speaks of the great truths of Christian faith. But what are the great truths of Christian faith when we must realise that faith is not a truth, but rather the acceptance of a belief?
I want that hour and 5 minutes of my life back....an hour of explaining why all of the arguments he reads in support of the bible come up short, a minute of explaining why there has to be an explanation and then a few minutes of assuring people there is a simple on....and I still have no idea what he is trying to claim other than God did it...it's amazing people think their is some reasonable argument there
65 minutes to get around to saying that the answer to the question of why the earth looks so old is …‘er…we don’t know - but an old earth doesn’t agree with my theology so I’m just going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing loudly’
Ridiculous!
The earth looks old. Around 6,000-7,000 years old if there was a global flood.
This presentation makes a good job of covering the scope of interpretations on the issue raised. However, the conclusions presented are lazy and do not address the reality of the "book of nature". This presentation reaffirms the position of the audience and saves them from challenging thinking. He could not get away with giving this same presentation to an audience of scientists, be they Christian, agnostic or atheistic. It does not present a credible position for successful evangelism at all.
Searching the wonders of nature is a privilege of man and we should never fear discovery of truth in nature or of in the bible. Sharing a sense of wonder of nature and being willing to admit we don't know some things will get you much further sharing the good news about Christ to agnostics than a dogmatic presentation of a particular interpretation of Genesis.
Well said
He pretty much blew past the idea that the universe looks old because it actually is old. He also overlooked the fact that god allegedly created plants in the pitch dark before he created light. Lesson here is that it is not a great idea to take your concepts of astrophysics from bronze age goat herders who would have dropped on their knees in awe at the sight of a wheelbarrow
@@dalenincehelser5747 Slagging off bronze age goat herders does not advance your view. Some things are just as apparent to "primitive " people as to highly educated e tech people, the difference being that the more educated person has more detail to illuminate the obvious or sometimes in fact to create a haze to complicate a clear view of evidence. When you listen to Dawkins, his basic proposition of abiogenesis (which he affirms we don't know how it happened but "believes" science will probably find out) his underlying determinant of his position is a philosophical position that the answers to the origin of life and biodiversity "must" exclude God. It's truly wonderful being privileged to live in this age of scientific knowledge, but when it comes to origin of life and acknowledgement of God, the same available evidence is used by creationists, Christians and evolutionary biologists, atheists alike to strengthen their beliefs. Bronze age goat herders such as King David, Job and Abraham speak eloquent words of wisdom to millions of people today that are just as relevant now as then.
He argues that 24hr understanding of day was always the standard view of the church until the enlightenment but then he later argues that Scripture should be understood in the way it has been since the reformation. This was not how the church understood scripture for most of its existence. The Church choose which books make up scripture and therefore held authority to how to interpret Scripture. Mohler then wants to interpret Scripture as he chooses and as Evangelicals want to interpret it - He proves himself to be a break from the early church
@30:44 "I am arguing for the exegetical and theological necessity of affirming 24-hour calendar days." Refreshing!
I agree. I hope my previous response to what was argued that the apparent age of the earth, as opposed to its actual age would make God a liar was clear
When god created Adam he wasnt a baby.
When he created the garden trees and bushes were already grown.
I believe he created a mature earth.
One simple answer I can give my non-believing friends (who usually have never read the Bible from Genesis to revelation) is that I Believe in the creation because when I read the accounts of Creation through Moses who was led by the Holy Spirit, it speaks to me.. it speaks to my heart and mind differently than any man made textbook has spoken to me. I don’t have to give any other answer, simply that it’s truth is revealed to me through Gods authoritative words and descriptions in my heart and mind.
If anyone challenges you on creation simply ask them to read all the science books from beginning to end and then read the Bible all 66 books from beginning to end and make the decision for themselves. Don’t try to argue with them, just simply challenge them to do their research thoroughly on both sides. Then come to their own conclusion.
That advice would be good to follow on other, more recent events. Don't argue; research.🧐🔎
I read the Bible as a child. I was unmoved and unconvinced. BTW, you should know that the Israeli antiquities authority has determined that there is zero evidence of Moses, Jewish enslavement, or the exodus.
Also, in general, you should not expect other people to have 5he same visceral reaction to similar experiences. Your epiphany when reading the Bible is not evidence of anything other than your own feelings and I can tell you that I had the opposite reaction.
Phenomenological is my new favorite word
Excellent presentation. I especially liked the emphasis on the theological problems we have with an evolutionary old earth. By one man sin entered the world and death by sin! The hominid argument is theologically bankrupt.
But scientifically proven by evidence. All you have to do is present evidence to the contrary and submit it for peer review so your findings can be duplicated. The idea that germs cause disease and it is not gods punishment for some imagined sin was once theologically bankrupt. Goddidit is not a sound argument for anyone older than 8 years old.
Why do we let science keep us on our heels and on the defense? There are plenty of scientists with the same pedigree who are Christian and are pushing right back on the many, many, many holes in old universe theories. Why do we have to prove our scripture according to secular theory? Point out their flaws, stand on the truth that theories are just that: theories, and hold to God's word.
Yes, but this secular stumbling block is being used to derail the faith and turn many away from the path which will ultimately reveal the truth that is Christ. These are questions that many young and even aged ppl have today. The adversary is using these lies to claim the eternity of millions. We as the Body of Christ have a responsibility to refute these lies and to reveal the solid intellectual truths for God's written Word.
@@new_comment that's exactly what I'm saying, is to refute the lies, not by trying to mold scripture and make excuses, but to hammer right back at whatever scientific theory is trying to hammer scripture.
What I'm saying is, science says "we have this theory on evolution" and a lot of theologians then try to fit scripture around that, saying "God can use evolution" or "Genesis is poetry" etc, as if we owe an explanation to fit science's theory.
Instead, we should go right after the theory itself, showing the lack of proof, errors, inaccuracies, etc, and most of all, that they're just that: theories.
We almost rush to accept theories as fact and then attempt to fit scripture around it.
@@jeromeschmidt7805 People act as if they are intimidated by scientists -- as if they are the truth tellers of our generation and we must follow them or be left behind.
You don’t understand science at all.
one of the most fascinating discoveries (more study needed ) is the finding by some archeologists of intact soft tissue on dinosaur bones. Hard to believe that would of remained for millions of years.
For me, I’m very content in the belief that God knows what he’s doing , is merciful, saved a wretch like me. I think most science is good but don’t idolize or worship it. As much as I want to know everything, I’m ok not taking another bite of the apple.
I took on an atheist w the dinosaur soft tissue find. He suppressed and ran away from me as fast as he could at a coffee shop. Ha!!!!
@@Lighthousepreserve let's talk about it then. We have soft tissue preserved, and we don't know how. There's two possibilities: either it's been preserved by mechanisms we don't understand, or it's less old than we think.
I say the former, because the latter would go against the other clues we have from stratigraphy, genetics, plate tectonics, and all the methods we have to date the sample. They'd all have to be wrong, in the same way, to the same degree
@@a.i.l1074 hang onto your presuppositions because this corroborated young earth. There s many out there that don t see it your way. Similar to the bombardier beetle. Atheists will get more hardened, just a fact.
@@a.i.l1074 Jesus lived, died, lived but you don t know how. Add that to your list of unknowns, then throw in the universe. G luck.
The first tree, eyeball, fish, and man had to have appeared fully developed in the first week that Yahuah created them. The infinite universe did as well, mentioned at Barashith (Greek, Genesis) chapter 1 verse 1. There are many things one could ponder. After the first week, the testing began.
Yahuah had a body that Adam & Kuah "heard" walking in the Garden after they had eaten the fruit they were told not to eat.
So, I hate to be that guy, and I am saying this in effort to inform, so please take it with the charity I mean this.. No hebrew scholars support the transliterations of yahuah for the Tetragrammaton. YHWH or יחוח has no indication that the vowels would render out that way it is much more likely that it would be Yahweh. It's related to the word for I Am, and the pronunciation of that word informs the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Also barahsheet is hebrew. I recommend the youtube channel Aleph with Beth to learn ancient Hebrew for free! Also dr Michael brown and Dr Michael Heiser are fantastic Semitic scholars.
Almighty God, made the earth in six normal sized days, Amen !
The Holy Bible makes no "claims", it STATES facts and decrees Eternal Truth.
If the universe were as old as some claim, why are there still spiral galaxies? Why are there still blue white stars? And just how does one look at the universe and give an accurate age?
The Genesis account makes sense, just as he said.
Good point. Their dogma, "The universe is old" I ask, "Compared to what?"
Bobby, The answers to these questions are very well understood.
Why do blue white stars or spiral galaxies require the universe to only be a few thousand years old?
According to Genesis, God created light and separated it into day and night on the first day, then he created the Sun on the 4th day. That makes no sense. Light comes from the Sun.
@@brianstewart23 Big Bang > expansion & cooling > massive hydrogen cloud formations > gravity collapsing these dense clouds into stars. Sounds like it would take at least 4 days to me. 🤓
Thanks for your Coolbeans and truths that are genuine memories of Bible!
What are coolbeans?
A very intellectual and well constructed talk! I would love to have such blind faith in every word of Genesis 1, but how can it be fathomed that God according to our understanding of him, could have created the biggest deception imaginable. There are literally hundreds of ways to be scientifically led to believing in an old earth. I’m genuinely surprised that there are still people that can believe this. Evolution is another story with holes like a sieve. I think it best is to accept that while on earth we will never know just how God did all this, but that he was lovingly involved in the entirety of creation.
The carbon dating is a very deficient method and scientists have been able to create fossils in one day that are identical to real fossils, only need enough pressure and for the animal or plant to be buried right after death.. The great flood created the conditions for fossils and for erosion and all the processes that made the to earth look old. Also, since no one was there, it is better to trust the one who was there and wrote the description for us.
@@Gordon_2000 if carbon dating was not reliable then the scientific community would say so.
@@Gordon_2000 Hello Gordon, I agree on carbon dating, but you point me to the scientific paper. Many fossils occur from water seeping into to the cavities and mineralising over a very long period, such as quartzite. Pressure would simply crush the structure of ammonites for example. If the earth is so young, I find it hard to comprehend when the ice ages occurred for example. For my PhD I studied post glacial recolonisation patterns of freshwater fish in to highland lakes. All evidence that I have seen suggests there was a very long ice age, and a couple of even earlier ones as well, which does not fit into a 10 thousand year old earth.
@@oma_elite haha, great answer, that answers nothing.
@@Gordon_2000 Fortunately there are many other ways of dating besides one which relies on survival of organic compounds.
The tarnishment of sin has exponentially added age to God's creation.
If sin entered the world approx 6000 years ago, does that mean that act affected stars that are 13.2billion light years away?
If you take the assumption that general relativity is correct, and that the universe is not infinite, then the universe will have a gradient across it from the center to the edges. This gradient is caused by net gravity forces and causes what is at the center to be deeper in the gradient and have time running the slowest. If we are at or near the center of the universe, then time would be slowest here and increase as you go farther out. How much this has affected the universe vs how much God created mature stars and planets, I dont know, but perhaps soon we will all know.
Interesting idea about the gradient. What do you think about the possibility that the speed of light is slowing down?
I think there is evidence for it. There was a science channel that recreated the original experiment, and his top error bar was 1% below the accepted value.
If you accept that the speed of light is decreasing and that the simplified e = MC^2 then mass has to be increasing as well. I think there is evidence that either gravity was less of mass was less in the past. Stegosaurus Im looking at your neck.
@@PeterRickert it’s the other way around. For YEC theory to hold, you would need light to speed up ALOT for light from distant stars to reach us in under 10k years.
Or that light speed remains constant and the galaxies are in fact much closer to us than all our instruments tell us
Or that between the earth and every star & galaxy there are wormholes that allow their light to tunnel to us and hence reach us within time of a young earth
Or that…… look I can carry on, but all of these wacky theories have been ruled out by robust mathematics and measurements.
@@jedexc no it would need to be slowing down not speeding up. Slowing down to the speed we have today. Much faster in the past in order to reach us by now. Perhaps not a constant decline but more of an asymptotic curve with a steep decline down at the beginning and almost undetectable decline now.
There is no question. God never wanted relegion! Only loving eachother
The literal interpretation of scripture is ... to my armature's understanding of chuch history... a modern protestant tradition, and introduces all sorts of issues. This type of literalism was largely a reaction to science's challenges. All the scary hypotheticals and implications he raises have been well answered and are consistent with Catholic orthodoxy
You seem confused. Catholic orthodoxy accepts both evolution and big bang, deep time mythologies. However, a literal, plain reading of Genesis as historical narrative is faithful to Scripture and the church fathers, including great scientific luminaries such as Isaac Newton, James Clark Maxwell, Kepler and many others, who all held to a 6 day creation several thousand years ago as well as the Flood 1500 years thereafter. The problem for the Catholic church goes way back even before Galileo, in that it accepted the secular scientific establishment consensus on a geocentric cosmogony.
@@garrygraham7901 it's good that you are so astute, but others are confused. thank you for clearing up all the confusion, in one self serving statement.
Catholicism preaches a false gospel. So...
@@garrygraham7901 Young earth literal creation is an acceptable interpretation in Catholicism... but Catholicism does admit for the book of nature infuencing our interpretaion of the Bible. The Bible bares multiple interpretations (as evidenced by the thousands of protestant denominations convinced their plain reading is correct). There are many places in Catholicism where divergent theological opinions are consistent with orthodoxy.
@@croppedndocked146 How do you know your gospel is correct? How did Jesus tell us to know what the faith is?
Mmmmm.... I was waiting for and HOPING for something besides "Because the bible tells us so"
OR "because any other perspective threatens what we believe to be true and therefore, it can't be true." Disappointed.
Jesus taught creation, Noah ,Jonah, and more . I believe Him . What must we do to do the work that God requires they asked Jesus . Jesus replied believe in the one he sent.
@Richard Fox Jesus said….Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.…
@Richard Fox Matt. 12:39Jesus replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now One greater than Jonah is here.…
@Richard Fox Mark 10:5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
@Richard Fox Jesus said “through their message “John 17: 20 I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.…
@Richard Fox
The scripture was written down by people who were servants of God and carried along by the spirit of God the Holy Spirit. So the answer to your question would be there was somebody there to hear or record it ,,,,,God was there to record it.
2 Peter 1:21
For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Hugh Ross has an opposing view or teaching very interesting
The third heaven where God dwells is eternal. This is why God who is also eternal has a place to dwell, for his eternal life. But the Cosmos where the Stars and Galaxies exist and the expansion of the Cosmos is only 6000 years old. It's all in the book of Genesis!
@Brandon Goss.
Keeping it simple to what God said is always best. Great post.
"In the beginning, Elohim created Heaven and the Earth"
Heavens were seperated later in Genesis 1.
The division of verses is a catastrophe, as Genesis Chap 1 & 2 are not seperate, they are continuous (without breaks in thought, time, or event) telling the story up until Chap 3 (should be Chap 2) of how perfect creation fell, because man brought sin (pride) into the God's Perfect Creation. I could expound more, but I believe you know.
Thank you
This was a good discussion of the theological problems we encounter as Christians if we accept Genesis Creation explanations that don't accept the six days of Creation to be literal, 24-hour days. I am grateful for that perspective. Thank you. However, it did very little in the way of actually answering the primary question of the topic: "Why Does the Universe Look So Old?", except for the fairly shallow and unsatisfying comments at the very end of the presentation. I was hoping for a more thoughtful discussion of how a faithful reading of the literal days of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (and Moses' commentary interpreting these timeframes as literal "days" in Exodus 20:11) can and does reconcile with the current geological and cosmological findings of an old earth, and an older universe. I believe both these realities can and do exist simultaneously (the days of Creation were literal days, just as we experience today, and yet the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old). I believe the path to reconciling this reality is already underway, with this biggest hurdle already overcome (namely, the universe did indeed have a beginning, which was very commonly denied by science until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1964). Now it is a simple matter of understanding the relationship and nature of the events of God's Creation, with the formation and evolution of the universe. Frankly, with the proven universal Law of Relativity discovered by Einstein, I don't think this reconciliation is far off at all.