Albert Mohler: Why Does the Universe Look So Old? 

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.

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?

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.

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! ✝️🕊♥️

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”?

Praise God.

You've had your mind changed by complete nonsense?

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!

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

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

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 !

quite flawed all the same.

@@jedexc which part?

@@neverbeme we’ve discussed this at length in other comment threads.

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

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!

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.

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.

looks like it worked.

❤️❤️

Waves hands about for the bot’s attention 👋

Did like for algorithms

@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?

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.

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

Noise.

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.

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.

Since when is the scientific method claimed to be "infallible"?

COVID for example and how the science changed every day.

"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.

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?

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

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

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.

What are coolbeans?

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.

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

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.

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 RU-vid 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.

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.

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

To be fair to yourself in your quest for greater understanding, check out Reasons to Believe on RU-vid.

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.

well said! Exactly!

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

What is the fact? Origin science makes many assumptions, we cannot definitively state the age of the earth.

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.....

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.

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 🙏.

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.

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.

@@stephentranquilla7785 But the Bible said plants were created before light.

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.

If you expand the video description, you will see a “show transcript” option.

Far too simple minded.

Please explain your calculations. If the moon is currently traveling away at 3.78cm/yr and is currently 384,000km away, doesn’t that mean that it started moving away from the surface of the earth 10 billion years ago?

Your math is so flawed. It assumes that the rate of movement has been consistent, which it would not have been. In truth, each orbit brings further away each time. It is accelerating away.

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 RU-vid video: Is Genesis history. Created by real scientists. :)

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.

The earth looks old. Around 6,000-7,000 years old if there was a global flood.

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. 🤓

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.

Thank you! If he doesn’t know, then he hasn’t studied his Bible. God Bless☦️

Guess it was over your head.

fear of what?

Your afraid?

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.

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.

To be sure

Adam was created as a mature man. I guess God's capable.

God does not lie or deceive, God didnt create the earth with dinosaur fossils already in the ground, that would be a lie encased in stone. The age of the universe is wrapped into our understanding of the laws of the universe starting with the speed of light. Now that we know the speed of light is a variable, we know we do NOT know the age of the universe,

@@Lexicon-cm9it Each cell caries enough DNA where it can be any kind of cell in anyone's body but choses to be the one needed in its specific location ,except cancerous cells , regardless of opposition life galops forward .

He (Jesus) also instantly created mature fish to feed the 5000.

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

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.

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.

@@OMAELITE 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.

Agreed. I was actually amazed and a bit dismayed when he ended it as he did.

"The gap in Genesis 1..." You hit the nail on the head. God created "physics" so of course the Bible and physics are compatible. Peace

It bothers me immensely when the Young Earthers claim to speak for all Christians and that only their interpretation of Genesis is correct. Then they make a false dilemma that it is either their interpretation or modern science. The universe looks old because it IS old. Simple. Genesis has poetry in it. It was not intended to be a scientific book. In fact it is our culture of science that causes us to read Genesis as a science book when it is not. Genesis does not tell us the age of the earth. It does not tells us how the universe was made. . It does not necessarily tell us there was a wide world flood. I'm embarrassed as a Christian that this is so adamantly pushed as the only view of Christians and any who disagree will have their faith completely questioned or worse. I don't care. I say this so that scientists or others may not feel discouraged by this interpretation. The Bible says to reason and to look to nature to see something of God. Scripture as revelation supersedes this but let us not be so arrogant to think we know the interpretation absolutely, especially an ancient text like Genesis. To those who are considering believing in Jesus and the Bible, please don't be pushed into thinking that the above is the only way of seeing Genesis. I guess it is time to be mocked by believers now. I wonder how many will even have a Christ like attitude about it.

@@knightday1973 Your answer is precisely why Young Earthers are alarmed at Old Ageism. You have moved from questioning how long God took to make the Universe to questioning how God made the Universe to questioning whether the Flood was really global. The Bible painstakingly says it was a global flood in which the waters covered everything (otherwise Noah wouldn't have to make an ark. He could just walk!). People sometimes think they can win more souls if they just tweak the message a little bit here or there, but our doctrine must be pure or else we didn't convert anyone to the kingdom of God. When Jesus was on the Earth, He wasn't interested in being a crowd-pleaser. He was solely interested in preaching the real gospel and going about His Father's business. That's our job too. Like it or not. Noah only won 8 souls - his family and himself. The Bible calls him a preacher of righteousness. It's not how many people we win. It's whether we are faithful or not. This isn't something to mock. This is something to diligently guard against and warn others. Disbelief is terrible and it will shipwreck men's souls.

@@hermanwooster8944 That's right I don't believe it was global. The whole earth eretz was covered. Does that mean the the global earth? I don't think so. Joseph fed everyone from the whole earth eretz. Did people come from Australia, China? I doubt it. It could easily have been a local flood described in what to them was seemed like like all the the land. In any case, I would trust science more to see if a world wide flood took place and adjust my interpretation accordingly. The Bible says to look at nature too and that is what I am doing. Of course you will call me a crowd pleaser. Of course you can judge my motives better than I can. So typical on subjects like this. Layers of strata of fossils are not laid done by one flood. I think this makes more sense and so do a lot of scientists.