Lesson 9/16: The Appearance of Age

[updownleftrightinout]

It seems to me that you fully understand how bad folk-science is creating a new generation of potential atheists. Sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that even the most devout will be swayed because the contradicions side so heavily AGAINST christian folk-science.

It is a crisis and the harder creationists push to deny the hard science, the harder the backlash will be among their own ilk. Atheists just have to sit back and watch the carnage among believers who convert away from faith.

[Dchellberg]

Why waste all this effort, it was very nicely done by the way. Just imagine what you could accomplish with reality. Just realize the Biblical Jesus was probably just a myth. The Bible sure reads like he was. Why not just accept that there is no evidence that your God or any other exists. Then you do not have to do all of this mental gymnastics to try to make sense of the senseless.

[Omnitrix12]

And another point. In the case of the wine, it is worth noting that Jesus did not make aged wine, just very high-quality wine. A human analyzing the wine would, however, perceive the high quality and all factors contributing to it as designators of age, when in reality they meant something quite different. So what I'd like to know is, how can we be sure that things like distant starlight are not in fact telling us something totally different from what we think?

[glovergj]

we can't be sure. but evidence suggest that the best explanation is that these object are reall are as far away (and as old) as they appear.

[Omnitrix12]

As it stands right now, yes.

[glovergj]

Science should always be preceded with the phrase: "as it stands now" because anything can be wrong.

[Omnitrix12]

Indeed this is true. But too many science teachers maintain that what they are teaching is the only truth, permanently. And it has been demonstrated that both in the classroom and the scientific community, dissenters are deliberately punished.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 "too many science teachers maintain that what they are teaching is the only truth, permanently"

I have a B.S in Biology and Physics and a 5 years graduate work in neuroscience. I teach science today. I have NEVER ONCE seen this happen. Can you give a documented example? Kids get graded down for putting the wrong answers on tests, they do not get punished for dissenting ideas or get taught that scientific ideas are permanent.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik This guy, case in point. Sure, he SAYS that it should be treated as a changeable thing, but everything else he says shouts otherwise. Plus, he completely ignores what we KNOW to be timeless for what we KNOW to be transient.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 It seems you are confusing touchy-feely "EVERYONE IS RIGHT!" hippy deconstructionism with open-mindedness. Yes, ideas asserted as truth without compelling evidence are harshly challenged or discounted in science. You claim that your herb cures all forms of cancer but only have anecdotes to prove it, you will get torn to peaces. Even the compellingly elegant mathematical ideas of m-brane get laid into by scientists for lack of evidence. Watch T69TOuqaqXI (you tube search)

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Even atheists have acknowledged that if evolution were subjected to the same gauntlets that its proponents want to force on creationism, it wouldn't survive in classrooms either. Besides, you haven't even answered what I said, mister rabbit trail.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Are you kidding me? Evolution has been through a million times worse that creationism ever did. There has been a non-stop riot of skeptical decent from inside and outside the scientific community since the publication of the origin of species. The good criticisms of evolution that creationist raise are almost all criticisms that were raised by the science community and analyzed careful and continue to be taught. Really, scientists are much sharper and harsher critics that fundis.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik @michalchik Right. So intense that it can't even address a basic point.

Let me put this down for you, nice and simple. Evolution is only an interpretation of existing evidence, and the whole notion behind it can be easily destroyed. A confirmed discovery of, say, Noah's Ark would kill any notions of a non-literal Genesis the same as the Gospel itself would be destroyed if Jesus' body were found.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Right, that is what makes it a trustworthy idea. We can test it in a million different ways, so that we know it does not fail us in any circumstance that we are likely to encounter. Just like newtons theory of motions allows us to build planes that fly reliably because they held up to tests. Scientific ideas are not true in any absolute sense, they are trustworthy. Ideas like YEC that fail scientific tests are neither true nor trustworthy. Jesus's divinity is not a science issue.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 What basic point are you referring to?

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik @michalchik Interpretation (which is ALL evolution is) is temporal. On the other hand, ethics are eternal. Tell me, what happens when evolution is applied to humans?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 No actually, Evolution followed the scientific process. Observation, interpretation, hypothesis formation, testing, evaluation, reformulation, winnowing away of logical and emprical problems, retesting, until most of what remains is trustworthy. It is not a matter of opinion at all. It is a mater of careful checking for what lasts.

The application of evolutionary theory to humans is complex but goes a long way to explaining why we are the way we are and predicting human behaviors.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Actually, species are temporal, but evolution is no more temporal than gravity. It is a fundamental process of the universe, much older than bible and I dare say it will be around long after. As far as ethics being eternal. Ethics are a product of evolution both genetic and cultural. The ethics of the Biblical religions are in a constant state of flux due to this evolution. One time stoning people to death for working on Saturday was mandated, and slavery was fine, now it is not.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik So when did Adolph Hitler's actions become acceptable?

The Bible's ethics are subject to one, and only one. That one is God, and He does not change.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Actually the Bible is full of genocide as is Christian history. Have you read the whole bible like I have or are you just another pretend Christian?

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik 1) The genocide in the Bible was not for genetic reasons, as was Adolph Hitler's. Big difference. Genocide in the Bible, when enacted on God's orders, was in response to sinful behavior, not some notion of improving the gene pool.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 The genocide in the Bible was for sweeping the world of the unclean sinful people including their babies. In the Bible sin IS genetic. It is passed from parent to offspring. It was also to favor God's chosen race. The chosen people were Marked by their descent from certain chosen people, Noah, Abraham, etc... That is assuming you mistake the bible for literal truth rather than a moral teaching about mans relationship to God.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik And pray tell, what would have happened if said infants born in a sinful society had grown up there? Besides, if you discard Noah's flood on that flimsy excuse, you might as well toss the books of Exodus, Joshua, and Judges too.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik And 2) It's one thing to read the Bible. If you're not going to take it to heart, it's about as much good as knowing that a disease which is killing you can be cured and refusing said cure. In other words, nothing.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 When i hear spin like this, I hear someone, who has not read the whole bible, and someone who picks and chooses the easy simplistic interpretations he find pleasing or at least unchallanging of his proclivities. You may claim I have refused the cure. I claim I went to the doctors and he just offered me some placebos. You have not even bothered seeing the doctor so can not claim to be a Christian.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Alright, wise guy. Tell me straight up, what does the Bible say in terms of defining what a Christian is? Show, me, SHOW ME where it says that taking the Bible at its word is in any way contrary to being a Christian?

And FYI, I studied the Bible thoroughly for years, so don't come to me about not having seen a doctor. Not when you get it processed by hacks.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 I am glad you read the whole Bible, though I am still hesitant to believe it for a variety of reasons. I assert that people who don't read the whole bible are Christians for two reasons. First, can you really claim ideological allegiance to a group unless you know their ideology. Second,if the creator of the universe wrote a book for me, I would memorize it. I know more christians than I do atheists and yet I know more atheist who have read the whole Bible. Go Figure.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Well I've got news for you: I have read the whole thing, more than once. And I'm working on memorizing Romans.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 LOL Romans. Another fake christian cherishing Paul's words above Jesus. Why not start with the synoptic gospels or the Pentateuch instead of the political propaganda from decades after Jesus's death.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Political propaganda? Don't tell me you've fallen for the lie that Paul had something material to gain. That's been debunked tons of times. Even the guy in these videos can see that.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Even if you are right, you are ignoring my main point. Evangelicals love Paul and sweep Jesus under the rug. Whenever they quote the Bible at me, it is never the words of Jesus, it is almost always Paul and sometimes somebody from the old testament like Issiah. Why, because Jesus actually asks for more from you than lipservice and the pretense of piety. Jesus is someone I generally agree with you on the other hand prefer avoiding him and trying to sneak in the backdoor of salvation.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik You know very little of Jesus, Paul, or evangelicals. Memorizing Paul's writings is not neglecting Jesus, because he was writing all about Jesus. Romans was his presentation of the work of Christ, and his defense of the validity of his God-given ministry.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 You HAVE Jesus' words to read and memorize, but you put Paul's opinions first. What Jesus said, is not your focus.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik @michalchik Stop criticizing evangelicals who, in your opinion "only pay lip service" which you yourself are not willing to give. You say you agree with Jesus? Then take to heart what He Himself said, that those who receive His servants receive Him also. What does that say about those who reject His servants?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 I don't reject Christ's servants I reject the modern Pharisees, who put the mental ritual of faith and hope of getting into heaven by pleasing God ahead of adherence to the spirit of Jesus' word and the deeds he required. Your proclamations of love of Jesus are just burnt fatted calves and deep down you know it. That is why you must reject science and adhere to the words of the Bible you think give you an inside path to God. Ask, why did you chose to memorize Paul's words first?

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Because the book of Romans is a concisely packed tretise on doctrine and defense of the Bible, and because I have had a working knowledge of the teachings and contents of the Gospels since I was a child. Not down to the passage and reference, letalone verbatim, but a working knowledge.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 You are two theologically inept to realize that your dependence on Paul over Jesus is condemning you to the nation of goats. You can not walk the path of Christ unless you put his words first.

[richardaberdeen]

@Omnitrix12 The word "doctrine" means "teaching" in Greek. It is a perversion of historical reality and intent to pretend that it means anything else. When Paul wrote "sound doctrine", it was the same as if today in English he wrote, we should listen to "sound teaching". There is no religious implication; neither Jesus nor Paul were the founders of Christianity or any other such nonsense. They were about God, truth and life, no religion either implied, necessary or required.

[Omnitrix12]

@richardaberdeen Really? So religious truth doesn't have to be historically sound? Well in that case why don't we throw out Moses and Elijah too?

[richardaberdeen]

@Omnitrix12 There is no evidence that Jesus is the founder of Christianity or any other religion. Jesus is the founder of human rights, which the true Messiah by definition, would be. There isn't remotely anything in common between Jesus and Christianity, which arose after 90 AD, when all of his original followers were gone.

[Omnitrix12]

@richardaberdeen Actually, there were some definite notions of human rights as early as Moses. Not the extent that exists today, perhaps, but it was there.

And records would, in fact, prove your suggestion wrong. The Bible. a contemporary work of Jesus' time, has proven accurate on many occasions. In fact, many who try to disprove it have become Christians in the end.

[richardaberdeen]

@Omnitrix12 Human rights are as old as civilization itself, being based on our shared human conscience, which is what the Bible claims is true and what is clearly demonstrated in the historical record, where an almost identical "golden rule" pops up in a great many diverse often non-connected cultures. However only Jesus stated that treating others as we want them to treat us "is the law and the prophets", which in our society is like saying, the sum of all wisdom, morality, science & education

[richardaberdeen]

@Omnitrix12 Thus, Jesus is the founder of human rights, because he's the only one who laid it down as the foundation for all that matters. Unfortunately, our children today are taught to get good grades so they can get a scholarship so they can go to college so they can earn more money, a very ignorant and wrong reason for teaching a child to be educated. Anything that is not based on treating others like we want to be treated is anti-Christ, anti-human rights, against our own flesh and blood.

[Omnitrix12]

And FYI, you have not given one word of Jesus' teachings. But let me show you this, and then I will neither read nor write with you any more, becuase you despise the words of God. Look for yourself in the third chapter of Luke. Would God tie in Jesus' ancestry to a false man? And was not this Gospel, by you own admission, valid record of Jesus if anything was at all?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Sorry, that was Joseph's ancestry not Jesus, unless you are disputing the virgin birth and implying that Mary was having premarital sex. Also, where exactly does it mention Paul or Saul? I did not see that. Are you actually getting Paul mixed up with Jesus. Because that chapter is about the origins of Jesus' ministry.

[richardaberdeen]

@Omnitrix12 The ancestry of Jesus is given through Joseph because that was how ancestry was recorded in the time of Jesus. Anyone who has studied 1st Century history and earlier Fertile Crescent history knows this. Women were used to prop up family lineages only if a male was absent in the record. There were 2 different ways to record ancestry in the 1st Century, thus the record in Matthew & Luke are both correct, even though they contain different names. There were TWO ways, both correct.

[Omnitrix12]

@richardaberdeen Concerning the dual recorded ancestries of Jesus, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Let me be clear: I have never doubted in words or in heart that Jesus was immaculately concieved and virgin born. Because He was a genetic descendant of David through Mary, He had a hereditary right to be king. Through Joseph's line, He had the legal right, although the line had been disrupted so that a biological son of Joseph would, by God's own decree, been barred from the throne.

[richardaberdeen]

@Omnitrix12 I was just stating the historical reality, as very few either Christians or non-Christians are aware of it. In 1st Century Palestine, there were two different methods of tracing genealogies; one tracing through a direct husband only, while the other included brothers who raised up offspring for a deceased brother and also sometimes included females and others, which is why there are discrepencies between Matthew and Luke.

[Omnitrix12]

@richardaberdeen Fair enough.

[michalchik]

@Omni Also, i know that you are not a biblical literalist because no-one outside insane asylums is. Do you take up serpents and drink poison as signs of your faith. Were you literally baptized by fire? Do you honestly think the earth rests on pillars? I could go on for pages. You are a literalist, like all people who are literalists, only when it does not violate your common sense and minimal scientific knowledge. I only ask that you stop being a hypocrit about this and apply reason in general.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik I take the Bible literally unless the text itself necessitates a figurative interpretation, as it does for example in dreams. As for the pillars of the earth, there actually are cool spots in the earth's mantle which, geologically, resemble pillars in a number of ways.

As for hipocrisy, you are living the very definition of irony. You call me a hypocrite, but who is it that is telling me how to rightly take to heart something your own words suggest you regard as unauthoritative?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 "As for the pillars of the earth, there actually are cool spots in the earth's mantle which, geologically, resemble pillars in a number of ways." Exactly, you squeeze your literalism into where-ever your ignorance allows. Even if what you said was true (its not), how does a column of rock floating on top of a spherical shell of magma, INSIDE the earth, while the earth hurtles through space. constitute the earth resting on pillars. You are playing word games to salvage the ridiculous.

[michalchik]

@glovergj All human endeavors are subject to error, even our ability to read and interpret the bible. the advantage of science is that it can appeal to experiment to test our ideas and the daily consequences of our technology is a continuous test of what we think.

[FiverBeyond]

@glovergj

Amen!

[Omnitrix12]

I'll give you this much; that the appearance of Age notion is impractical, untestable, and inconsistent. I do, however, find it illogical to suggest that we should suppose Jesus lied (if only by omission) about Adam and Eve, or for that matter (if memory serves) abutNoah as well when, in debate with the Saducees, He was quick to point out not only the underlying flaw of their question, but also of their misguided theology.

[4570sharps]

I'm really enjoying these videos. Coming from a young earth creationist perspective I don't agree w/ everything but its all very challenging. If God gives us His word then, in effect, the combination of the "appearance" of an old earth & the truth of God's Word together remove your theological problem. If we go back to your 'water into wine' example, is the apparent deceptiveness of Him making a miracle 'look' natural not the case if He just tells us "I made it". I have So many more Questions

[mejc2]

The people that were there at the beginning knew the universe was created. they told the subsequent people, who eventually wrote it down. Now "scientists" come a long and say "It never happened. Look how old everything looks"

God is not deceptive he isn't saying that the universe is old you are, just mistaken. Your misinterpretation does not make God deceptive.

[glovergj]

I'm believe that God created the universe and sustains its very existence. But this event did not happen only 6,000 years ago as some believe -- unless God specifically went out of his way to build an elaborate hoax of cosmic and geologic antiquity into His creation.

God is not desceptive and neither is science when done properly. Young Earth Creationists are the ones doing the deceiving here.

[mejc2]

God said he created the world in 6 days. That is not deceptive. Evolutionists said they don't believe that because it looks older. God didn't tell the evolutionists to misinterpret the observations they made. Not only did the evolutionists get it wrong, they accused God of trying to trick them.

If a being is powerful enough to speak a universe into existence, I don't think that time constraints would be an issue.

[glovergj]

OK, so... God said that Joshua's long day was caused by the sun standing still and that the earth doesn't move. Copernicans say they don't believe that because the Earth appears to move around the sun. God didn't tell the Copernicans to misinterpret the observations they made. Not only did the copernicans get it wrong, they accused God of trying to trick them.

Do you really want to answer these scientific questions with appeals to ancient Scripture? Do you accept any modern science?

[mejc2]

First of all I love science. Especially modern science. It is the fairy tale of evolution that I do not like. Also the bible does not say that the earth does not move. Also, Also, when the bible said the sun stood still I believe it was referring to the point of view of man. It is exactly the same as when scientists calculate sunrise and sunset. It is from the point of view of man. should we call scientists mistaken for saying there will be a sunrise today? After all we know the sun doesn't rise

[glovergj]

Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in the history of science. I suggest you do your homework before calling it a fairy tale.

Psalm 93:1. Agree about point of view of man. All science in the bible, indeed all science in the ancient near east, was phenomenological. When Moses says "after their kind" -- that too is biology from the point of view of man. Global flood, etc...

We know the sun doesn't rise, but nobody else did prior to the 16th century.

[mejc2]

Sorry charlie, Evolution is only supported by supposition and imagination.

[glovergj]

I'm only sorry that other Christians flash their ignorance as badges of honor. Very sad.

Your denial of it doesn't change the facts. Millions of scientists all over the world have been working within this framework for 150 years and the overwhelming consensus of those who are in the laboratories and in the field every day is that no other paradigm of natural history even comes close to explaining the various independent lines of data than evolution.

[mejc2]

OHHH I see all evolutionists that have been properly indoctrinated believe that evolution is true therefore it must be true.

OHHHHH. OK

[glovergj]

Indoctrination? Please. Real scientists don't have to sign "statements of faith" to work in a real laboratory, and in real science you are allowed to questions anything, and your ideas are open to scrutiny. Real science actually changes when new information challenges the status quo.

Indoctrination is telling somebody that they will go to hell if they don't believe your theory, and making them pledge allegiance to a pre-determined conclusion before even looking at the evidence.

[mejc2]

Exactly, and if you try to mention a Christian point of view in an evolutionism based organization you are let go. Try to get a Job in an evolutionism research lab and first proclaim to be a young earth creationist. Go under cover try to get a job. let me know how you make out. After all they are not indoctrinated or closed minded you will probably get hired.

YEAH RIGHT.

[glovergj]

Uh, your credibility is now in negative territory. I have a bookshelf full of books written by Evangelical Christians who accept evolution AND have very successful scientific careers. They are not persecuted for their belief in God or that Jesus was the Christ. They are all just fine. Dr. Francis Collins is very outspoken about his faith, and yet he has reached the highest possible positions in the secular biological sciences.

[mejc2]

Did I say claim Christianity and accept evolutionism? that is what your friends who wrote those books are doing.

I said claim young earth creationist and try to get a job in an evolutionist establishment.

Try it. My credibility with you is negative, but we new that going into this discussion. You are an evolutionist.

[glovergj]

Well, sure -- if you walk into a professional setting and start spouting nonesense, you'll quickly get shown the door. What do you expect?

Young earth creationism is about as scientifically valid as believing the earth is flat. Should a flat-earther be given a job as a professional geographer? C'mon now -- you have to some standards.

Creationism doesn't meet the standard of physical science by any measure.

[mejc2]

Physical science? You mean like Physics?

I think there was this famous physicist, his name was Albert Einstein. Although he was in no way a christian, through the study of physical science he determined that the universe had to have been created by some supernatural means. Once you come to that conclusion, the rest is arguing over the details.

[glovergj]

Einstien believed in evolution, and that the universe was billions of years old. This doesn't change the fact that God created it.

[mejc2]

you are 100% correct about Einstein. However once you admit that it was created, why would you deny the accounts in the bible. If a being is so powerful that it can speak the universe into existence then anything is possible. he could have created it instantly mature or in an incubus state and allowed it to grow. Once you start speculating you can make up any story you want.

[glovergj]

Because:

(1) There is no evidence that creation happened according to the bible.

(2) The universe described by the bible is structurally similar to the ancient near-eastern conception, not the modern conception.

(3) The bible is a book about the person and Work of Christ, not science.

You CAN'T just make up any story you want. That's exactly what the ancients did with their many creation myths. Science can only base its conclusions on observable evidence. Anything else is speculation.

[mejc2]

1. there are observations made that support the biblical creation account (nothing is evidence, we can only observe what is) e.g. we observe similarity in DNA one side infers change over time, the other, similarity created by God.

2. Resembling the modern conception is no evidence of validity.

3. The Bible is about Jesus from Genesis to Revelation. However, No Adam, No serpant, No tree of the knowledge of good and evil, No original sin, No sinful nature....No need for Jesus.

[glovergj]

1.) So of all the ways God could have made our genetic code, he chose the one way that makes it look like evolution is true, even though any other way would have worked just as good? Please.

2.) So you believe that the earth is a flat disk covered by a solid dome with water on top? What makes the modern conception more valid than the ancient one?

3.) ...And that is why your faith can't withstand the obvious facts. You've backed yourself into a corner and all you can do is attack.

[mejc2]

1. what ever way he did it, you could have made up an alternative story based on observations. Of course the story would fit the facts because it is made up around the facts.

2. the Bible does not say the earth is a flat disc and because we do not know what the phrase waters above means, we can only speculate. That doesn't mean that it didn't reference something real.

3. No faith can withstand untestable made up stories that are accepted as truth. Dinosaurs became birds, its a fairy tale.

[glovergj]

1.) Ah, now we're getting somewhere. But your story doesn't even fit the facts we already know!

2.) Or it could just be that, since every other culture believed the earth was a flat disk (in Egypt it was a rectangle), when the bible says the exact same thing it is merely reflecting the fallible wisdom of man. Seems obvious to me.

[mejc2]

1. According to evolutionists. According to creationists they fit.

2. The Bible doesn't say that the earth is flat. you are correct it is the fallible wisdom of man that says that.

[glovergj]

Since when does a sphere have corners or ends? How does a sphere rest on pillars? If a tree grows tall and touches the top of the sky, how can you see the top of it from anywhere on the surface of a sphere? If you stand on a high mountain in palestine, how can you see all the kingdoms of this sphere?

In the book of Enoch, Enoch is taken to the horizon by an angel and he sees where they sky touches the earth.

It was not widely accepted that Earth was spherical until 2nd century B.C.

[mejc2]

If you go to the top of the highest place in Palestine, what is your visibility? 50 miles? are you claiming the the Bible claims the earth only extends 50 miles in each direction from Palestine?

Scientists claim there will be a sunrise each day. Why don't you make a video stating how meteorologists are claiming that the sun revolves around the earth.

you are just being silly. Why do you give the liberty of figures of speech to meteorologists and not to the writers of the bible.

[glovergj]

Now you want to use logic and common sense to judge the literal truth of Scripture?

We know the doesn't rise. But this fact was not known until the 16th century. Before that, it was a litteral phrase. We still use the phrase, even though we know its not true.

Read Psalm 19:4-6. How do we know this is or isn't a figure of speech? Before the 16th century, everybody thought it was literal. Now they say it is figurative. Why did we change our interpretation? did the bible change?

[mejc2]

No one understands everything in the Bible. The Bible doesn't change. We change though. As our understanding grows we realize the truths contained in the bible. For example when the old testament prophets wrote about Jesus in the book of Genesis, there is no indication that they knew what they were doing but we understand it now.

[glovergj]

Good. We agree on that. I take the same approach to other passages of scripture, where you prefer to stick with the more literal (traditional) interpretation.

Peace.

[mejc2]

I can live with that. I don't really think it is good or healthy to quibble over details. Love the sinner hate the sin. We are all sinners.

Peace

[4570sharps]

I'm still thinking through this but I don't see an elaborate cosmic and geologic hoax or deceptiveness worked into creation when he has provided us with His word, thus explaining Himself as having revealed "...His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, having been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made..."

A created past of inconceivable amounts of time, mind-boggling amounts of space and future "world without end" give glory to & express His eternal power

[glovergj]

Thanks for considering this and being thoughtful about it. I don't think it's a hoax either, but I think God really used these processess to bring all things into existence according to his own timing.

[MrBirdan]

This is a very good series. I just finished #9. I would add that in addition to an appearance of age, there is also a history of events (tectonics, volcanism, sedimentation, meteors, etc.). And this history of events, if it happened in just several thousand years, would have turned the earth molten.

It's not just an appearance of age, it's a detailed history of events that never happened.

[TaccountableC]

Thanks for the video, however this is what I believe :

1. Earth was created around 6000 years ago in 7 days, proven by the author himself (Moses) who already understood the concept of day/night.

2. Evolution from 2 different kinds was never a possibility, although it happens between species.

I don't think your last comment would be well received as it means that transitional forms (self-created) were possible even though God created animals (he created).

[glovergj]

Do you believe that God created you? If your answer is yes (good answer) -- then how do you reconcile this belief with modern biology which says that a baby develops naturally from a fertilized egg (self-created)?

Whatever answer you give is probably similar to how Chrisitans who accept evolution reconcile modern biology with the fact that God created all living things. God can use a physical process and still be author and designer of the thing created.

I don't understand #2.

[TaccountableC]

God created opportunities, leading to us being born. A woman cannot create a baby by herself so the baby process is not self-created, she needs help (ie. man) and even she cannot determine the outcome or development of her baby. Man can take away his bodily functions but can never add (self-create) any if he tried.

2. Micro-evolution is possible, macro-evolution isn't.

[glovergj]

That doesn't make any sense. The bible says that God created us -- and it's the first question in many catechisms of the faith. "Who made you?" But we also know that a baby develops naturally. There is no contradiction if God works through natural means to create. For Christians who accept evolution, God created all things though a process.

2. That's doesn't make any sense either -- like saying you believe in pennies, but not dollars.

Why are you so oppsed to the theory of evolution?

[TaccountableC]

I thought I explained it simply enough and it makes perfect sense since God is the creator of all. Life itself is his work and we're a part of it. I'm not sure where your scientific agenda fits into any of this, except that you can only make observations.

Haven't you heard of micro-evolution? Solves all your variations in species problem. Macro-evolution on the other hand makes no perfect sense whatsoever.

[glovergj]

All of science is based on making observations. Not sure what your point is there.

Let me get this straight: to the entire scientific community around the world, macro-evolution make perfect sense. To folks where are highly trained and spend countless hours in the field and in the laboratory collecting data, making predictions, and testing their predictions by observation, they seem to understand macro just fine....

[glovergj]

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's probably because you don't understand it. Calculus doesn't make sense to my 7-year old. But that doesn't make it wrong. I suggest you spend some looking into why the vast majority of professional scientists around the world, including a good number of evangelicals, accept macro-evolution.

[TaccountableC]

No I think it is YOU that is missing the point and not really understanding something so simple.

Transitional fossils do not exist because God didn't believe in it and neither should we!

Do you really believe in God?

But more importantly, your 7 year old may not understand calculus but he/she certainly understand that we did not come from a rock, pod, fish or lizard.

[TaccountableC]

"All of science is based on making observations."

Exactly.

"To folks where are highly trained and spend countless hours in the field and in the laboratory"

Have never been wrong in their "observations".

[glovergj]

Sure, it happens all the time. But after 150 years, nobody has come up with a better explanation for the existence of transitional fossils, and several other lines of physical evidence, than evolution. And there are no observations that suggest evolution is a bad theory -- so it is generally accepted as a useful theory. By they, God created all of the evidnece for evolution. If you ahve a problem with it, then you have a problem with how God created the universe.

[Balabaw2]

"Micro-evolution is possible, macro-evolution isn't. "

This is a big fat lie, macroevolution has been directly observed dozens and dozens of times.

watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

You might want to watch the rest of the series, especially the 9th, it deals with transitional fossils.

[leadtech000]

Sorry no. My parents did. I don't believe in a god or gods. That does not make me a bad person, its just my choice. I respect the views of others except when they try to push it down your throat.

[jimmo42]

Wonderful!!!!

"What happens when our children eventually come to the realization that the science they were taught by their Christian parents and teachers is completely useless?"

The will turn away from God. Which then creates the paradox that God created a universe which turns people away from Him.

[mikebForJesus]

Is this a modern argument used by PhD-level creationists?

[glovergj]

Yes. It is a favorite of ICR.

[godrulztheearth]

what role do you believe that god plays in relation to the creation of life and the existence of the universe? do you believe that god made the universe or do you believe the universe exists by natural means away from god?

[glovergj]

I believe that God created and sustains all things -- sometimes by natural (or ordinary) means, and sometimes by supernatural means (miracles). Science is the study of only those ordinary means where God uses repeatable and predictable patterns (ie: the laws of nature) to govern and sustain His creation. I covered this material in the first 3 lessons. You might want to catch those if you missed them.

[godrulztheearth]

i watched all 16 videos. i believe in a old universe because of the speed of light in relation to the distance of the galaxies but i dont believe in evolution, abiogenisis or the big bang away from gods power. you seem very well educated and did a good job on the videos but the evidence for evolution is massively lacking and the transitional fossil evidence is laughable like the horse and whale fossils. just 2 stages for whale transitions?

[glovergj]

Thanks, but I believe your information on transitional forms is lacking. Reptile-to-mammal and land-mammal-to-whale transitions are extrememly well documented. I suggest you do some on-line reasearch. But the best evidence for common ancestry is not the fossil record -- for all we know God made different things in different times. The real evidnece is from molecular genetics. I thought I explained this pretty good in #12 and #13. Oh well. Thanks for watching.