Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona.
I am joined by my friend Matt Powell, and if you're not sure who Matt Powell is, he has made several documentaries.
They're very good, and I encourage you to check those out when you get a chance.
Brother Powell also has been going to our church for a while. He moved out here, and he's been a part of our church.
So I've enjoyed having him as a church member, and he's going to be joining me tonight for the live stream about
astronomy, science, creation, age of the universe, etc.
Here's how this is gonna work tonight. Basically, I'm gonna start out by just doing a monologue where I go over some things about astronomy and
creation and so forth.
Matt's just gonna kind of hang out while I do that and listen to what I have to say.
Then I'm gonna give him a chance to respond to what I've said and
give his thoughts on the subject, and then we're gonna sort of dialogue back and forth after that, and then we're gonna open it up to
questions via chat,
phone call, etc.
So the phone number is gonna be, is this the right phone number, Paul? 480-519?
Yeah, yep. Okay. I'm having trouble reading your handwriting. Is that... 4999. So it's 480-519-4999.
Got it. Okay, great. 480-519-4999. That's not gonna be now though.
That's gonna be much later
when we open it up to questions.
But I haven't talked to
Brother Powell about the things that we're gonna be talking about tonight.
So I don't know if he's gonna agree with me or if he's gonna disagree, maybe a mixture of both.
So I'm really interested to get his reaction to these things because he's pretty knowledgeable about this subject.
So what got you interested in this subject, Matt? Well, my father was a creation
scientist, and so he began going around and doing seminars, and then obviously Dr. Kent Hovind
really interested me in science at a very young age.
And so I started studying science when I was young, and I just loved the study and decided to produce a film on it
with you a while ago, and that's how I got into it. All right, cool.
So anyway, let me kind of jump into
some of the material that I wanted to cover, and we're gonna cover a lot of different things tonight.
We're gonna run the gamut, astronomy, biology, geology. We're gonna cover all kinds of stuff.
But the first thing I want to talk about is astronomy and
the age of the Earth. So first of all, I just want to lay out the concept of
apparent age, and then I want to relate that to the subject of astronomy.
So just to start out tonight, apparent age is the idea that when God created this Earth,
He created it with an apparent age, meaning that it appears to have age that it does not have.
Okay, now the easiest way to understand this is with Adam. Okay, so when God created Adam and Eve,
He didn't create a fetus or a baby or a child.
He created a fully grown man, Adam, a fully grown woman, Eve. Now if you would have looked at Adam,
you would have thought, you know, that you're looking at a 30-year-old man, when in reality, he was just created yesterday.
So that's what we mean by apparent age, that, you know, God created a mature
creation, and not just Adam, but also if you looked at everything else in the Garden of Eden, the trees,
they're not little saplings.
God did not sow seeds in the Garden of Eden. The Bible says that He planted a
garden in the Garden of Eden, and so He's planting fully grown plants.
There are fully grown trees there, and if you would have examined those trees,
you might have said, oh, this tree is a hundred years old or 200 years old, when in reality, it was all brand new.
So that's the idea of apparent age, and before I go any further,
I just want to make it really clear where I stand on the subject of creation.
Number one is that I believe that the Earth is approximately six thousand three hundred years old.
I believe that the universe is approximately six thousand three hundred years old, meaning that before that, it didn't exist, okay?
So, you know, there's no millions of years ago, billions of years ago,
because everything was created
approximately six thousand three hundred years ago. I'm sure you agree with that, and
not only that, I don't believe in the gap theory. I don't believe in the day age theory. I believe in a literal
six-day creation, and
I believe in the flood. I believe that, you know, the literal flood account of the Bible.
So I just want to make that clear going into this as I explain this.
So when we talk about the apparent age of the Earth, obviously Adam had apparent age.
That's pretty easy to understand, and then we can, you know, think about the rest of the Earth.
Think about the trees and other things that God created.
Also, God created things like mountains,
rivers, valleys. Even in the book of Genesis, right at the beginning, the Bible talks about rivers that are there, and
you know, even with the flood, there were mountains that were already there that were covered by the flood, and so forth.
So it's not just Adam that had an apparent age, but also the entire planet,
I believe, has an apparent age. The Earth has apparent age, and then I think that we could even
expand that out even further, and say that the universe has an apparent age.
Now a lot of people will bring up what's called the starlight problem.
You know, they'll bring up the fact that there are stars that are
supposedly millions of light-years away, and I believe that they really are that far away.
I think there's plenty of evidence for the fact that they are that far away.
So, you know, if these stars are millions of light-years away, and it would take, you know,
supposedly a million years for the light to get here,
then how can we see those stars that are that far away? And I'm gonna give what I believe is the answer
to that question tonight of
why we can see those things. Now, here's the basic concept that I want to lay out tonight.
And that is that when God
created the universe, He created it to have an apparent age,
just like Adam and everything else. Now, let me illustrate this to you, okay? So Adam,
he was never born. Like, he never came out of a mother's womb.
He never was breastfed. He never had a childhood. He was never a teenager.
He just started out life as an adult, okay? He just started as an adult.
But there are lots of other people that we could see who are born, and they have childhoods,
teenage years, etc. Okay. Now, I believe that our solar system is the same way, okay?
We can look out into space, and we can see all these other
galaxies and other stars within our own galaxy. And just to be clear, within our galaxy,
there are literally billions of stars with a B.
Billions of stars just in our own galaxy, and then there are billions of galaxies, okay?
And here's the thing, out there amongst all these stars,
they're at different stages of their life. There are stars that are being born,
there are stars that are at different stages of their lifespan, and there are stars that die.
And not only that, but there are planets that are being formed in these star systems.
There are moons that are being formed in the star system. So just as Adam
never had a birth or a childhood, but yet he just started as an adult,
but yet we see other human beings that actually are going through those processes of being born and whatever. And when God created Adam,
you know, he obviously in his mind when he created Adam,
he already knew the whole process of what it would take to go from being a baby to an adult.
So Adam is sort of built in with that backstory
that's there. And that's why I think the question of whether Adam had a belly button,
you know, people bring that up as like a silly question.
I actually think that that's a crucial important point, that Adam for sure had a belly button,
because of the fact that God created a mature adult Adam that appeared as if he went through the normal life process up to that point.
Now he had a belly button that's basically evidence for an umbilical cord that was never attached,
because he never actually had an umbilical cord attached there, but yet he has the belly button.
So he looks like he went through the process. Do you see what I'm saying?
Okay, so
specifically, you know, I want to talk about the moon, okay?
Now if you look up at the moon,
you can see that the moon is covered in an incredible number of craters, okay?
And the thing about this is that,
you know, you don't, you can just, there's the image on the screen.
All you need is a pair of binoculars to see the craters on the moon.
I just have a cheap pair of binoculars, 30 bucks on Amazon. I was able to go outside, no problem, and
actually make out craters on the moon clearly, and I could see them well.
Now if you have a telescope, you're gonna be able to even see more detail.
But if you look at the, that image on the screen on the left,
that is a picture, see that's the rear side of the moon that's on the screen right now. On the left right there,
that's the, that's the side of the moon that faces us.
That's the side that we're familiar with. And then on the right side of the screen is
the rear side of the moon, which even has a greater number of craters.
I'm gonna show you
some of the features here, Matt, on these
pictures of the moon. Can you pull up, Paul, the lunar maria picture one?
So there's, there's a certain feature on the moon
that's referred to as the lunar maria, and that's these large gray patches
that really stand out. Now notice on this gray patch on the moon, notice
how smooth it is, and how it has very few impact craters.
But then when you look at the parts that are not in the maria, they just have a ton of craters.
Okay, now if you look at these images of the maria, it's, it's obvious
the order of events here. It's crystal clear that the meteors
mostly hit first, and then this gray patch came later, because obviously it would make no sense
that this gray patch just happened to barely get hit by any meteors, and the whole rest of the moon just got
bombarded.
Okay, and if you look carefully at the image on the screen on the bottom left, you can see that there are
impact craters on
the edge of the maria there that are partially filled in with the gray surfacing,
but you can still see basically the shadows of the craters under there. So to me,
it's, it's perfectly obvious here that the moon was battered by a bazillion
impacts, and then later
these maria appeared and
covered up a lot of the craters, and then you'll only have a few craters in the maria, relatively speaking, because of the fact that
you know, most of the impacts occurred before they were formed. Now, now what are these big gray patches on the moon?
Well, there's some kind of a volcanic activity. Basically, there's some kind of a molten
substance coming out of the moon that kind of filled in and pooled up in those basins.
So after the moon was hit with a whole bunch of
impacts and had all those craters, bazillion craters, then
those areas were filled in afterward with what we call the lunar maria, or the large gray patches, and it's, it's super easy to
see the order of events here. Now, here's the point I want to make.
The moon is
not geologically active today. I think it's pretty obvious that the moon is as dead as a doornail, and
that it hasn't been
geologically active any time recently. So here's what I believe about the moon.
I do not believe that all of those craters on the moon,
nor the maria that you see, I don't believe that those are from the last six thousand three hundred years.
What I would say is that the moon was created already having
impact craters all over it, already having the maria in place, and that this stuff is not from the last
six thousand three hundred years, okay? Now, I feel like a lot of creation science guys,
they feel like they have to try to cram everything into the last six thousand three hundred years,
when in reality, if you understand this concept of apparent age,
it's totally not necessary, because I don't believe that God created the moon as just a smooth sphere. I believe that he created it
already having
craters,
maria, and that it was already formed with most of those features, and that very few of those crater impacts are from the last
six thousand three hundred years. Now, here's the thing about that. I believe that just as Adam has a hypothetical
backstory of
a childhood that never happened, teenage years that never happened, a birth, and an umbilical cord that never happened,
I think that the whole universe is the same way.
I think there's a there's a back story for how the earth was formed, a back story for how the moon was formed, a
backstory for how the sun was born, and how it got up to this point.
I'm not saying that those things happened in the case of our solar system, because like I said,
I believe it was created out of nothing
six thousand three hundred years ago. But I do believe that elsewhere in the universe,
other star systems are being born, and
planets are being formed, moons are being formed, and if we look at the processes by which they're formed,
basically the way it works is, you know, they start out very hot,
they're spinning, and they're extremely hot, like we think of our own planet Earth, how it's just filled with
molten
stone and metal, okay, and it's in the process of cooling. Now, how fast things cool
depends on their surface area to volume ratio. It's sort of like if you had a really hot
piece of pie or something, right? And the inside is gonna stay hot longer,
but if you cut it up and open it up, then it's gonna cool down a lot faster,
because the surface area is great. So when you look at really small planets,
they're gonna cool down way faster, and bigger planets are gonna take a lot longer to cool down. So if you look at
the terrestrial planets in our solar system, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, and
then let's include the moon as a fifth body there, okay? Well, the smallest planet is Mercury, and
the moon is like
approximately two-thirds the diameter of Mercury. So it's similar in
size to Mercury, and if you look at the moon and Mercury, they pretty much look
very much alike, you know, that the craters look similar, a lot of the features look similar. Then you look at
Mars, and it's like, you know, partway between the size of, say, Mercury and Earth. It's somewhere in between the size.
And then you have Venus, which is pretty much the same size as our planet Earth. Now, here's the thing.
Mercury and the moon are not
geologically active at all. They're not volcanically active whatsoever, because they would have, and I emphasize the word would have,
cooled down a long, long time ago. Like, if this were a natural process
millions of years ago, or actually billions of years ago, okay?
Whereas big planets like Earth and Venus would still be
geologically active much later, why the Earth is quite geologically active, and so is Venus, which is one of the reasons
why Earth and Venus don't have
the same amount of craters. Obviously, we have an atmosphere protecting us from
some of these things that would crash into us.
But also part of it is that, you know, various impact craters on the Earth have long since been erased.
Just like the maria on the moon erased a lot of the craters, you know,
volcanic activity on the Earth,
plate tectonics,
erosion is going to erase a lot of our craters. That's why the the meteor crater in Arizona is so famous.
It's not the biggest, but it's the most well-preserved crater, because most craters aren't so well-preserved on Earth.
Whereas on the moon and Mercury, they're
typically quite well-preserved. So the point that I'm making is that when God created the Earth,
I believe that he created our solar system to look like it's four and a half billion years old,
even though it's not. Because he created it as an adult, just like he created the Earth as an adult.
So basically, I don't reject, I don't reject the views of modern astronomy when it comes to how
stars are formed, how solar, like, our star systems are formed, how planets are formed, how the moon was formed.
Because I just don't believe that that stuff I see on the moon happened in the last six thousand three hundred years,
I would just say that it was already like that when God created it, because he created it with like a hypothetical backstory, and
even though that didn't actually happen in the case of the Earth and the moon,
it is happening and has happened in other parts of the universe.
So when I, whenever I go, let's say I go to a museum and
I'm at a science museum and they say,
you know, this happened ten million years ago.
Now, my reaction typically used to be like, oh, well, they must be wrong about that date, that must have actually happened more recently.
But, but here's the thing, there's actually a second option that makes as much sense, or even more sense in many cases.
So I would say that, A, either they're wrong about the date and it actually happened more recently, or B,
it was just already like that when God created it.
So I feel like a lot of times creation science is just too hasty to press the flood button,
where just anytime something seems old or doesn't seem to add up with their view,
it's just like, oh, that was the flood, that was the flood, so much so that I literally googled what creation scientists were saying about
the moon and the craters and the maria and everything, and I kid you not, they literally said, oh, well, that's the flood.
I'm like, how can the flood have anything to do with,
you know, how the moon looks? But they're like, well, perhaps, you know, a meteor shower had something to do with the flood, or so it's like,
what in the world? Because it's like they just have to make
all of those craters be new, and all that, those features be new.
I don't think that it has to be. I feel like the, the, the science
that's out there from an astronomy perspective can actually coexist with the Bible,
no problem, if you just understand the idea of a parent age.
Now, Matt, what do you think about what I'm saying right now? What are your thoughts on these subjects?
I think that the earth was created with an apparent age, and obviously, you know, atheists always bring up the chicken and the egg problem,
and obviously, as creationists, we know that it was the chicken, and it would have had to have been a fully formed chicken.
You know, the Lord didn't just create Adam and Eve in the garden as babies.
Obviously, they would have had to have been full-grown humans.
You know, the Bible says that the Lord walked with Adam, and so
it's clear that the earth was created with an apparent age and the moon. That, that makes perfect sense to me,
and that seems consistent with the scientific theories that are out there,
even on the creationist websites.
So, some of those creationists might even agree with you on some of that, because of the fact that
we all agree that the universe is young, and that things are winding down. And so, whether they were created with
that apparent look that the, that the moon has, that look that it has, or
whether it took a bunch of asteroids to create that, which I find pretty, pretty crazy to believe.
You know, either way, we believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, and
I think that that makes perfect sense with what science teaches, as well as what the Bible teaches.
Because the Bible does say that these things were created with apparent age, if you look at mankind.
Yeah, so, so what do you, what do you think about the idea of, you know, other stars out in the universe,
with their own planets, and their own moons, and everything like that?
I don't think there's, I think obviously there's other stars out there. There's 76 tillion,
I believe, that we currently know of, and that's as far as we can measure out there.
And so, I would say there's probably more beyond that.
I would say on this, for me personally, I would say it's one of those things where I see through a glass darkly.
I'm not a hundred percent sure if there's other galaxies out there.
But if there is, atheists will often say, well, see, the Big Bang is still making things expand.
But I would just, you know, it just means the universe is that much larger, and God would be that much smaller.
And what I say is that it shows that even amongst the large universe that we see,
even if it is super large,
that we would mean something to God. That we're this small, and this large.
Well, this is the only place where there's life. The only place. Because even if, you know,
just the fact that there are all these other galaxies and planets and stars, a lot of times the
non-believing scientists will try to say, like, there's nothing special about us. Right. We're just another planet.
It's just another typical star. Our star is a pretty typical star.
And our planet and our moon and everything, you know, you'll find these things elsewhere.
But you know what? The one thing you're never gonna find anywhere else is life.
So that's what makes it unique, right? Right. Well, the law of biogenesis,
you know, people that claim to believe in evolution, and that are atheistic, they believe in a biogenesis. Something that we've never observed.
You know, the first part of the scientific method is to make an observation.
And so if we can't make this observation of life coming from non-life,
it doesn't qualify as science, and it's fundamentally unscientific.
I was in a debate recently, and the atheist said, well, I asked the atheist, I said, hey, have we ever seen one instance?
I said, just show me one instance of life coming from non-life. And he says, no, but would we expect to, Matt?
And the answer would be yes, if the Earth is billions of years old.
And he said, well, how can we expect this second Genesis?
And how could the chemicals be so complex, you know, complex enough to start a second Genesis?
And I looked at him and I said, look, if you believe that the chemicals are becoming more and more complex over time,
we should see more now of a biogenesis happening on a microscopic level now than we ever would have millions of years ago,
if a biogenesis was true.
But obviously, we've never seen life come from non-life, and we never will, because only God could create life.
So since you brought up the subject of a biogenesis, I did prepare some video clips.
I was going to do it later, but we might as well get into it now.
But I prepared some video clips.
There's a guy called Carl Sagan, OK?
And this guy, to a lot of atheists, he's like their prophet.
He's their hero. I'm sure you've heard of him.
Yes. I mean, he really has had a big influence, especially on people that are into astronomy and people that are into science.
He's a big hero to them.
So he put together this video series back in the 1970s that was super popular called Cosmos, and it won all these awards and everything.
It's a really big deal.
And I want to play a couple of clips from this where he talks about this subject of a biogenesis.
So the first clip I want to play, it's about two minutes long, and it's about he starts talking about just how complex DNA is and these nucleic acids are.
So, Paul, can we go ahead and cue up that clip?
These necklaces, these intricately looped and coiled strands are nucleic acids, DNA.
Everything you need to know on how to make a human being is encoded in the language of life, in the DNA molecule.
This is the DNA double helix, a machine with about 100 billion moving parts called atoms.
There are as many atoms in one molecule of DNA as there are stars in a typical galaxy.
That's 2.9 million of nucleotides here, brightly colored, is all that's passed on from generation to generation.
Change the order of the nucleotides and you change the genetic instructions.
DNA must replicate itself with extreme fidelity.
The reproduction of a DNA molecule begins by separating the two helices.
This is accomplished by an unwinding enzyme, like some precision tool.
This enzyme, shown in blue, breaks the chemical bonds that connect the nucleotides and bind the two helices of DNA together.
The enzyme works its way down the molecule, unzipping DNA as it goes.
Each helix copies the other, supervised by special enzymes.
The organic soup inside the nucleus contains many free nucleotides.
The enzyme recognizes an approaching nucleotide and clicks it into place, reproducing another rung in the double helix.
When the DNA is replicating in one of your cells, a few dozen nucleotides are added every second.
Thousands of these enzymes may be working on a given DNA molecule.
When an arriving nucleotide doesn't fit, the enzyme throws it away.
We call this proofreading. On the rare occasions of a proofreading error, the wrong nucleotide is attached
and a small random change has been made in the genetic instructions. A mutation has occurred.
This enzyme is a pretty small molecule, but it catches nucleotides, it assembles them in the right order,
it knows how to proofread, it's responsible in the most fundamental way
for the reproduction of every cell and every being on Earth.
That enzyme and DNA itself are molecular machines with awesome powers.
All right, so Matt, I mean, that's pretty mind-blowing that that's what's going on in every cell of our body.
I mean, we have just so many trillions of these strands of DNA in our bodies and they're so incredibly complex.
So the human genome has like 2.9 billion base pairs. We have like 30,000 genes.
I mean, is that mind-blowing or what?
That's definitely mind-blowing. It reminds me of what Richard Dawkins said, and this is where
he shoots himself in the foot. He said, and I quote, he said that, what did he say?
Excuse me. He said that the simplest life has the amount of specified complexity in it
of over 1,000 complete sets of encyclopedias. So to me, saying that that came about on its own
is like literally saying that the Library of Congress came about by an explosion in a
printing shop. That's literally the equivalent of what they're saying. Yeah, totally.
I've asked atheists, can a space shuttle design itself? Because that's built exactly like a space
shuttle would be with several different parts. They'll always say, well, no, but DNA could.
Yet DNA is more complex than a space shuttle. So everything that they say doesn't make any
sense. It's not based on any sort of logic or science. And I always say that atheists do not
believe in science. If somebody claims atheism and says that molecules designed themselves and
that DNA designed itself, that is unscientific. Well, he's going to say that in a minute.
We're going to get to that clip where he says that it assembles itself. Yeah, that's insane.
We've never observed it. So why would they call it science unless they have an agenda to push
on us? So they're out of bounds a little bit on that. I mean, here's the thing. A lot of
things that scientists do are legitimate, but to make a claim, that's an extraordinary claim to
say that that assembled itself and it should be rejected out of hand unless there's proof for
it. Absolutely. I mean, I was in a debate one time where the atheist said, well, I don't
know how you can believe that Mary would conceive as a virgin. How could you believe that?
And I'm thinking, man, you believe that a rock conceived. You literally believe that a rock
conceived. The same guy goes, well, I can't believe that you believe there was this Jewish
man that died and resurrected from the dead. And I looked at him, I said, hey, would you look
at what you're saying? You believe every living cell came to life by itself through spontaneous
generation. That's quite a resurrection. That is quite a resurrection. Well, here's the
thing, too. When when the theory of evolution came out, they didn't know how complex this stuff
was. So we know more today that actually just shows how preposterous this idea of a biogenesis
is because they didn't know about DNA in Charles Darwin's time, did they? I mean, did they
have no clue? They referred to it as spontaneous generation life coming from nonlife. And Ernst
Takel, the co-founder of evolution, he said, and I quote, he said that spontaneous generation
must be true. Now, if I said something must be true, that sounds desperate, right?
Well, he said spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in the
laboratory, but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creator. So we can't
have that now, can we? Can't have that now. Here's the thing about it. So, you know,
you might be tempted to think like that simple organisms like an amoeba or a paramecium or
something would just have much simpler DNA. You know, well, you're, you know,
when you talk about 2.9 billion base pairs, you're talking about the human genome.
But in fact, the creature on this earth, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that the creature on this earth that has the most complex DNA is called
amoeba dubia, and it has like 670 billion base pairs. So we have 2.9 billion, and there's
an amoeba out there that has 670 billion. And there are no organisms on this planet that
have simple DNA, doesn't exist. You know, because if they want us to believe that supposedly,
well, when life started, it started simple, and then it got more complicated. But yet we
don't see any organisms with simple DNA. All DNA is like an encyclopedia, excuse me,
like a whole building full of encyclopedias. So the DNA is so unbelievably complex.
And did you see in that video that that enzyme that's proofreading and checking and
assembling the puzzle? Right. Yeah, I'm sure I'm sure that just came about by chance,
according to them. That's what they say. They'll say you're you're crazy for believing in
intelligent design, as they call it, or what the Bible says. Yeah, but they have no problem
believing that. Well, here's some Bible verses. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the
earth. But here's another great verse. Okay. In Second Thessalonians chapter three,
I believe it says that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men for all men
have not faith. Right. So the Bible saying that the people who don't have faith
are being unreasonable. Of course, they don't believe in the laws of science. They don't
believe in the law of a biogenesis. They don't believe it because the law of biogenesis states
that life cannot come from non-life. So in order to be an atheist, they have to claim
that life came from non-life and therefore violate the law of biogenesis. That's the first
law they violate. They also violate. Well, we just don't understand yet how that
encyclopedia system assembled itself. Right, but they believe and they'll defend it against
all reason. And even though we bring all the reasons to believe that the Lord would do it,
and they'll always say, well, you believe in magic. You Christian. I was out on the street.
This atheist said, well, you believe in magic. And I said, okay, what's magical.
Somebody creating something out of nothing or nobody creating something out of nothing.
And he walked off the set because he was in and I asked him to give me my microphone back
because he was walking off with my mic. But I just asked them very basic questions
about astrology or astronomy. And they have no answer. Hey, they probably don't have
any answers about astrology either. Hey, so, so back to the, the, the video. Okay.
So I think that the viewer at home sees from just that short clip we showed the conversation
we're having right now, just how incredibly complex DNA is. And it's in every cell of our
body. It's in every single cell organism, every lizard and bird and bacteria. Even I was even
looking at certain like viruses like E. Coli back or a Coli bacteria. And like the HIV
virus, even they just have this incredible coding in them. Okay. I'm sure the coven 19,
you know, has got some coding to talk up. Let's not talk about that. Right. But anyway,
so, so it's incredibly complex. Now, Carl Sagan is going to be so deceptive.
In these next video clips that I'm going to show, he basically does this bait and switch,
and he basically tries to imply that this has been recreated in a laboratory.
And he, he basically does say that it assembles itself. Watch these clips and watch the bait
and switch that happens. So let's go ahead and play the next clip, please, Paul, where,
where he starts out asking, you know, actually, I'm sorry, he talks about it being a dismal
failure. Can you play that clip, please? But what was the early atmosphere made of
ordinary air? If we start with our present atmosphere, the experiment is a dismal failure.
Instead of making proteins and nucleic acids, all we make is smog a backward step.
Why doesn't such an experiment work? Because the air of today contains molecular oxygen.
Okay, now I want to I want you to pay very close attention to what he said there. He said,
if we use the air of today, because and just explain what that experiment is. It was
originally called the Miller-Urey experiment, where they're going to try to recreate the the
atmosphere of the early planet Earth, and the gases that were there and the forces that were
there and try to basically, you know, bring forth life from non life or try to figure out
where life came from, by trying to produce in the laboratory. Okay, it was done in 1952 by
Miller and Urey. That guy on screen is recreating that experiment. Okay, now notice what he
said. I want you to pay very close attention to this at home as well, folks. He said that if
we use today's atmosphere, it would be a dismal failure. Okay, he said it would be a dismal
failure. And how did he define a dismal failure? He said, well, instead of making nucleic acids,
we just be making smog. Now, doesn't that imply that he's going to make some nucleic acids?
And just to just to be clear, folks, you know, nucleic acids are DNA. The NA there is nucleic
acid, RNA, DNA. Okay, so he's basically saying that if you can't make nucleic acids,
amino acids, then it's gonna be a dismal failure. But instead, it's a big success because
okay, now let's look at the results of their experiment. Let's see what they end up making.
Do they make smog or they make nucleic acids? You be the judge.
The starting gases are now introduced into a large reaction vessel. We could shine
ultraviolet light on this mixture simulating the early sun. But in this experiment,
the gases will be sparked as the primitive atmosphere was by early lightning.
After
only a few hours, the interior of the reaction vessel becomes streaked with a strange brown
pigment, a rich collection of complex organic molecules, including the building blocks of the
proteins and the nucleic acids. Under the right conditions, these building blocks
assemble themselves into molecules resembling little proteins and little nucleic acids.
These nucleic acids can even make identical copies of themselves.
Oh, but not yet the music itself. It's the notes of the music.
It's the notes of the music of life.
There's still a great deal to be understood about the origin of life,
including the origin of the genetic code.
Yeah, there's a great deal to be understood because you basically just accomplished
nothing. You accomplished precisely nothing there. You covered your vial in brown sludge.
Thank God you didn't make smog. Right. You made brown liquid sludge. And think about how
stupid this is. He said, you know, instead of making nucleic acids, we would just be making
smog. Son, you didn't make nucleic acid. And then notice how he does a bait and switch
where he says, we've made this and it's the building blocks of nucleic acids. And then he
says, under the right circumstances, they will assemble themselves. Okay. So it's going to assemble
itself, but did we see it do that? Did he show us that? Did he produce any nucleic acids? Did
he produce any DNA? Did he produce any amino acids or life forms? No, but he produced complex
molecules that are the building blocks. Everything's the building blocks.
Atoms are the building blocks. Molecules are the building box.
Folks, it's not about making the building blocks. It's about actually making the DNA and
it actually being alive and actually creating a living creature or life or anything remotely
resembling the DNA of an amoeba or any plant or any animal on this planet.
By his own definition, that experiment was a dismal failure. And it doesn't matter if you play all
this. And look, I love the music. I love classical music. I was enjoying the Canon and D
while the enzymes were building the nucleic acids. And I was enjoying that triumphant music
there. But you know what? They're messing with you by basically doing this bait and switch,
building you up that this experiment is going to be a success, telling you it's going to be
a success, and then just doing this bait and switch. See, look, we made building blocks.
And then the big triumphant. Yeah, it reminds me of a time where I was in a debate
about two years ago with a man by the name of the Raging Atheist. And I told him, I said,
Look, man, we've never created life. I don't care what you say. I don't care what you think.
We have never created life. And he responded back. He's like, Well, what do you mean we've
never created life? What about all these experiments? And I just stopped him right there.
I said, Look, I said, Stop right there. I said, Even if we did create life, it would
prove that it takes intelligence to create life. So either way, it's not going to go the
atheist's way. Even if we could put these things together, and they assemble themselves,
like a space shuttle that would assemble itself, that would improve any symbol themselves.
Right, right. But that's what they believe. They'll say it's nonsense. How can something
can an encyclopedia assemble itself? And an encyclopedia assembling itself
would be so much easier than the DNA assembling itself.
Right. Well, I always like to tell them that their worldview is impossible.
And they always get frustrated with that. They say, Well, what do you mean? Well,
the odds of a functional protein coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 164th power.
And they'll say, Well, there's still a chance. Well, that odd has to take place
trillions of times over. Sorry, that's the chance of what?
A functional protein coming into existence by chance. The odds of that are not alive.
That's still not a lot of DNA, right? But they believe that, you know, it'll eventually evolve
into DNA. So here's the thing, since if they think that 10 to the 164th power could happen
by chance, they'll believe all sorts of wild stuff. And they always say, Well, there's still
a chance that it could happen. There's still that little slim chance. Well, let me play the
devil's advocate with you here for a minute, because I if there is a chance of DNA assembling
itself, then I think it would eventually happen according to their model. And let me tell you
why. Okay, okay. Let me because I wanted to get onto the subject anyway, and I'll get your
thoughts on it. But you know, life elsewhere in the universe. Okay, now I believe that there
is no life anywhere else in the universe, right? My belief is that Earth is the only place
where there's any life whatsoever. Do you agree with that? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Well, here's
the thing. I was out soloing, I knocked on a guy's door. And he told me that he studies
at ASU. He told me that he was specializing in ASU in astrobiology. And I was like,
astrobiology. I'm like, Astro star biology. I'm like, Are you looking for life on other planets?
Yes. That's like a major for him. And I say, Hey, did you find any? Nope. And I said,
I don't think you're going to and he's like, Well, maybe I won't. I don't know.
But, but this is a whole field for them. Okay. Now, now here, here are my thoughts on this. Okay.
If there were a any kind of a probability, let's say it's one in so many trillion or one in so
many quadrillions. Here's the logic. Okay. Our galaxy alone has billions of stars in it.
And there are billions of galaxies. We know that to be true. And we don't even know how much
there is because there's so much that's beyond what we can observe. No one's ever found an end
to the universe. It just goes on and on and on. And nobody even knows how far it goes.
So the idea is that no matter how low the probability is, because you have so many
billions times billions times billions of chances. Now here's the way I look at it. Okay.
Let's say I reach into a bag and the bag has five red marbles, seven green marbles,
and 12 blue marbles, right? And you ask, you know, what's the probability of me pulling out
a yellow marble? The probability is zero. There are no yellow marbles in the bag.
Now, what if I reach in the bag a billion times? Eventually I'm going to pull out a yellow
marble, right? No, it doesn't matter. So here's the thing. In order to calculate the
probability of finding life on another planet, here's what you'd have to do. You'd have to
take the number of chances, right? Multiply it by the probability. Well, I'm saying the probability
of DNA assembling itself is precisely zero. And any number times zero is zero. Exactly.
So therefore, now if there is life somewhere else in the universe, which I do not believe
for one second, it would have to be through a direct creative act by God. Of course. Because
of the fact that life cannot spring up on its own. Exactly. Yeah. And it reminds me of what I
always like to tell atheists and what other creationists will often tell atheists is, look,
you know, we will lay out the odds and we'll say, okay, this is according to them. So the
odds are that 10 to the 10 to the 164 powers of protein coming to existence by chance.
And they'll say, well, it's still possible. Well, Stephen Hawking, who we're both familiar
with said, and I quote, he said, we are a mathematical impossibility.
Impossibility. I agree with Stephen Hawking on that. And Stephen Hawking also said that it'd be
very, he said that it'd be very hard to explain why the universe would come into being
without a designer. It'd be very hard and it is hard to explain for them.
And so they believe in impossibilities, but with God, all things are possible. Now,
now here's the thing. Let's say they have those personal beliefs.
Let's say they have a personal belief in no God, no creator, a biogenesis.
Shouldn't they keep that separate from science? Because I have, I have my personal
beliefs that aren't based on science. Uh, you know, I have beliefs in things that are
based on the word of God, religious beliefs that I have philosophical views that I have
that have nothing to do with science, but I don't pretend that they're science. You know,
I've separated these things in my mind and I feel like scientists need to stay in their lane
and describe the things that actually are real, can be observed, you know,
theories that are tested and proven and not get out of their lane and go out of bounds and
start talking about life coming into existence on its own. That's not science. That's science
falsely so-called reminds me of what Charles Darwin said when he said, and I quote, he said,
you know, I've also, he says, I've often examined my views of evolution and he says,
and I've wondered if I've dedicated my life to a fantasy. Charles Darwin wondered if he
dedicated his life to a fantasy. And here's the thing I don't believe,
and I'm not sure if you totally agree with me on this or not, but, but I personally
do not believe that biblical creation is science. I don't, I believe that it's a matter of faith.
I believe that, you know, believing the literal creation story in the Bible,
which I believe it, no doubt about it, that God created the earth in six literal days,
you know, and just as the Bible says that the Bible is the truth,
but I believe that that's a matter of faith. I don't think that that's science because it's,
it's, it doesn't matter. It doesn't meet the criteria. And when we say science, you know,
we mean kind of the modern agreed upon definition of what science is. I don't believe it
meets the criteria of the hallmarks of science, but neither does a biogenesis, right? I mean,
would you require faith? And that's what's important for them to understand is that
their worldview requires faith. Just like mine requires faith. I've put my faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ. They put their faith in science, falsely so-called and things that we've never
observed. Yeah. So, yeah. So what would you say, you know, back to what I started this,
this live stream, the subject that we talked about at the very beginning,
what if I told you, what if I said, you know what? I pretty much accept virtually all of what modern
astronomy teaches, even though I reject, I reject a biogenesis. I reject macro evolution.
I think that macro evolution is a pseudo science. I don't believe that it ever happened.
I don't believe that it ever will happen. I don't believe it ever would or could happen.
Okay. So I reject that biology side, but what if I told you, I actually think that the science
of astronomy and physics in regard to the universe is legitimate. And that I think
that the theories about how stars and planets and moons form are good theories that are,
that are sound and that they have a lot of evidence. And, you know, I don't see any conflict
with the Bible with any of those things because of apparent age. Of course. Do you think,
do you think that, uh, what do you think about that? Well, everything was created within apparent
age and there's no doubt about that. And so I think that your view is 100% correct.
And I'm not saying that just to be a yes, man, you know, I'll stand on that. Um, just cause
it's what the Bible says. It comes from the Bible. Because if Adam had an apparent age,
if the trees had an apparent age, if God created the earth, we know he created it with rocks,
rivers, mountains, et cetera, then it makes sense that everything has apparent age.
Of course. So, so I was thinking about this, let's say I were sitting down to write a book,
right. And I was thinking about brother Jimenez, his new book, you know, he wrote the
children's book with his wife about Herb Meyer. Are you familiar with that? Yes. Yeah. So,
you know, he created characters in the book, right? So, you know, Herb Meyer's dad in the
book is an adult, right? And let's say, okay, so the adventures of her Meyer,
here's the thing about that. Whenever you sit down and write a book, you create a backstory
for the characters, right? So let's say you're creating her Meyer and his parents,
you know, you're, you're going to pick a certain age for her Meyer. You're going to
pick an age for his parents. You're going to pick a background. In fact, perhaps in a
Herb Meyer book, maybe there would even be a flashback where, where one of the characters
would say, Hey, you know, maybe the dad would say, Hey, back when I was a kid,
here's what happened to me. And he's talking about events from 20 years ago,
even though this book was just written a few months ago. So these, the character Herb Meyer
didn't exist until 2019. Right. But he could have a backstory that he's 30 years old,
20 years ago, there was no her Meyer. Okay. But in the book, we're flashing back to things
like that. Do you kind of understand what I'm saying? Absolutely. So So here's the thing,
when God sat down and created the universe, he gave it a backstory.
You know, just like Adam's got a belly button, because you know, he has a backstory.
God fought that through before he created Adam of like, what it's like for a human being to grow
up and, you know, be born and nurse and grow up and go through the teenage years and whatever.
So So here's the thing. What if what if God basically created the earth to be a 4.5
billion year old? Amen. I mean, what's wrong with that? Right? Because it doesn't mean that
it's been around for 4.5 billion years, because it clearly hasn't, because God basically created
it midstream. He, he put us here with the sun in the middle of its life. Right, you know, and,
and the earth and the moon and everything are in the middle of their lives. So what if he
created a 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system? I'm not saying
that they're that old. And if people are just tuning in right now, I just want to make this
crystal clear. I believe that the whole universe was created about 6300 years ago. I believe in
literal six day creation. I do not believe in the gap theory. I do not believe in the day age
theory. I believe that it was literally created x knee hello, out of nothing, approximately 6300
years ago, but I believe it was created to look old, just like Adam was created to look old.
God didn't put a fetus in the garden. And so here's the problem with the day age theory,
okay? And, and the day age theory is where they say, well, when the Bible says day,
it's actually referring to millions of years. It's just like an unspecified period of time.
Here's the problem with that theory. If that were true, you'd have to make the sun, moon, and
stars on day one. I mean, the first thing you'd make if you're going with a day age theory,
the first thing that would happen would be the sun, the stars, the moon, that stuff would have
happened real early on, long before you start talking about plants. But yet, I think God
purposely mixed up the order there by creating the earth on day one, light and darkness on day
one. Day two, He creates the atmosphere and the water. Day three, He creates the dry land and
the plants, right? And then day four, He creates the sun, moon, and stars.
That makes no sense with the day age theory, right? It's ridiculous at all, you know,
because you'd put that on day one. I think God purposely did it in that order so that we
wouldn't get that kind of an idea. I mean, there are many reasons why it's in that order.
There are other theological reasons why it's in that order. And I've preached on it and
talked about the order and stuff like that. But just, just doesn't that just kind of
blow the day age theory out of the water? Of course. The Lord set so many things in His Word
that defy evolution, defy the day age theory, defy the gap theory. God's Word literally defies
everything. And if we look around us in the world, for example, the magnetic field that
we're surrounded by in this earth is deteriorating. And in 2,000 years, it will
be completely deteriorated to the point where human beings will die from the radiation from
the sun. Now, that sounds a little wild, right? I'm going to fact check that. I don't
think I agree with that. That sounds pretty wild. You're putting an expiration date on our planet
of like 2,000 years from now. Right. You actually, that's what you think? Well, I've
heard a lot of creationists make that claim, and I've seen their sources. And I'm just saying
that not necessarily the planet would be gone, but life itself in 2,000 years from now
would actually die from the radiation from the sun. I'm personally not buying that.
Right. But here, let me give just a little criticism of creation science in general. Sure.
Okay. I feel like they're always trying to cram everything into the last 6,300 years,
when I think a lot of it is explained by apparent age instead. And so what I think is
that creation scientists often have an agenda of trying to prove the Bible with science,
because if they can prove that the earth is only 6,400 years old, then they feel like that's
a step toward proving that the Bible is really true. So they feel like if we're living on a
young earth, you know, that proves the Bible. Okay. Whereas I don't believe that you can prove
a young earth. I don't believe that at all, because I don't, in fact, I'm not even sure
if I agree with the term young earth, because I think he created an old earth.
It's just, he created it old. So, so my point is like, like, I think that, I think that the
reason why a lot of these guys want to really prove like it can, it can't be old.
It can only be 6,400 years old or whatever is because of the fact that they want scientific
proof for the Bible. I don't believe there is any, I believe that without faith, it is
impossible to please him. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seeketh. And I believe the Bible because of the word itself,
I believe the word of God is powerful. And because of the Holy Spirit and the word itself,
that's why I believe the Bible. And I'm not looking for proof, because nothing,
nothing will change the fact that I believe in the Bible. So I'm not trying to prove the
Bible. I'm not trying to use science to prove the Bible. I just want the Bible and science
to jive. Because if they don't jive, something's wrong. Either, either my understanding of the
Bible's wrong, or my understanding of the reality of our natural world's wrong if they disagree.
They should agree. If I'm properly understanding both, if they're both true,
which I believe that reality is true, and I believe that the word of God is true,
they must be compatible. I believe that you can scientifically, or that you can basically
show that the Bible and science are compatible. But I don't believe that science proves that the
earth is young, because I don't, because I believe it's created to look old. Right.
You kind of see what I'm saying? Of course. And that does go against the mainstream creationist
ideology that I come out of. And on some things, it's going to be, let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind. But at the end of the day, we agree that the earth was created
6,000 years ago. And you definitely could be right. And I'm in agreement as far as the
the apparent age that the earth has, because everything had to have been brought into
existence with apparent age. There's no getting around that, for sure. And I think, I think
that I think that every creation scientist talks about apparent age and believes in apparent age
on some level. I just don't think they take it far enough. It's kind of like they, they use
it for certain things. They talk about it a little bit, but then on the other hand, you see them just
turning around and trying to cram everything into the last 6,300 years. And then when something
doesn't fit, they just push the flood button. It's sort of like that meme, you know, that meme
with the blue button. Yup. I feel like just, you know, anybody brings up any fact about
something that seems old, it's just like flood, flood. And even to the point where it gets
a little crazy when you're like, what about these craters on the moon and the lunar
maria, the volcanic activity is just like push that flood button. To me, that's a little bit
far-fetched. Of course. And I feel like it's a much more reasonable explanation that, yeah, and
look, I do believe the flood is responsible for a lot. Right. But I'm not just gonna say that
everything's the flood. I think, I think a lot of the stuff that we see is just the apparent age
of the earth. So, yeah, that's. I think that's where a lot of creation scientists go wrong,
is they think that science or naturalism explains everything when we have to just
take the word of God by faith and believe it by faith. So, so here's, here's what I think,
and maybe I'm wrong about this, Matt, but here's what I think. I think that there's a lot,
that right now there's a lot of animosity between science and the Bible. Right. And,
and it's, it's become this, this sort of, you know, us against them. Okay. And my theory is
that part of the reason why it, there's that animosity there is because of the fact that
basically I think sometimes creation scientists are getting a little bit out of their lane.
And I think that the secular scientists sometimes tend to get out of their lane too.
And they both, you know, you have these extraordinary claims on the science side of life
on other planets or a biogenesis, or these things just cannot be proven at all.
And then on the creation side, you get some kind of wild claims about, you know, for example,
the moon or just kind of wild claims about everything happening in the last 6,300 years.
And I feel like if people would stay in their lane, the Bible and science could be in harmony.
Like, I feel like if I, and maybe I'm wrong about this. I feel like if I explained my views
to just a secular physicist or astronomer, and it kind of explained my views on, on how the
Bible is compatible with astronomy, I think he'd probably agree with me whether he believes the
Bible or not. And just say, you know what? Yeah. Your, your, your point is valid. You know,
it's definitely possible. It's a matter of faith. And, but, but I feel like if a lot of creation
scientists talk to that same guy, he would just kind of laugh in their faces and tell them,
you know, Hey, that's ridiculous. It couldn't happen. Or, you know what I mean? Of course,
because creation science does have some invalid claims that we can disprove.
Even the evolutionists has claims that we can prove. For example, micro evolution. We
observed that Darwin observed that, but Darwin's conclusion was completely overboard. You preached
a sermon a while ago called taking good doctrine too far. And sometimes these scientists,
they just take good scientific observations overboard and go to the unscientific realm
that we've never observed. And so ultimately the atheists have to take what they believe
about a biogenesis on faith. We have to take the word of God on faith. Amen. And, and,
and I just feel like there are two different disciplines here, religion and science. And I
believe that they can be totally compatible. The Bible and science should be totally compatible
and they are compatible. And I, I, I like both, you know, and I don't think they're mutually
exclusive, but I think because you have people on both sides going overboard or getting out of
their lane, you have scientists trying to be religious teachers. I mean this Carl Sagan,
I mean, he's, he's like this prophet. He's like this preacher of, you know,
he's claiming to be a scientist, but man, there's a lot of stuff coming across that's just
very preachy and unscientific in his program. And that, you know, so Carl Sagan is like a
religious figure. And I think a lot of these guys like Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku,
Richard Dawkins, and you know, they've, they've, they've stepped out of bounds and they've tried
to make their philosophies and their religion and their beliefs. They've tried to put it forth
as science. And then you have Christians basically taking the biblical creation account
and trying to say, it's science. Here's the problem with that. You know,
the biblical creation account is not falsifiable. It cannot be disprove it.
You cannot disprove the existence of God. You know, part of science is that, you know,
you can experiment, you can test it. It's falsifiable. And I don't think that creation
fits the bill of science and nor does the the model that says,
you know, that it came from nothing. I mean, both of those are philosophy.
It definitely depends on the claim. I would say the claim about the moon that creationists make
totally invalid. We've never observed that. And I don't think we ever will. And I think the moon
was created with those craters in it. There's other things like the flood that we would
obviously say, you know, this, this was caused by the flood. And there are things that are
explained naturalistically, but there's also things that are explained that come from the Bible
and creationists really don't use the Bible anymore. Sometimes they'll say, well,
I'm going to prove creation without the Bible, but I don't think that's possible. It's not.
And I always tell people, I will always quote the Bible whenever I'm in a discussion,
because the Bible's where the power of God is. And that's what makes these atheists
scared to death is when you quote the Bible. Well, let's quote some Bible right now. Yeah.
Well, for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, they're clearly seen
being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead so that
they're without excuse. So they're without excuse. Amen. Yeah. And, and the Bible talks
about people who worship and serve the creature more than the creator who is blessed forever. Amen.
And here's the thing, you know, when you talk, when we talk about how big the universe is,
I think it just shows the glory of God and the bigger it is to me, it's just more glory
for God. Amen. So, you know, I find a lot of times Christians choking on the idea of how
big the universe is, but I don't understand why they want to downgrade God's creation and
make it smaller, you know, cause I don't have a problem with it being billions of light years
or whatever, because, you know, but they, they, they're, that starlight problem's a non-issue
for me. It's a nothing burger because of parent age. Well, the Bible says that God stretched
out the heavens. He stretched everything out. He created it with an apparent age. So there's
your expanding universe. Of course. Yeah. So, so basically, you know, let's just give the
viewer at home, uh, kind of a scope of the size of the universe. Okay. So let's say,
let's say we were to make a model of the universe where basically everything were
10 billion times the size that it actually is. So we're going to use a scale of 10
billion to one. Okay. Well, the earth would be basically like the size of the ball in
a ballpoint pen. Okay. On that scale, the sun would be about size of a grapefruit.
Okay. And they would be approximately 15 meters apart. So, so here's the thing, whenever you see
models of the solar system, they always exaggerate the size of the planets in relation
to the size of their orbits. Because if they showed it to scale all the plants would just be
these dots that you could barely see, because in order to do it to scale, even if you make
the earth just a dot, the size of, you know, a ballpoint pen, see that obviously those
sizes are dramatically exaggerated on the screen there and the orbits are dramatically downplayed.
So get, get the picture. The sun is the size of a grapefruit in this model.
The earth is like the ball on a ballpoint pen and they would be like 15 meters apart.
Okay. Cause they have a model like this in Washington, DC. Now to get from the sun to Pluto,
you end up walking like a third of a mile and Pluto again is just going to be a little dot.
Okay. And you're going to walk a third of a mile to get there. Okay. How far would you have to
walk, do you think, to get to the nearest star? So you're in Washington, DC, because they have a model
like this in Washington, DC, where they show the earth and the sun to scale like that and the
distances and everything. You would have to walk to California to get to the first star, Alpha
Centauri, which is, you know, four point some odd light years away. That's the closest star.
That's unbelievable. I mean, that just shows the incredible creation of God. And you know,
just the, I mean, it's amazing. It's, you know, it really leaves people speechless
and people that actually look at it honestly will be speechless by the creation. Creation
speaks for itself. The Bible even says that the heavens declare the glory of God,
the firmament showeth his handiwork. Amen. That's just the firmament.
So here's the thing. If we're studying true science, if we're looking at astronomy,
if we're looking at the solar system, if we're looking at the stars, we're looking at the
galaxies, shouldn't that actually drive us toward God, drive us to appreciate him more,
to love him more, and to be just worshiping him for his great creation and majestic handiwork.
And then when we get on the micro level and look at the DNA and everything,
shouldn't we just stand in awe of how his creation is so much more complex than we
thought it was in the 1800s? And I bet people used to maybe think that he was exaggerating
when he compared the number of the stars to the number of the sand on the seashore,
and he kind of used those numbers in tandem. But now we know that the number of stars
is literally equivalent to at least the number of the sand on the seashore, innumerable.
So that wasn't just an exaggeration. God was serious. Because they didn't used to be able
to see, without a telescope, you're not going to see billions of stars, you're going to see
thousands of stars. Isn't that amazing? It's amazing. Now, here, I've got this book here,
because I wanted to read a quote from this book, because I just, I read this book like
a month ago or something. And, you know, I liked the tone of this book, because it's being
written by a secular scientist, you know, a secular astronomer, Michael Molnar is his name, Michael
Molnar, an astronomer, is retired from the physics and astronomy department at Rutgers
University. So this guy's no joke. I mean, he's, you know, professor at Rutgers Physics and
Astronomy. In his preface, I want to read the last paragraph of his preface in this book.
This book is called The Star of Bethlehem, the Legacy of the Magi by Michael Molnar.
Here's what he says. I trust that readers can see how each piece of evidence I uncovered
changed my own reluctance to become involved with the star of Bethlehem. What once I thought to be
a pious myth... This guy's not a Bible-believing Christian, is he? What once I thought to be a
pious myth, I now know has a valid historical basis. Nevertheless, I cannot prove that Jesus was
born under this star. That, indeed, is a matter of faith. Now, look, here's what he's saying.
He's saying, look, I'm a scientist. I'm an astronomer. You know, I've looked at the historical, the
scientific evidence for the star of Bethlehem. He puts forth his theory of what he believes it
was, and he puts forth a great argument. He's got a lot of evidence and so forth.
But what I like about it is he's saying, look, I thought it was just a pious myth, but I examined
the evidence and I found it has a real historic basis. He believes that there really was this
incredible phenomenon in the heavens that would have pointed to the birth of the King of the
Jews and so forth. But he says, look, that doesn't prove that Jesus was born under that star.
You have to believe that. And elsewhere in the book, he says, look, whether or not you believe
Jesus is the Son of God, that's your own personal faith. So what I like about the book is
that he's not anti-Christian in the book at all. He's not disrespectful toward Christianity.
He's not anti-Christian. He's just examining it as a scientist. But he's also not just being
an apologist saying, see, look, if this star was there, that just proves that Jesus is...
Because here's the thing, nothing is going to scientifically prove to you that Jesus is
the Son of God. If so, there'd be no faith required. Without faith, it's impossible to please
Him, for He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He's a rewarder of them
to diligently seek Him. Don't you wish that all scientists would kind of have this guy's attitude
and just say, even if they don't believe in the Bible, just say, hey, you know what?
That's a separate discipline. Doesn't fall under astronomy. Doesn't fall under physics.
That's your personal decision where to believe in Jesus. Doesn't you like that?
Right. I think it's a more honest approach, and I think that if all of the atheistic
scientists were like that, or the secularists were like that, the creation scientists wouldn't
be so animate about proving the existence of Jesus or proving these things. But we've got two
opposite sides that are both trying to prove, in some cases, absurdities on the right and the
left, and the Bible is obviously where everything that we believe is sourced from and where every
truth comes from. Yeah, so we don't want to cross the boundaries between science and
religion. Right. Now look, some people believe in science and they reject religion. Hey,
I believe in both. I believe in science and religion, and you know what's more important
is religion, in my opinion. I'd rather go through life knowing nothing about science
and knowing the Word of God like the back of my hand. Amen. I could live a great life like
that, you know. Right. But I'm not against science. I love science, and I think there are
some people in this world that study science and benefit all of us with technology and things
that they learn from science. I also love, yeah, I also love to study, but I know you love science.
At the end of the day, what's more important, you know, if I was on my deathbed, the last
thing that I would want to hear isn't some scientific fact about the age of the earth.
The last thing I'd want to hear is maybe the name of Jesus or amazing grace or something
like that, something religious to remind me of the Lord. Amen. That's, you know, what's a man
profited if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? Right. Knowledge buffeth up.
So, you know, let me just, I want to make sure that you have a chance to say everything
that you want to say. I know I kind of dominated the early part of the conversation.
If there's anything you want to just kind of go off on, otherwise we can open it up to calls
and questions on the chat at this point. But just, you know, anything else you want to
talk about first? Sure. Well, obviously we're four hours away from the Grand Canyon,
and obviously the flood is something that we have a lot of evidence for, and it's just
fun to talk about. Obviously, if the layers, they say that the layers are millions of years of
different ages. They'll say you've got Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and all those zoics. And the zoic means
life. Right. That's the zo in that. I think so. Yeah, it is, because like a Greek word zoē
means life. Right. Zoology. Right. But it's interesting that in between the layers,
there's no animal holes. So, animals obviously burrow holes in layers everywhere they go. So,
like obviously the layer of soil that we have out here, animals are burrowing every day. We
would expect to find at least maybe one animal hole, two. We'd expect to find root holes from
trees that would grow in the layers if it took billions of years for each layer to form.
We don't find any of that. In fact, we just see sedimentary rock that was all laid down at
the same time. Now, it could have been created with that apparent age that you had spoken of,
or it could have been laid down by a flood. I would argue it was laid down by a flood.
So, hey, what about a mix? What if the lowest layers were already there,
and then some of the upper layers were created by the flood, like the ones with animals in them?
Right. Could be by the flood. Now, my son Solomon's here. My son, actually, he loves this
subject. He loves the subject of science, astronomy. He brought up a point. You want
to bring that up, son, what you were saying about the so-called Cambrian explosion? You
familiar with that, Matt? Yes.
Yeah. Well, talk about your theory that you brought out earlier, Solomon.
I'm sorry. Could you just go and hold for one second?
Were you on the phone?
Yeah, I'm sorry. I was actually just on the phone.
I thought you loved the subject. I thought you were into this, man.
I do, but it was just a call I had to take real quick. What were you just saying? It's
all right.
Okay, cool. Hey, remember you brought up an interesting point earlier? See, here's the thing.
I mainly am studied up on the astronomy side. I'm not as studied up on the geology and the
biology side as much as I am on the astronomy side. So, son, give your theory what you
were saying about the Cambrian explosion. I thought that was kind of interesting what
you said.
Okay, so what I was saying about that is about the apparent age. You know, a lot of
evolutionary scientists, when they go look at the rock strata and the geology of the
Earth, where they have all these layers, and as they keep moving down, at some point,
there's this one layer where they say it's the Cambrian explosion, where there's just
all these animal forms that are all really complex. And below that, there's just very,
very simple or no fossil life. So instead of like a very gradual uptake in animals
and slightly more complex organisms in the layers, it just all of a sudden explodes
in this one layer. So what I was just saying about that earlier was that all the
layers below the Cambrian explosion could be considered the ones that were
just created as layers when the Earth was first made, but then all the layers
that suddenly have tons of fossilized dinos and other animals, that could
have been during the flood when there would have been a lot of water moving
around and therefore tons of layers being rapidly deposited and fossilizing
all kinds of animals that were killed during the flood. Below that, the other
strata could be considered like the apparent age where the Earth was
created with layers that were never formed. They're just made with those
layers. But then when you start seeing animals, that could be after the flood.
Well, so Solomon, because basically there would have to be layers with no life forms
in them, even according to their theory. Agreed. Because their theory says that
basically like the Earth was here for a long time. Yeah. And then, you know, the
origin of life at a certain point. So basically my point would be like all
those layers of just no life, no life, no life, no life, that's probably, those
layers were probably already there. If they have no life forms in them. Yeah.
Oldest stuff, the lowest layers. And then basically when you start getting
into, you know, all these life forms, I mean, that's where I would then say,
well, you know, the flood could have rapidly created these layers. What do
you think about that? Of course. And in those, yeah, of course. And in
those, in those, in those same layers, obviously there's polystrate
fossils that go through many of those layers. And so poly, poly means
many. And straight, obviously they're, they're going through multiple layers,
like trees that are petrified going through all the layers. So it connects
the layers and shows that they're all the same age. Because a tree
doesn't stand for billions of years. If it dies, it falls down and it
would be horizontal rather than vertical. So yeah, I completely agree
with what Solomon said, of course. That makes sense with the biblical
model. Cool. All right. Hey, what time is it? How far in are we? We're
having, time flies when you're having fun. 8 19. Oh, great. We got
tons of time, man. Let's party. Yeah. All right. So why don't we open
up for phone calls, chat. Hey, Solomon, anything from the chat?
We actually, we actually have first off, we got someone on hold
right now. Okay. They're ready to place a call. We're putting
them through right now. Let's do it. You're on with framing the world.
Hey, Matt. Pastor Anderson. My name is Ron Houser. I go to
Revival Baptist at Jacksonville. Cool. How are you?
Doing good. Appreciate the the conversation y'all are having.
I just had a quick question about, you know, many
Christians and many non-Christians are enthused by
space travel. You know, planet expansion, things like that and
you see the rise of things like NASA and SpaceX and all
these goals of getting to Mars or whatnot. And I have the
thought, you know, how does that fit into the tribulation
and what we'd see biblically if that's even a possibility
within our lifetime? You know, why don't you you want to
start with that one or I don't really have a clear
answer. Well, let me let me give you my answer. First of
all, I would say I think it's compatible with the Bible. I
don't think there's anything in the Bible that would say
that we couldn't go to the moon or Mars or anything. You
know, I personally believe that we did go to the moon and
by the way, Paul Wittenberger and me and Paul
Wittenberger is an expert photographer. He's you know,
what you've seen his films. You know, he's an expert in
lighting video photo and he has studied these things and
is very professional and he has collected film negatives.
You want to talk about the you have thousands of them
that most of them the public has never seen. Why would
they fake thousands of photos that the public's never seen
and you've examined them and you said that they're
real. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of contradictory
evidence. I mean, they're they're they show they
show like the pictures not seeing the stars are
everything but they don't understand how photography is.
If you're exposing for the stars, you you're that's
all you're going to take a photo of or you know or you
can expose for the moon and then you won't see the stars.
There's a lot of things that are just circumstantial
evidence like why didn't we go back and stuff like that
but yeah, Paul, if I take my cell phone outside on a really
starry night and just snap a picture of the sky, I'm not
going to see any stars. Am I? Yeah, exactly. I mean, I
could have your face with a black sky behind you. No
stars and NASA actually released the the digital archives of
every single moon landing and every photo taken and they're
listed in the order. If you go to nasa.gov, you can see it
and the the quality of the photos is so high that you
can zoom on into every spec and so II just they might have
faked some of the the footage but II do believe they
did land. Well, there you have it folks and and Paul
believes in a lot of conspiracies. Alright. So he
went into it skeptical and yet he, you know, I wanted to make
a movie proving that it was a hoax. Exactly. So so here's
the thing, folks. We have to be honest with evidence. So
here's Paul going into something with one idea but
when the evidence showed the other way, you know what? He
went with the evidence, okay? He's not just going to
stubbornly just hang on to a wrong view. He's looked at
thousands of pictures. He knows how photography works and
especially a lot of these pictures. He he has even bought
like rare film negatives and stuff of pictures that you know
hadn't seen the light of day and why would they just fake
all these thousands of pictures that nobody even looks
at because they're the famous pictures but then there
are just tons of other obscure pictures and you know,
he's looking at them as an expert in lighting and he can
explain the discrepancies. So anyway, what do you think
about that? Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, obviously,
they're going to fake some things. NASA will obviously
people will photoshop stuff of NASA. And maybe fake's not even the right word.
Maybe it's just they're just polishing the apple.
Right. Anytime it when you when you made your documentaries,
Matt, did you ever fake anything quote unquote?
No. Well, I mean, you could, I mean, I mean, like, I mean, like you didn't fake
things like where we're just like, okay, walk back and
forth and we're like pretending to be walking and hanging out
and we're not really walking and hanging out. We're just walking back and forth
for an hour. Yeah. Filming ourselves walking back and
forth for an hour. Yep. Isn't that kind of like we faked
something? Yeah. Do you see what I mean? Right. Or like, like I remember one time
there was this this video about me memorizing the Bible and this
this TV crew came out and was was filming me and they, I sat in my car
behind the wheel like I was driving and one guy shook the car
and another guy like moved branches in front of a light to make it look
like I was driving and I wasn't even driving.
Right. Anytime anybody has ever filmed me for any reason, they do stuff like that.
Yeah. So there's going to be a little theatrics and stuff, but,
you know, I personally believe that that that, you know, we did go to the moon
and we're probably going to go back and we might even go to Mars and
everything. I don't think that there's any biblical issue there.
So, I mean, what would be the biblical issue? I guess that, hey, we can escape
the tribulation by going to the moon. Being on the moon or being on Mars
would be like its own kind of tribulation.
Right. You're like doing that to yourself. Yeah. People, look, people
can't even handle being quarantined for a couple weeks.
You think they want to be in a space capsule for years on the way to Mars?
They're going to lose their minds. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.
That was a good question though. I like that question. Any other thoughts you
want to add on that one? No. Not at all. All right, cool.
Thanks for calling, brother Ron.
What else we got? Any other questions from the chat that we want to
talk about?
Sorry, we're getting the next person. We're going to bring the
flat earthers out of the woodwork with this NASA talk and the
moon landing. Folks, I've had
flat earthers tell me that there aren't craters on the moon.
It's like you don't even need a telescope. In fact, you know,
I brought down a pair of binoculars here, okay? This is what you need, folks,
to look at the moon, okay? This is all you need and I
personally, from Tempe, Arizona, with all the light pollution of being in the
big city, I could easily see mountain ranges,
craters, lunar maria through my binoculars and these are 30
bucks on Amazon and you don't need a lot of knowledge to
operate these. Like, you know, telescopes can be hard to set up.
If you want to just get started, you know, doing a little astronomy, like
this is a great way to get started. Basically, the way this works
is you just you basically just point it at the sky
and then this thing in the middle is how you focus it in. You focus in real
clearly. Then you close your right eye and just
look through your left eye only and then there's another adjustment to just
adjust your right eye so that you can make it because your
your eyes are a little different, your left and right eye. So you can get
both eyes perfectly in focus. I watched a three-minute tutorial about
how to use these. It took me three minutes and I knew how to use them
and if you're in a place where you can't see a lot of stars, you look
through these and you can see an incredible amount of stars. I didn't
actually understand how binoculars worked until recently as far as
looking at the sky because when we look at, when we
look through binoculars on land, it's all about the fact that
they're magnifying. You know, they're making things larger so you're looking
at faraway objects and they're bigger. When you look up at the sky, it's a
totally different philosophy because it's not about
magnification. When you're talking about
telescopes or binoculars, the magnification is not the point.
These right here have 10 times magnification and a
50 millimeter lens. Well here's the thing, I don't even
care that they magnify 10 times. The point is the 50 millimeter lens
and let me explain to you why. Because of the fact that our
eyes take in light. So when we go in a dark room, our pupils get big
and when we go in a light room, they get really small so they take in
less light. This right here, this lens on the
end of the binoculars is basically like having your pupils
dilated to this size. So imagine if you could dilate your
pupils to this size, you'd see more stars, wouldn't you?
Yeah. Well guess what, I can point these at the sky in Tempe at a part of the
sky where there's no star visible, just totally dark. I look through
binoculars and I can just see like 30 stars there. So it's not the fact
that it's magnifying, it's the fact that it's bringing
dim stars into view. Like for example in the
Big Dipper, which is part of Ursa Major,
there's a little double star in the handle.
And the bright star is called Mizar and then there's another dim star
right next to it called Alcor. So the casual observer just looks up in the
sky and just sees it as one star because
they're close together. One one's really dim, the other one's
bright. You just see one star because the Mizar has apparent
magnitude of like 2.21. Alcor is 3.96. When you look at it
through binoculars, focus in on it, you see two stars
just plain as day and you can see the dim
star no problem. So you can look at the
moon with binoculars and you can also look at
star constellations with binoculars. You're not going to see that folks.
What you see on the screen, you're never going to see that with your
binoculars because that is the the other side of the moon that never
faces Earth. So that's actually, there you go, that's
what you're going to see. So if you actually look up at the sky,
that's what you're going to see. But notice the top of this image.
Do you see on the very top of the image just like nothing but craters
up there on that edge? That's kind of giving you a foreshadowing of what's on
the back. Do you see that incredible amount of
craters? I could easily see that through my binoculars. I could see
around the edges where you're getting toward the back side.
Just an incredible number of craters on the edges. So
anyway just wanted to kind of explain that because that was something I didn't
know until recently. I thought that was really cool to learn
the difference because you know when you're looking on land you're not
really trying to just bring in a ton of light. You're just
trying to zoom in. But when you point at the sky it's all
but that's why telescopes have giant lenses,
giant mirrors, and how good the telescope is
is not based on how much it's magnifying. It's based on
how much light it can take in and what kind of angular separation you can
make out where two things that are really close together
can you can you differentiate them. That's what a great telescope is all
about. Anyway that was new to me about the
binoculars so I was pretty happy to learn that.
Okay so hey we got another caller calling in right now. Cool.
All right so I'm going to put him through. You are live with Framing the
World Travis. This is Travis from North Carolina.
Hey good to talk with you Pastor Anderson and Brother Matt.
Yeah likewise. What's going on? I appreciate everything you guys do.
What I was calling about was I really feel the need to address
and I understand trying to convert atheists
into believers by teaching creation but there are so
many and it's just exploded over the past few years
of Christians teaching evolution particularly in
the apologetics crowd that they just and they have you know their
followers are are Christians who are rejecting
creation that they used to believe in to follow this evolution theistic
evolutions they're being taught and I would like to see you guys
go on the air with some of these guys or maybe make a documentary
not directed at atheists but towards you know these new
to me they're wolves to me they're just destroying people's faith and I
would like to see that addressed. Well yeah you know I agree with you
because I totally reject evolution we're talking about macro evolution you know
where you're going from one kind of animal to another
doesn't exist nothing could be clearer in the bible because God says in
Genesis 1 over and over again everything brought forth after its own
kind now yeah you can see all these various dog breeds
but you're still a dog at the end of the day whether you're a teacup
poodle or a great dane you're still talking about a dog it's
not a cat it's not a lizard you know so there is no
theistic evolution I don't believe in it for one second
and and here's the thing like I said earlier in the broadcast
I accept virtually 100 of what is taught in
mainstream modern astronomy obviously they're not right about everything
nobody's right about everything and a lot of these things that they believe
now are later going to be disproven I get that that's just the way science
works but I pretty much I believe that the
vast majority of astronomy is compatible with the bible but I
think when we get into biology and they they've gone out of their lane
they've gone into just wild-eyed fantasies about a biogenesis and
evolution and so you know bible teachers that are
teaching theistic evolution I think it's a shame that they would
teach that they're afraid of what the world thinks of them and they just
want to fit in with the world and that's really what it comes down to
sometimes when you're talking to a theistic evolutionist and I've talked
to many of them I've had many of them confront me about our
last film that we put out together and uh or the
second to last one science falsely so called and a lot of them will just say
well hey don't you want to just fit in with the scientific community
and really ultimately it comes down to the word of god I want to fit in with
the word of god so whatever the bible says is what I'm going to fit my
my ideologies into and so their final authority is not the bible
and they're constantly trying to prove the bible but if we had to use our
reasoning to prove the bible then our reasoning would be the final
authority and so the bible has to prove itself
one time I heard a guy say well there is no truth and I said well is that
true because if the claim that there's no truth
is true how can that be true right and so
you know there is a final authority there is a final truth
and god has revealed that to us and if theistic evolutionists don't want to
go with what the bible says then I'm at the end of the day that's
on them but I believe that obviously creationists that are biblical
creationists have an explanation just using the bible
and apparent age apparent age covers a lot of things
dude it's huge I just wish that you know it would be a bigger deal to
people that that I feel like creation scientists scientists
should should focus more on that side of it in my opinion
but you know that's just my opinion but but the bottom line is though
you know I believe that apparent age can can make
a lot of astronomical things and geological things
easily fit into the bible's worldview and fit into the bible's paradigm
but fitting evolution into that it's not happening
where they'll go is biology they'll say well see we've
we've got these fossils that we can look at as of like
supposed um you know missing links that we're finding
but here's the fact didn't those just be extinct animals they could just be
extinct animals for all we know we don't know
what they were exactly a lot of them most of them actually scientists will
admit in every generation we're losing one
percent of our genetics so our genetic makeup we're actually degrading the
human genome's degrading your son has one less percent of your
genetics in him and so we're devolving this is bad
news for you son you you're you're i hope you're able to
keep up with me son because you have one percent
less according to brother powell here i don't know right and each generation
loses a percentage so evolution says we're evolving science says we're
devolving and the bible says we're devolving the bible says that
everything is coming that's just the 5g assault on our dna but no i'm just
kidding i don't believe in that all right i'm just trying i'm just
trying to make as many people mad in this broadcast as i can
you know i'm trying to enrage the flat earthers
i'm trying to trigger the moon landing conspiracy theorist
5g conspiracy there you know we're just gonna just
mess with everybody what do you got son okay we got another caller
it's actually pastor shelley on the line right now you are live pastor
shelley hey guys how's it going great and good
i'm glad you called in well i'm driving back from houston to
dallas so i got nothing better to do but uh i'm enjoying the broadcast um
hey i wanted to i'll say that i i believe we land on the moon too just
to piss anybody else off all right i have a question about the starlight i
have a couple questions but one was about the starlight issue
i was interested in how what you believe about that exactly
because hugh ross you know has like reasons to believe or some nonsense
i i can't stand the guy but um he tries to claim that because stars
are so far away and we theoretically know how fast
light travels then that therefore proves a certain age
of the earth and so i'm interested if you believe that just because of
parent age that you would say the starlight has traveled that far
or would you say that's like a miracle perhaps or would you say
it's that we don't know how fast flight actually travels out there
what i i believe that basically god in his mind
basically has a hypothetical backstory for the entire universe a hypothetical
backstory for the earth the moon the sun
everything on our planet just like adam had a hypothetical backstory of like
you know his umbilical cord being cut as a
kid or something and he's got the belly button so i i believe that god
basically inserted you know or basically just
started history or started time you know created the universe in the
middle of its lifespan just like he created adam
in the middle of his life you know as a fully formed adult and so
that i believe that just solves the starlight issue because
i just believe that he created it as if it had been around for billions of
years so then the light would have had
time to get there because he created it
as a you know say 14 billion year old universe
it wasn't actually 14 billion years old because he just created it
you know six days ago but i believe it appears to be that old
and so i don't think there's any conflict there so
i i believe that the speed of light's the speed of light and i do believe
that those things really are billions of light years away that you know some
of them and like you know some stars like
the closest star is only four four light years away you know and
everything in between so and we know
go ahead pastor shelley yeah i think that's definitely a
you know very likely answer and maybe it's definitely true
i'm interested you know kind of in coordination with another question
thought you brought up was about how we need to keep faith and
science separate let's say some young earth creationist is kind of
you know playing devil's advocate here is is it going to disagree with
you and say that that didn't really have a parent age
or something like that so the only way for them to
reconcile it is to believe that basically
light could travel to faster speed or there's another way for
us to measure these things and so he creates new scientific experiments to
measure the speed of light perhaps in an environment that's outside
of you know the earth's atmosphere or whatever
i think that's pretty unlikely though what would you would you have some
thoughts matt the speed of light is not a constant
and there's been many studies that have shown that the speed of light
um before our universe or before everything came into being could have
been up to 10 times 10 million times more fast than it is now in certain
different environments and so um i don't have a perfect answer
for that but if they're looking for a naturalistic hypothesis that's just a
hypothesis not even a theory that's a hypothesis
we don't know for sure and so i would say what the bible says is just that
the lord stretched out the heavens and if they're looking for a
naturalistic explanation of the universe or the solar system being
young all over the solar system there is
space dust and the space dust is slowly getting brought into each of the
planets because each of the planets has a gravitational pull
and so just the fact that there's any space dust at all shows that it would
have been created obviously within the past six thousand
years and well so you're basically but see by
by what you just said you're you're kind of and this is okay but you're
kind of disagreeing with my thesis in a way in a way i would say some of
your thesis from my perspective would be
definitely correct like obviously certain things being created with that
apparent age but other things i think do have a
more naturalistic explanation to them and i think the
space dust thing would be a more naturalistic explanation and we see that
it's coming in at a constant from space so
pastor shelly are you satisfied with my answer
on the starlight issue and and you think that
you think that these other ideas about you know
uh the light getting here faster kind of wild ideas or where
what do you where do you fall on this well i
don't think i certainly don't think it's provable either way
um i definitely agree with a parent age to some degree like there's no way not
to agree with the parent age obviously adam was not a baby so you
know how far that extends to every other part
of the creation it's pretty difficult to maybe ascertain
i think it's it's plausible to believe that everything had a parent age and i
think your back story approach could make sense i i do
also think it's interesting though to possibly question certain facts
like do we really know how fast starlight is
or how fast light travels eventually to then
you know maybe potentially disprove some of these claims about
well the earth can't be this old or whatever because if we end up
discovering the speed of light to be faster
you know that's just that's just going to help us in other ways perhaps
let me explain to you the basis of kind of modern astronomy and modern
science and where they're coming from okay
one of the basic things that came about in the scientific revolution and
especially with astronomy you know you go back to johannes kepler
and one of the main things that kepler
and especially isaac newton laid down
was that basically that the the physical laws that govern objects on
earth also apply in the heavens
okay so before that it was like people had an attitude that
basically there's like a different set of laws governing what goes on in the
heavens versus what goes on on the earth
you know isaac newton was able to explain the movements
of the planets and the moon and the stars
he was able to explain them with physics that can be tested
on this earth and and and you know formulas and and here's the
when when isaac newton took all these different physical
laws that we observe on earth and applied them
to bodies in the heavens and then applied things
with this planet's orbit and that planet's orbit and and
here's the thing you know it all it all added up like it worked
like you know when ptolemy had his geocentric view there were a lot of
things that weren't matching the observations
and then even capernicus with his heliocentric view
because he thought that the planets were in circular orbits
a lot of the numbers just weren't adding up kepler comes along discovers
the elliptical orbits then isaac newton comes along and
explains why they have elliptical orbits and and really goes
deep with the the math and the physics that
that explains why these things are happening
so this idea that things in the heavens are following the same type of
physical laws that that things are following on earth
and doing these calculations you know this theory has been tested
for hundreds of years and we see that these things add up so so i don't i
wouldn't be comfortable just taking an approach of just like well we don't
know you know we don't know what you know uh light does out there and
we don't really know what you know these how far away the stars
are we don't really know how far the planet we have no idea
well guess what there are a lot of reasons why we do know
and they've been tested and proven and they've made
all kinds of predictions that were correct
you know what i'm saying yeah pastor shelley yeah can you hear me
yeah go for it so like when joshua asked god for
the sun to stand still and we have you know an extraordinary
day quote unquote i mean if let's say i take your hypothesis and i say you
know i can roll back to astronomical clock
and i can tell you exactly what the sky looked like
you know 10 years ago and let's say let's say i start that the day after the
sun's that's still a whole day in the sky like is that
astronomical clock gonna gonna line up or they're gonna be off by a day
like was that a miracle as far as like god going outside the law
absolutely it's i think it's absolutely a miracle there's no question because
here's the definition of a miracle it's a suspension of the laws of nature
i mean otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle and i don't think there's any
question that the sun standing still was a miracle
god is all powerful so i believe that god could just make
all of the heavenly bodies all just stop or
maybe he just made the sun and the earth
stop you know maybe he made everything stop
that's not a big deal because even if he did just make a few heavenly bodies
stop like just maybe the sun and the
earth and a few other things stop well you know that wouldn't really
throw things off much i mean just that one day over the course of
the thousands of years since then so you know you're going to be 12 hours
off in your calculations but here's the thing if he made everything stop
nothing would be off and the calculations would be correct and as
far as you know predict being able to predict
things in astronomy i have a software on my computer
that shows me exactly what the sky looks like tonight
and i can look at exactly what the sky is going to look like a year from
now i can look at exactly what the sky looked like
from sacramental california on the day that i was born
i can go back to april 17th 6 bc and look at exactly what the sky looked
like on april 17 6 bc and a lot of people
would just say like how do you know there's no way that they and i mean
it has very detailed information about the
exact altitude and azimuth of all these heavenly
bodies and all these things and then here's the
thing about it i can go outside and look at it and it looks exactly like
what the software looks at whether i'm in phoenix arizona and i go outside
i could go outside in florida california maine
and that computer software shows me what the sky looks like i go outside
and that's what i see and and these heavenly bodies are moving
according to design where god has put these laws in
motion they're not stopping folks these orbits
you could set a clock by these orbits they are so
regular and once they figured out the elliptical orbits once they figured out
newton's laws and everything i mean it it isn't it's not like
these things are just moving around at random folks they
it's a very orderly universe so that is the fact that they'll
predict all the red blood moons and they'll say there's going to be this
many things you know they'll say like next year we're going to have a red
red moon on this day yeah it does happen so obviously
they're able to study all that but i'd just be like well the star of death
bethlehem with this guy's book though it sounds like you're kind of of the
persuasion that the star of bethlehem was a was
going to be a naturally occurring part of god's original creation like
there's no miracle associated with it if that made that's that's the view
that yeah that's the view that i would lean toward
i mean obviously it's possible that god just put something miraculous in the sky
but you know i i tend to believe that basically this is just something that god had set in motion
the day that he created the universe you know he knew what he was going to do and it just
lined up perfectly and you know it all happened the way that it was supposed to happen and i
think i think the scriptural account actually matches what actually happened in the sky and i
think that um you know i and i'm not saying that michael molnar is for sure right but i read
his book and i think it was it was uh you know a pretty compelling argument that he made
and and most people since his book have come out that that are into astronomy
whether christian or secular have have you know found it to be a pretty compelling theory so
would you say that the feeding of the 5000 is like another proof of an apparent age
instantaneous creation out of nothing or i i have no idea what you mean by that i think that that
was a suspension of the laws of nature i think every miracle is a suspension of the laws of
nature i think like he would you say that he created fish out of out of nothing or
oh you mean because he didn't feed them caviar i don't think he created fish i do not believe
that he created fish out of nothing that's not an x knee hello creation because all he did was
take a piece of fish and multiply it so he's basically just uh you know i've never really
gone that deep on that because because here's the thing i'm not going to try to use science
to explain any miracle because a miracle by definition defies science if it doesn't defy
science it's not a miracle if you're going to come up with a physical explanation for any
miracle it's no longer a miracle and i believe the bible's filled with miracles so why i definitely
agree with that yeah because a miracle is a suspension of the laws of nature creating life
that's a direct divine act that only god can do okay creating the universe
that's a divine act that god did but since god created the universe most of the universe
is obviously running according he set it in motion and now it's running according to the
laws that he put in place he put certain laws of physics in place and inertia is there and
things are going to keep orbiting and they're going to keep going on their cycles and as far
as how do we know that the rolling back of the astronomical clock is accurate you know we
can take the way things are moving now and extrapolate it backwards and part of the way
that you verify that is then looking at ancient records because the ancient world was really into
astronomy you have babylonian astronomical records from almost 4 000 years ago you know
and then you have a lot of great records from the golden age of greece and you have guys like
hipparchus and you've got guys like ptolemy in the in the ad period that have documented
just star catalogs and just documented the constellations exact measurements and they were
pretty accurate you know the best that they could do with their human eye measurements and they have
documented these things and then you you roll back the clock in the software and it matches
their observations and they were they were remarkably accurate so there you know there's
a lot of different pieces of evidence that go together there well i want to ask one more
thing i was thinking about and i've heard a lot of people say this and i don't know how i feel
exactly but some people would say that all of god's creation it basically ended on the sixth day
so like he's not creating anything anymore it's all just basically a it's a product of his original
creation would obviously rest of the seventh day but like for instance like a baby in the womb
would you say that's still like a a creation and in the same sense or is it just like a
product of his original creation as far as a man coming together with a woman or just kind of
what's your thoughts on that i mean i would i would say i would probably lean toward it being
a product of his original creation i think all the matter that's in the universe and all the
energy that's in the universe has been here since creation i don't think any matter or energy can
be created or destroyed it just changes states i mean what do you think matt well that's the law
that he set in place is that obviously the conservation of matter and energy
matter cannot be created or destroyed so god obviously takes obviously when life is created
we take existing things and and god um helps life life begets life life begets life life never
begets or non-life never begets life uh life yeah exactly so you would tend to tend to kind
of agree with hey god created the the world because look if the bible says that god created
the world and all things therein in six days saying that he created other things since then
x nihilo out of nothing would seem to contradict that what do you think pastor shelly wouldn't
that kind of contradict if he's creating new things from scratch after that sorry we got rid of
them whoa why'd you get rid of my boy my buddy well god bless you pastor shelly i appreciate
him calling in i'd be it'd be cool to hear from other pastors too if any other pastors want
to call in but i love brother shelly talk to him all the time he's a great pastor yeah and
so god bless you all right well you know feel free to hit us with anything from the chat
phone calls whatever you guys got up there solomon if you want to pipe up and and respond
to anything that you've heard i know solomon's on the line right now okay he's on the line
yeah solomon really loves the subject he kind of got into it before i did um he's gone
through a lot of phases where he was pretty into astronomy and um and into science and
i've kind of gotten more into it recently you know i i haven't really been that into
science historically but you know i just want to keep learning you know i don't want to become
the kind of guy who stops learning and just kind of stagnates i don't want to live
in my past glory days and just become kind of like locked in to my certain thoughts and
ideas i want to keep learning new things and i was thinking a while back you know i'm
constantly learning new things but they're always it's always languages and and history
and philosophy you know i decide you know i want to learn some things that i haven't already
learned about and so i've really enjoyed learning about science lately because of the fact that
it's so different and it challenges my mind in new ways and you know i used to be really
into math like before i became a preacher i was majoring in math and and i loved math
and i you know i really love math and science but anyway i i was really into that and and
you know i was studying math before i went to bible college and so i i guess i'm kind of
getting back to those mathematical roots i'm going back and relearning a lot of the math and and
you know going through the science and the physics and everything i'm really enjoying it
because you know it's really challenging my mind in new ways and i feel like
it's a you know it's a great subject and it glorifies god so man it just kind of bothers
me i guess when when when christians are sometimes anti-science have you noticed that
like christians who are anti-science all the time they buy into the idea that science
and religion are somehow incompatible when the bible the lord himself said come let us reason
together saith the lord so the lord believes in reason they're like don't you believe it yes
the second thessalonians chapter three says that those who have not faith are unreasonable
unreasonable and they don't believe in science anybody that believes that the laws of science
created themselves or that matter and energy created itself they believe in an unscientific
worldview science is impossible without the lord so i i would like to see i would like to
to basically you know reconcile true science and christianity i feel like some people have
gone a little overboard on both sides and you know it seems like it's almost like you know
creating peace between israel and palestine you know if we could if we could somehow reconcile
because you know i don't think all of these scientists are bad yeah i think a lot of them
are sincere even the unsaved scientists even unbelievers even unsaved scientists i don't think
they're all just these wicked reprobates now some of them are obviously just these god-hating
atheistic reprobates like richard dawkins is clearly a reprobate okay for sure but don't you
think that there are a lot of just nice guys who are they they love science they don't
believe the bible but maybe they'll get saved later maybe we can reach them with the gospel
and win them to christ all the time yeah so that you know but but but with this hostility
it seems like it would be hard to reach them if we just have this attitude that they're all
idiots or they're all wrong everything they teach you you know science is garbage there's you know
i think that we need to differentiate between science falsely so-called and real science and i
think that you know christianity and science have gotten a little bit angry at each other
and the bible and so and and then you know like the caller brought up earlier then you have
some christians just basically just caving in and just embracing evolution and calling it
theistic evolution that's not the answer folks
the bible and science are compatible we need to keep them separate make sure they stay in their
lane and religion answers the big questions who are we where did we come from why are we
here where are we going science stays in its lane religion stays in its lane they're both
good they're both compatible keep them separate understand the difference between religion and
science amen you said everything that needs to be said in this whole broadcast okay hey we got a
couple questions from the live chat right now if you guys are ready okay hit me okay so we
got one user kings in christ he just would like to know what your take on ken ham is in his
ministry i do not believe that ken ham is saved um he obviously preaches a lot of hardcore
work salvation i love a lot of his materials i love answers in genesis's materials now obviously
you know pastor anderson disagrees with some of that and you know i would probably disagree with
some of it if i read enough of it um i don't read a ton of their materials but i do know
that ken ham himself preaches a hardcore lordship gospel and so the bible does say let them be
accursed and so well and ken ham's got the wrong bible he's not king james and and not only
is he not king james bible but he my wife was telling me this i don't have all the details on
the top of my head but she was telling me how they bought out a certain curriculum that had
used the king james in the past and the first thing he did was like switch out all the bible
are you familiar with that my mother actually wrote him a letter when he did that and she
was disgusted by it and she said hey why don't you put the king james back in there yeah and
he never responded so he's got the wrong bible he's got the wrong gospel and you know frankly
i i you know i don't agree with a lot of his scientific ideas either now i you know this was
really rare for me at the time but back in 2014 you remember that big debate between ken ham
and bill nye that was back when i kind of just was in a phase where i had no interest in
science but i did watch that debate i i decided to watch because there's a big deal it was a lot
of hype so i was like you know i'm gonna watch this thing you know what i watched the opening
statement of ken ham and i liked a lot of the things that he said you know you know i've
probably learned a lot more since then so i'm not sure how i would feel about it today but at the
time i thought like hey these are some you know some great points and then you know bill nye's
opening statement although i you know totally disagree with his his uh atheistic worldview
and i think he's a pervert based on a lot of the things that he said he he he had some
show where he was pushing all this like sexually perverted stuff it's like how can you be a
scientist and not believe in two genders and stuff you know what i mean and and hetero uh
biology but anyway you know i think he's an idiot and a pervert but you know his opening
statement was at least like you know he was making sense obviously he was teaching false
doctrine and lies but here's what i noticed about that debate it wasn't a debate you basically
had ken ham give his view and then he had bill nye give his view and then like they
didn't respond to each other at all like it would go to it would go to ken ham and he would
just say more of his points and then bill and i would give more of his points they weren't
interacting with each other's material it was like they were both doing their own separate uh
conversation with themselves did you notice that or did you watch that i did and this is
one of the reasons why i think debating is mostly useless if not all useless and i always
tell people the only reason i enter into a debate ring is just to gather footage of my
opponent saying ridiculous things for your films putting them in a documentary yeah that's the
only reason i wouldn't do i don't consider debating to be a very virtuous thing and because
the bible says that they can turn around and rend you and so um yeah i don't think the
raging atheist rend you i think he got rid he did even his own buddies even his own friends
said that he got rid yep i you know at the end of the debate i felt bad for him because he
began to cry he began to cry while we were off air and i told him i said look god loves you
man you need to get saved um you know and i never called him a reprobate i think probably by now he's
a reprobate yeah but i never called him a reprobate and it used to be a totally different person
but after rejecting the truth of the word of god yeah and i didn't try to win him over with
scientific arguments i want to make that very clear i preached the word of god to him in that
debate and that's why he ended up crying and even the other atheist said well 40 percent of
the time he was quoting the bible so i don't know how he's winning it's because the word of
god has power it's not because i'm good at debating it's because god's word has power and
their ideology is stupid anytime you're quoting the bible just put a hashtag winning because
you know the bible is the winner yeah and i you know quit hiding behind the bible folks
without the bible i mean what do we have folks it's the rock on which we stand other
foundation can no man that lay than that which is laid which is christ jesus right so and look
i don't believe that science is going to get people saved at all i believe that the gospel
gets people say the gospel is the power of god unto salvation god has chosen the foolishness
of preaching to save them that do believe and i believe that faith cometh by hearing and hearing
by the word of god i believe that the purpose of you know debunking things like a biogenesis
or macroevolution i believe that the purpose is just to remove roadblocks from people getting
saved because some people that's like a stumbling block or roadblock i know with my wife before
my wife got saved one of the big hang-ups for her was that she thought that the bible
just completely contradicted science so she's like well how could the bible be true if it
doesn't jive with science and then i explained to her how no the bible is compatible with
science and then she ended up getting saved you know uh through the preaching of god's word
through the power of the holy spirit and so forth but i think a lot of these creation
scientists go too far where they think that like proving creation is going to like get people
saved never when in reality it's just the only purpose would be to just remove an obstacle
right to getting saved yeah i think i think my approach is this and this is usually what i
do with atheists on the street is i'll ask them just a few scientific questions and get them to
realize their world view is crap and then at that point i say okay let's look what the bible
says and i just go to the god you know what i'll bet there are a lot of astronomers physicists and
other type of scientists out there that they they love science they enjoy science but i i
i think that part of them feels empty inside because they don't have the real answers that
they're looking for and they don't have the peace that passes all understanding and that
if the gospel would be preached unto them they would receive christ as savior and even just me
personally when i go and preach and do soul winning events around the country i constantly have
people walk up to me that that were former atheists who got saved as a result of listening
to my preaching i love the comments on my videos when i get a comment that says
i'm an atheist but i just can't stop listening to your preaching i i really like your stuff
because you know i know that guy's probably gonna get saved down the road because he doesn't
hate the word of god he doesn't hate the light he's coming toward the light and and i and
i think that there are a lot of scientists out there and scientific minds out there that
are lovers of truth and maybe that's even what drove them to science quest for truth
and i believe that these people through the through the preaching of god's word
could could get saved and i i hope that there's somebody even watching this broadcast someday
either on the live or on the replay that someday someone would watch this that's an
unsaved person and that they would watch this and say oh you know what now i understand how
the bible could be compatible with science and then they'd click on a you know oh let's
hear what pastor anderson says about the bible way to heaven click on my channel watch the
bible way to heaven and get saved not through a science lesson but get saved through the
romans road amen that's the whole reason i do what i do with uh science falsely so called
and other films on science trying to even reach christians that claim to be christian
introduce them to our movement yeah people that people that basically um they're going
to church but they actually don't know the gospel right yeah and they like creation
yeah so it gets them watching and then they get the bible way to heaven we've had that
happen amen yeah i've actually you know did i tell you i think i told you that i actually met
someone who got saved and they said that they got saved from watching your film on uh
science right that was one that i personally met that that was their testimony so and i
remember i told you i was like hey man i just want to give you an encouragement
your movie has won someone to christ you know amen so amen to that what you guys got up there okay
we got another caller calling in right now you are live on framing the world
yeah hello how's it going that's going well this is uh chris from ohio and uh
probably around the year uh 2002 i got really into uh creationism and back during those times i
think i had dial-up internet so i think i remember finding kent hoven a website where he had some
materials and i got i ended up ordering you know his like seven vcr tape seminar and uh
and you know i got my mom into watching it we were like just make you know he didn't put
a copyright on it so we just made videotape after videotape and she was a librarian we'd
give them away so uh anyway um i can't remember which tape it was but uh probably the second one
where he went over the flood and uh he kind of put forth the idea when you're when you're
reading it there in genesis that uh there's maybe a or that maybe back in those days
there was an extra layer in the atmosphere that could have been ice and um and that when
the windows of heaven were broken up that maybe that uh that layer of the atmosphere
was what was busted up those were the windows of heaven and uh what do you guys think do you
think that the world is that what caused the world to change and for people to uh
not live as long well let me let me give my thoughts and then i'll i'll see what what man
has to say but first of all i remember uh listening i've never watched his seminar before but i
listened to the mp3s of his seminar about 15 years ago and i remember the the part i think
it's called the hoven theory and he goes through this stuff and i feel like this is where people
like ken hoven can just lose all credibility in a matter of moments because of the fact that
he's not even using the word theory properly because if you actually look at the scientific
use of the word theory it's not the way we use the word theory in everyday life if i just said
hey i've got a theory about that and i just pull out some guess or some idea you know for
something to qualify as a scientific theory it has to be rigorously tested by a variety of
of people and it has to make a lot of right predictions and really show itself to be worthy
and have a broad base of support to even be considered a theory so his idea that he came up
with if he actually understood even just the most basic principles of science he would
call it the hoven hypothesis and then it would start with an h and it would be
illiterated then it could be called the hoven hypothesis but he he basically is very very
presumptuous calling it the hoven theory naming it after himself to make it seem like
he has a scientific achievement of that there's a theory that he came up with folks that's not
a theory that's a hypothesis okay and he's just tagging his name on it and this idea of there being
this dome of ice or an ice layer up there that there was just solid ice and i i think it's
ludicrous so i i don't know how you feel about it stance on the dome around the earth everybody
says well there was this dome there well we don't have any evidence for that and things
need to be peer reviewed for something to be science it has to withstand peer review and
i don't i don't know of anybody that's peer reviewed that hypothesis i haven't studied that
hypothesis enough to know if what if what he's saying is legitimate so i don't really have any
comment on that but other than i've looked into it on the basis on just the basic line
and i've seen that there's not a lot of uh peer review for that are you familiar with
the scientific uses of the words hypothesis and theory yes and wouldn't you agree that that's
an improper use of the word it is improper i think maybe he's trying to use it like somehow
metaphorically yeah but he's but he's putting out a science seminar so shouldn't he be using it in
the scientific technically speaking correct yeah technically speaking it's not a theory right right
i could come up with a theory tomorrow yeah but that like like i could say hey i got a theory
about that and we use that all the time in our modern vernacular and i'm not saying there's
anything wrong with using theory like that i use theory like that all the time you use theory
like that but i'm not putting out a science thing the hoven theory it's different in the
scientific realm it means something different and anybody who does a little research will see what
i'm saying that there's a difference between a hypothesis and a theory he's putting forth a
hypothesis it needs to be reviewed by other people it needs to be supported by other tests
and scrutiny and and other people would would have to basically graduate that to a theory
and all theories aren't i'm not saying that all theories are proven and true but they at least
have broad support based on some kind of evidence doesn't mean that they're all right
certain theories are going to be overturned later but that's a wild use of theory and this
idea of there of it all being ice up there and everything is just it's it's too wild folks
it's i don't believe in it for one second yeah we can't have a naturalistic explanation
for everything we just can't i think that there could easily be other naturalistic
explanations for the flood that are wilder but the flood is probably just a supernatural
yes of course that's why i would lean toward the flood being just supernatural so you know
i mean i think there are some natural processes involved where he talks about the fountains of
the deep being broken up and all these different things and and he talked about how it didn't
rain before that and everything so yeah they're they're physical changes but the ice thing i mean
the does the bible say ice the bible mentioned ice the bible never mentions anything there yeah
there's nothing mentioned so okay we got another caller calling in right now
jonathan you are now live on framing the world hey guys how are you doing uh brother
matt you probably remember me i remember you too
uh good to hear you too brother uh uh first of all congratulations on your uh your uh well
you obviously haven't had the baby yet i don't think right not yet okay not yet okay all
right so well uh the first thing i'd like to touch on is uh pastor anderson you brought
up the parent age uh idea uh i i think a lot of uh young earth creationists would agree with
apparent age on some degree but i don't think that the whole uh universe has an apparent age
for example the spiral galaxies uh we know that the spiral galaxy is in the center of
each spiral galaxy there's a black hole which makes the spiral and as the years go by it
spirals in and in and in uh that and dr jason lyle from the university in colorado he did a
few calculations on it and he found out that that would extremely limit the age of the spiral
galaxies to roughly at around less than 1500 years and so uh i think that god did create
specific things with uh uh you know apparent age but not all things like the like the galaxy if
you well hold on let me just clarify with you uh there jonathan are you are you claiming
that god created something new 1500 years ago or less or wouldn't or wouldn't you say that
that's just basically a continuation of a process that had already been going on
yeah i think uh yeah on that i think yes god would have continued on a process that uh that
had already been going on okay so so basically so so why would why would new galaxies being
formed say less than 1500 years ago or whatever i'm not saying that that's true i don't know
anything about that particular subject but why would why would something being new preclude other
preclude other things from looking really old
so uh i think you're i mean i'm i'm not 100 understanding the question uh okay let me let
me see if i can ask it to you a different way can i answer this one actually yeah jump in
solomon yeah okay so yes what you're making is definitely a valid point that while some things
have apparent age in terms of like for example bringing up earlier about the moon or other
objects that appear much older you're right in the fact that some galaxies could appear to be
much younger say let's say god creates a galaxy when he just created space unlike some objects it
could be not twisted enough to where it's billions of years old and instead only show
signs of being 6500 years old not everything necessarily has to have apparent age some things
have apparent age in the sense of just like adam had a belly button he had a full head of hair
he was fully grown he had apparent age but and i made this point earlier i don't think you'd
necessarily expect adam to maybe have scars or injuries from earlier points in his life
so in that sense he wouldn't have apparent age and you're right the galaxy's not being entirely
twisted or i believe what matt was bringing up earlier about the dust not having been fully
selected the planets where not everything agrees with being billions of years old
that's definitely a valid point so i i see what you guys are saying solomon and jonathan
but i would tend to disagree with what you're saying and i would i would think that there's
going to be a certain uniformity for me i i would i would say that apparent age is across the
board from all the way down to adam himself expanding all the way out to the entire universe
it all has apparent age except for obviously there are new galaxies being born new galaxies
have been born in the last 6300 years right new planets have been formed stars have been formed
a supernova is a new star you know in that sense and it never means new in that case the
just the calculations about the spiral galaxies could just be incorrect and they could possibly
be a lot older without being more twisted up than they are or what if they're just newer but
does that stop other things from looking old no not at all so that's like saying well not
everything has apparent age because you know i'm looking at matt powell and he really is this
young folks that's not what apparent age is teaching apparent age is talking about things
that are old that look older than 6300 years so anything that looks less than 6300 years
apparent age is not part of the discussion you don't look 6300 years old therefore apparent age
has nothing to do with my discussion of your age viewpoint right that makes sense so that's what
i would say oh this will this this is clearly only 1500 years it's like well okay then it's
1500 years old but does that stop does how old are you 23 or 24 so you being 24 doesn't
prevent something else from someone else being 54 or 74 or 94 right so i would just say that
different objects are different ages some things are new yeah for sure right so i hope that helps
jonathan kind of understand where i was coming from on my question is jonathan still there with
us or um no we are we just have i'm sorry by the way to all the listeners who keep calling
in and getting hung up on we just have to quickly hang up because you gotta get to the
next call yeah there's a lot of callers coming in but yeah jonathan's a good kid though he's
a teenager right yep yeah jonathan's a sharp kid so cool what else we got
all right we're just getting the next one queued up cool awesome anything else you
want to add yeah i mean obviously i don't know if we see totally eye to eye on like
the apparent age as far as the whole universe but i would i would say about 90 of the universe
from my perspective in my research would be created with the apparent age
i would say there's probably a 10 percent or so that shows us that things can't have been as old
as they are considered to be i guess i'm just having a hard time understanding why in the world
god would would create some things to not look old and other things to look old i feel like
the whole thing has a backstory that all works together and that we've basically been put in
the middle of the story in a sense it's sort of like great epic poetry it always starts the
latin term is in media race in the middle of the thing and then it flashes back and looks for
you know i think that god created the earth as a mature earth but he also created a mature
universe mature adam mature eve mature trees i don't and i'm not you know obviously it's okay
to that we have a little disagreement i'm just having a hard time understanding uh this whole
90 10 or 80 20 i just feel like the way i look at it it's kind of an all or nothing like i'm
you know i feel like every creation scientist they talk about apparent age you know uh jason
lyle talks about apparent age but you know i don't think they take it far enough i think
that they just need to apply it across the whole board that's what i think right but
then but then you can't prove that the earth's only 6400 years old or 6300 years old
and then you can't prove but i'm not trying to prove that i'm just trying to say that the
bible and science are perfectly compatible but that the bible is a matter of faith so
yeah i see where you're coming from you know right thanks for being honest you know of course
yeah i just don't want you to feel like you have to just agree we don't we don't have
to agree on everything we agree on the big things folks we agree that the bible is the
word of god we agree that the earth was created that the universe was created
you know six thousand some odd years ago six thousand three hundred years ago or whatever
and um you know we don't believe in evolution we don't believe in the day age theory we don't
believe in the gap theory you know but you know uh i'm not against you know people who
take a different position on this i'm just i'm presenting my point of view because i feel
like my point of view is a little underrepresented i haven't really heard a lot of people
embracing my view i've never even heard of it before well how do you like it well i think
i think it's i think it's biblical it's valid it's valid you know whether it's whether you agree with
it or not i i think that it it's definitely compatible with the bible yeah i mean this is
unlike any discussion i've ever had with a creationist because most creationists will
try to come up with a an explanation for everything rather than accepting what's already
been given to us and just interpreting it through the lens of the bible and so very unique
position but i respect it well that's why that's part of why we're having this broadcast is
just like you know i wanted to put this out there and just you know make make my view known
and and especially i wanted to have you here because you're knowledgeable about these things
and and not only have you done a lot of your own studies but you've also spoken to a lot of
people with different views and so you you really um you know have run the gamut of this subject
you've talked to the atheists the science community talked to the uh the christian
uh creationist viewpoint and even your dad you know you grew up with it so we got a call
not yet actually we're still waiting for a call to command what about the chat what's going on
in the chat there's got to be some good questions coming from the chat son okay we
got one question from the chat right now and it was from a guy taran grillo he wants to know
if either of you have any good stories about a hardcore evolutionist getting saved and what
was kind of like the aha moment for them i've got some i'm sure matt could probably give some
too let me start out with with one of my favorites and and this is illustrative of
how i do soul winning with atheists i was out soul winning in tempe and i knocked on a guy's
door and he was just a staunch atheist he was into all the science and everything and here's
what i said to him he was he was probably in his 20s might have been an asu student or alumnus
and i said to him i said look i said the bible is one of the most influential books in the world
anyone would agree with that even if you don't believe in it i said why don't we do this why
don't you just for the next 10 minutes just believe that the bible is true like make
believe let's just pretend that the bible is true and then i'll show you what it says and
then you can decide whether you believe it or not and he said sure i went through the gospel
with him i didn't talk about science with him at all i didn't talk about anything about
any of what we're going over in this broadcast i went through the gospel of jesus christ with him
okay and i ended up taking more than 10 minutes you know and i'm preaching the gospel
i'm showing him the scriptures and you know what he got saved and you know i've had that
happen multiple times and i've had an someone who said i'm an atheist get saved literally 20 or
30 minutes later just from the preaching of god's word and then i've had a lot of other
atheists that have just gotten saved just listening to hours and hours and hours of my preaching
finally it got through to them but i bring that up to say i've never i personally have never
won an atheist to the lord by giving them a big science lecture and and whenever i have
given science lectures at the door it never resulted in a salvation never never yeah i think
science is a great indoor and there's been quite a few instances where atheists have gotten
saved directly through the work of myself and maybe corbin brock was there for one over in
michigan but one that i want to refer to that really speaks a lot about science in the bible
would be a guy that came across me he watched my debate with the raging atheist and he said
well i believe in god now you know i must be saved and i talked to him on the phone and he
wasn't saved and i realized that at that moment that no matter how many scientific facts you bring
forth to somebody that will not get them saved and i told him look you need to hear
the gospel and that's why i do this did the guy eventually get saved he got saved over the
phone it took him about 30 minutes amen and the only logical thing i could say that i really
said to him was it takes more faith not to believe in the resurrection than to believe in
it because there's so much powerful evidence for it and atheists i i'd explain to them if he
doesn't if he wants to reject uh science he could just continue being an atheist but
apparently he wants to embrace science but that's not what's going to save him i said what
will save you is belief in jesus as you weren't people going to hell long before the
theory of evolution was even thought of long before i mean what you know did the were the
philistines all atheists were they evolutionary believers or did they believe in a false god
right so here here's the thing about that you know um getting somebody to believe in god isn't
the same as getting them saved here's an example remember that and this is one of my favorite
videos on my youtube channel my interview with the transhuman the transhumanist sorry i should
say you remember that yep really long-haired uh transhumanist atheist guy and you know i
guess i'm just a little bit of a sci-fi geek or something because i kind of like to talk about
transhumanism and all these wild things and it's not often that i get in those conversations
yeah i really enjoyed that conversation i thought it was a fun conversation and here's the thing
i loved about that conversation is that we were respectful with one another we had a good
you know talk we weren't we weren't mean to each other we even though our views were so
dramatically different well here's what's funny after that interview this guy ended up
believing in god because he's an atheist in that interview he ends up believing in god but guess
what he's not saved because now he's putting out videos about how he's not an atheist anymore
now he believes in god but he's teaching like a hardcore workspace salvation he does not
believe in salvation by faith he does not believe the gospel people always want to make
a big deal out of stuff like that when it's not a big deal unless they get saved because right
no flesh should glory in his presence and people talk about these former atheists all the time
like it's such a big deal did they get saved yeah well people people were bringing me
tons of people were contacting me that guy you talked to he's not an atheist anymore
you got him to believe in god or something but it's like no i didn't i did not get him to
believe in god because or if i did let's say i got him to believe in a supreme being or something
what good is that well instead of going to hell number one now he's going to go to hell
number two because now he's going to go to the hell for people who believe in god and be able
even work salvation it's probably a worse hell if anything definitely of course there's only one
hell but you know there probably are levels of torment of course but basically you know if
anything he's more damned now right believing in work salvation and you know what i prayed for
that guy to get saved i know a lot of people prayed for him to get saved because you know
because he was a nice guy and i'd encourage people to watch the interview just because it's
a fun interview i think it's interesting but it's been a while since i've watched it but yeah
i remember liking it at the time creationists spent way too much time just going over
apologetics with him and you know apologetics i don't apologize for anything the bible says
the word of god is quick and powerful sharper than any two-edged sword we don't have to
apologize we have the sword and we should just go boldly and speak the truth well i just yeah i'm
personally not into apologetics because you know i just believe that preaching the gospel
the preaching the cross of christ it's the preaching of the cross that is going to get
people saved right it's the death barrel and resurrection it's the roman's road yeah that's
what i'm preaching of the crosses to them that perish foolishness and i i think that a lot of
scientists someday are going to hear the gospel of jesus christ and get saved so what you got
salomon okay we got a caller raul from california you are live on framing the world
raul are you there are you there raul no i'm close close it was raw matt
oh okay sorry i thought you were raul my bad no big deal yeah i'm with uh standing for truth
youtube channel i've talked to matt powell just recently we went on his channel actually it's
good friend of mine cool yeah what you got for us tonight uh i was calling in to give
some genetic evidence about how the earth is young because uh a lot of people they're under
this uh interpretation that uh evolution is true and when we compare the science with modern
day uh you know biblical interpretation that oh it's all wrong because everything points to it
being really old well the thing is is the actual observable evidence when we look inside the
mitogenome is we actually see what's really going on we look inside the mitochondria and we
see that there's mutation rates going on and these mutation rates are tested when it's a
grandparent a parent and then a son or a daughter and these are called trio studies
and when we do these comparisons we see a fast ticking clock and multiple studies have been done
in the past especially in the 90s and uh they showed that the mutation rate clock falls
within a six thousand year time range matter of fact they're so accurate that the fbi is using
these things right now to in forensics to determine if people are guilty or innocent
but then what happened is evolution came along and they said these clocks are very inconsistent
with our time frame so they invented their own clock they're called phylogenetic clocks and
what they did is they calibrated them to the fossil record so that they can push those ages
back to make it look like evolution is true sounds like circular reasoning that they're using
there it is it's a shame really because with the actual observable evidence it's completely
contrary to what they tell the public so it's a shame well you sound extremely knowledgeable
i appreciate you sharing that with us i'm i'm not that knowledgeable about biology what do you
any comments on what he brought there raw matt is probably i i don't really have any comments
on that because i think it's pretty clear raw matt is actually going to be featured in our new
film coming out on creation versus evolution and um yeah i think genetic entropy is one of the
biggest proofs of a young earth and i know we may disagree on this but genetic entropy is
constantly occurring and so with us losing uh our genetics over time eventually we're just
gonna die out well i but i think i think that that is compatible with my view because
my view is more about the astronomy side than the biology right so you're not really jumping
into genetics no right i'm i'm talking about i'm talking about the apparent age of the universe
right that's what i'm painting with a broad brush so i i don't i don't believe that the
biological side is is uh is incompatible with what i've been saying right i don't really have
a real strong view on the genetic side because i haven't done the study or the research on that
side of it okay so i don't really have a strong view on that side of it but but one thing i will
say for sure is that you know god created life through a direct divine act so when we
talk about things have like a backstory and i kind of talk about the moon's hypothetical
backstory the solar system's hypothetical backstory i don't believe life has a hypothetical
backstory because life is a miracle amen that's what i believe god creating the first original
life is a suspension of the laws of nature because it's it's a it was it was a miraculous
creative act and that's what i want to make clear in this broadcast is that there's a big
difference i believe between astronomy and evolutionary biology huge difference that's kind
of the point that i'm making yes because we can observe we can look up and we can observe
you know stars in different stages of life and everything we can't observe evolution happening
right you know we see de-evolution happening from one kind of animal to another
not happening right well yeah that's another thing too you really like uh you know you like
the cosmos and the stellar evolution here's one thing that the general public doesn't know
that here's a really quick easy way to prove that the universe and everything in it's really
young what happens is we've been looking at supernovas for since they've been going on we
humans have been staring at the sky for a long time and they've been documenting every time
they see a supernova and they occur at a constant rate of about 25 years well if the universe was
billions of years old we would look up there and we would see tremendous amounts of remnants of
supernovas over a certain size and we just don't matter of fact there's only 250 remnants
that we see so that's utter proof right there that it's not what they're trying to tell us
it is we would expect to see 200 000 supernovas if that was true if the evolutionary worldview
is true so this is where you guys have kind of lost me here so i i i was i was with you on the
the first part of the call and on this part i'm not convinced right on i'm not necessarily
right about everything but i'm just personally not buying into this particular line of thought
right on how about the winding down you see in the universe where right now is the entropy
that's going on because it's it's not a closed system so what's going on is you see the the
heat like evaporating away it's right now it has to reach equilibrium kind of like our salt
in our oceans it hasn't reached equilibrium but it should just like our universe is winding
down because it's trying to reach equilibrium if the universe was billions of years old we
would assume that that equilibrium had been reached but again we don't know the original
conditions in the start so we have to yeah that's that's the biggest problem with it either
hypothesis works either like either his hypothesis is correct or that hypothesis is correct but at
the end of the day it comes back to a young earth so either way it's it's totally valid i
would say each is biblical right well hey great stuff man thanks for the call appreciate you
i think i've seen his youtube channel i'm not sure though yeah he does standing for truth
they're a youtube channel that focuses just on creation okay they're really good
well cool anything else in your notes that we didn't get to yet that you were kind of
interested in bringing up or obviously there's a lot of things and i think scientific subjects
we could talk about all day we could be here all night just talking about the glory of god
and his creation but um i don't really have anything else that i think needs to be covered i think
that this was a nail in the coffin to evolution tonight and i think there's many more nails in the
coffin to come and i think some of this will end up in a film on this topic cool anything
from the control booth yeah he's uh getting them teed up is he ready salomon ground control
what have you got for yeah he's gonna he's he's going on right now
it's up to you yeah i'm having fun me too all righty we got a new color and
you are live on framing the world and hello yes how you doing uh pick uh my name is yeah yeah i
believe uh we met oh yeah we went out to mexican food in houston right yeah yeah yeah
what's happening yeah on genesis on i believe on verse number one or two on chapter one
where he says that he creates the light but later on he then creates the sun
i don't know like what kind of light he created it you know the lamb is the light right
yeah god is light you know to me like that doesn't bother me at all that he didn't create
the sun moon and stars until the fourth day because of the fact that i believe that the
creation is a supernatural miraculous act x knee hello creation where he's bringing matter and
energy into existence even though it has a hypothetical backstory that i believe we see
playing out elsewhere i believe that the creation week was totally miraculous completely
outside of the the laws of nature god is miraculously speaking things into existence
so why can't god create light on day one and then create the sun moon and stars to be the
new sources of light starting on the fourth day so that you know we could have times and
seasons and days and years so you know i think i think it's great that it was done that way
because it debunks the day age theory because in the day age theory you'd have to you'd have
to have the stars on day one you'd have to have the sun on day one so the day age theory
goes out the window yeah so i i like the fact that they're created on day four me too so it's good
all righty we're just still waiting for some more calls if any salomon what do we got from
the chat i'm sure there are questions in the chat are you already answering them all you
take i've been i honestly i've been answering a lot of them we got one guy on alfredo he just
wants you to explain the greek word logos okay well let me explain the greek word logos because
people make a big deal about this where the bible says in the beginning was the word
and the word was with god and the word was god so the greek word there is logos now in
modern greek the word logos is is usually used for like a speech like a spoken word and in
fact like when i've talked to people in modern greek and i talked about a sermon that i preached
i wanted to say hey i preached a sermon about this and that i would call my sermon basically
my logos because that's the word that you would use for like a speech that you gave
so i've actually used that word in that way just like this is what i spoke on
so you know i don't believe that by going back to the greek we get any special revelations
i read the i read the new testament every single day in greek i do basically all of my
devotional reading in greek and let me tell you something folks if you're reading a king
james bible you're getting the exact same thing that i'm getting reading it in the original greek
there's no special mysterious hidden meaning by going back to the greek so you want to know
what logos means it means word so if you read john chapter one in the king james bible
you're getting it folks and reading it in greek you're not going to learn anything special
or hidden you know it's just word folks that's my take on that word so all righty we got another
question from the chat and your age would like to know what you guys think just about the gap
theory and to talk about you know the day with the lord is a thousand years i just want to
hear your thoughts that's the day age theory right the day with the lord why don't you talk
about those things a little bit yeah we covered that earlier in the converse earlier in the
conversation a little bit briefly but the gap theory is absolutely ridiculous and it can be
debunked on many levels and i think that obviously one of the levels that i would take it to
would be looking at obviously the stardust which i know we disagree on but if you look at the
stardust that's out there when the world was created when god brought everything into
existence from nothing all of that stardust would have collected here and at other planets
by now if the day age theory let's focus on let's focus on biblically debunking the gap theory
in the day age theory you want to debunk those biblically sure well the bible well everybody
that holds to the gap theory will say that the flood was a local flood but the bible says
in and peter it says for this they willingly are ignorant of that by the word of god the
heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water so the bible
literally says that the earth was standing out of the water in the water or covered by water
well according to the day age theory and according to the gap theory people they claim
that the flood was a local flood and they basically just throw out that passage so the
bible and peter debunks that by saying that the earth was standing out of the water and in
the water here's how first of all we already debunked the day age theory with the sun moon and
stars coming to existence on day four to me that just put a fork in the day age theory it's
done okay right not only that but i i think it's clear that it's a literal day when he says
over and over the evening in the morning where the first day the evening in the morning where
the second day evening in the morning where the third day why say that if we're not talking
about actual periods of light and darkness you know it's light in the day it's dark at night
that's what evening and morning mean the transition the morning is the transition from
night to day the day to night transition is called the evening so to me that debunks the
day age there as far as the gap theory there's no gap it says in the beginning god created the
heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void just a plain reading of the text
you're not going to come up with a gap unless you go into it wanting there to be a gap
inserting a gap the gap isn't there and the bible says in six days in in exodus chapter 20
in the 10 commandments it says in six days god created the heaven and the earth and all things
that are there in so here's the thing that six days would include genesis one when god created the
heaven and the earth and then the rest of the chapter is all things they're in the bible saying
in exodus chapter 20 verse 11 that all that happened in six days so the initial creation
and everything inside of it was created in six days also the problem with the gap theory is
that the bible says wherefore is by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and
so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned so according to the gap theory if you have
this other civilization and you'd have all this death before adam right evolution teaches death
brought man brought man into the world whereas creation teaches that man brought death
into the world that's the exact opposite in fact in carl's in carl sagan's cosmos program
that we played clips from earlier he specifically says that the two most important elements for
evolution are time and death he says these are the two elements time and death okay that's what
he points to well guess what by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin
so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned you can't have other men dying
before the garden of eden you really shouldn't have anything dying before the garden of eden
so you know because death came into the world by man because even in the garden of eden
before man sinned you know the wolf is laying down with the lamb yeah and you've got basic
just harmony all of the animals were vegetarian in the original creation so you know there's no
death the first death that occurs is basically when man sins and god makes him coats of skins
you know he had to kill an animal to get those coats of skins and that's a picture of
the substitutionary atonement of christ and we're going to be code then in his righteousness so
you know the gap theory is not biblical because of the fact that god created the heaven and the
earth verse one and all things they're in verses 2 through 31 in six days according to
exodus 20 verse 11 and there's you can't have death before adam because it's by man's sin that
death came into the world so before you know when god created the garden of eden it was a it
was a deathless place okay that's what i think we got another question from the chat just a quick
one and then we have a caller on hold so let me start with the chat question um jordan huger
i hope i'm pronouncing that right just wants to know what your thoughts on second peter three
five where it says for this they're willingly ignorant of that by the word of god the heavens
were of old and the earth standing out of the water in the water he just wants to know your
take on the earth the the heavens were of old like what are your what's your take on that wording
well the universe is old 6 000 years is a long time and so obviously you could interpret it that
way i i agree with with matt i think that when he says the heavens were of old
i think 6 300 years is old i think when peter's writing the fact that it's about 4 300 years
or 4 400 years is old so i don't think you have to go back millions of years to be old
so that's what i take on all and obviously the earth standing out of the water and in the water
is a reference to the flood so and by the way i i believe in a global flood and and part of
this is the symbolism of the flood symbolized baptism okay because if you think about it the
earth was completely immersed in water at one point you know it was flooded and then also
eventually it's going to be baptized in fire and then you know you have jesus saying you shall be
john baptized with water but you should be baptized with the holy ghost and with fire
and so it's like the earth symbolizes that by being baptized in water and then later being
baptized in fire in the end times because god talks about it in second peter chapter three
he he talks about the flood being you know the destruction of the old world and then he
talks about how the world that now is is going to be destroyed by what fire the elements are going
to burn up and melt with fervent heat so there's going to be a fire baptism well we don't believe
in baptism by sprinkling or baptism by pouring you know that'd be the local flood
right we believe in the global flood full immersion full immersion amen so there you go
all righty we got another caller on the line right now you are live on framing the world
hey it's uh it's ben um so i i've been fascinated by the appearance of age a topic that's kind of
been approached here on this podcast and uh my question is it's just real simple
a lot of the time there's a debate over between the uh the young earth crowd and
the evolutionary uh scientist crowd science will falsely so called of course but um a lot of them
debate over carbon date and that's kind of an issue between both sides um with the appearance
of age view in mind and i guess this question would be for both of you guys of course pastor
anderson since you're a big believer in this i'm just curious do you believe now that carbon
now that carbon dating actually is accurate then and that we can accept the findings from that
method of research or or is it still garbage here's here's the thing you know what i've always
taught on radiometric dating because carbon dating is just one type of that dating because
there are all kinds of other isotopes that are at various stages of decay carbon 14 is just one
of them but what here's what i've said in the past on this i've said i've actually brought
apparent age into the the topic even when i preached about this back in like i don't know
0607 when i first started my ministry i talked about the fact that you know god can create
all of these isotopes at various states of decay you know when he did his ex nihilo creation
6300 years ago who's to say that just all right everybody every single isotope is just fresh and
ready to roll who's to say that a lot of those isotopes haven't already decayed now when
you talk about carbon dating specifically you know i i think that there have been a lot of
instances where the results have been false so no i'm not just going to accept carbon dating as
fact at all but carbon dating doesn't doesn't even point to millions of years because if you
know anything about carbon 14 dating even the proponents of it are only claiming that it goes
back tens of thousands of years and there have been a lot of times when they've carbon dated
things and it wasn't accurate it wasn't right a lot of so-called experts and scientists make
mistakes so no i'm not just gonna hook line and sinker except any kind of uh radiometric dating
or carbon dating with no other evidence but i will say this the apparent age paradigm does
carry over to uh radiometric dating unless we're talking about organic material because i don't
believe that life has a backstory i don't believe that organic materials have a backstory i
believe that they are created by the miraculous act of god so do you understand what i'm saying
ben yeah yeah absolutely yeah i see what you're saying so it's kind of two different things
between you know radiometric dating of rocks on the moon or something and it's supported by
other evidence yeah i could accept that but you know it doesn't mean i'm just gonna hook line and
sinker just buy into everything that's supposedly done with carbon dating because i think there's
been a lot of examples where it's been wrong and so so i guess i'm giving a mixed
answer on that because i don't i do believe apparent age applies to isotopes for sure
but that doesn't mean that i'm buying into just everything about carbon dating i agree with
that because carbon dating often can be off in many instances just because of the fact that
often that stuff they're carbon dating is contaminated with other materials which throws
off the measurement yeah so i hope that satisfies you ben and do you have any other
questions or follow up with that he's gone we have another guy teed up all right we just
good to see you again it's like a speed round here so
and you are live i'm framing the world i've got a question similar to some that have been asked
already a little bit different i believe in apparent age but there's i've heard a distinction
between the gap and day age and a gap theory that is the one where god asked adam and eve
to replenish the earth and you have something pre-edemic that has uh maybe and that's where
maybe the appearance of geological age comes from certainly not creative life but um how
would you address that okay so i i would address it in two ways there's two possible
ways to address the word replenish number one is that if you look at old dictionaries of
replenish in the english language they will just say that it means phil that it's just a
synonym of phil also if you look at the hebrew word it's just a word that often just means
phil and would be translated as phil okay but i think another explanation would be that
basically when he's saying replenish the earth is because he's just already if you want
to take it as replenish you just say okay he's already predicting the fact that people are
constantly going to be dying and so you're basically going to have to replace them so
those are the two options i've always preached it in the past that replenish
is because of the fact that in the future people are going to die so you have to constantly
replenish it it's like putting water into a bucket with holes but you know now these days
i'm probably leaning more toward the view that it just means phil you know just looking at
old dictionaries of it in english and even and just looking at it in hebrew and everything it
just i i think i'm leaning more toward that what do you think yeah i would lean a hundred percent
towards that i think that's very clear that it's just phil because that's old english and yeah
that's what it would have meant it's not old english but it's modern english but it's older
older english old english is beowulf so right a thousand a.d we're not going back that far
yeah old english is millions of years old you know you gotta understand i gotta get the
glasses out i keep forgetting to use these i could have used them so many times in this
broadcast these glasses you know right all right they're gonna come and play to be more intuitive
okay we got another struggle strikes again we got another caller on the line right now
uh you are on with framing the world
come in caller do you read me hello
all right we've lost him
cool hit me
16 11 and they just want to know on a more philosophical note
why do you think god would create a backstory for the universe
well why you know i i believe that he created a backstory for the universe because if he
created it to just be obviously having a starting point in you know 16 300 years ago if there was
just all this evidence that it's really only 6 300 years old and that it just was
x nihilo created at that time then basically you know that would that would basically prove
beyond any shadow of a doubt that you know there is a god it would line up with the bible's
narrative and it would just it would just be too much proof i think god wants to give people
an out to not believe in him they have to have faith to believe in him and so i think part
of it is a strong delusion that he has sent so that atheists actually believe that
life came from non-life so that atheists actually believe that the universe here let me
get out the glasses you know like in the words of stephen hawking because a law such
as gravity exists the universe can and will create itself from nothing that's a delusion
to believe that the earth creates itself from nothing or what about what carl sagan said
that basically these uh molecules will assemble themselves into dna it's crazy
it's a delusion and you know what the bible says that god will send them a strong delusion
so that they'll believe a lie that they all might be damned who believe not the truth
that had pleasure and unrighteousness and richard dawkins has also said you know well if
god created this world then he's a very deceptive god because he made it look like you know it
was old and he made it look like it just came into being outside well you know what yeah he did
so that people like you would go to hell you pervert right amen amen so and here's the thing
even if we don't understand why he gave it a backstory he did god's ways are not our ways
yeah because that's what the evidence the evidence bears that out so all righty we got
another caller online right now you are live hello um i have a good friend who is catholic
and he keeps signifying and telling me to switch to catholic because of the verse matthew 69
about the keys to heaven and you need those keys to get it to heaven but i keep telling
him that that's not true that you need to believe in jesus because i've been do you know
anything about this false teaching hey i like your question but i'm not going to answer it
because we need to stick with the subject of the broadcast we don't want to go on a rabbit trail
sorry so um we'll you know i'll cover that in a future sermon though so i appreciate the call
but we want to stick to we're going to stick to astronomy science creation evolution there's a
there's a lot of topics we can talk about i mean you know we'll run the whole gamut of science
we'll do the best we can between the two of us to try to provide answers but we want to
stick with the topic yeah we ask them what they're going to ask and then they don't ask that
i thought he was going to say i got a friend who's catholic and he believes in evolution
because you know i remember one time i was putting in a fire alarm at a catholic school
and i was uh their wall of science class was going on and the teacher was teaching
evolution and he's teaching uh you know millions of years not and and he wasn't teaching
it as an apparent age you know he was teaching it like
that it really happened that way wow and and folks it didn't happen that way
you know we we uh strongly believe that the world was created x nihilo from nothing
you know approximately 6 300 years ago now here's the thing you know people talk about
evidence for a young earth and and you know matt and i probably disagree on this a little bit
you know i don't believe in a young earth i believe that god created an old earth 6 300 years ago
i believe that i believe in an old earth that came into existence an old universe that came
into existence x nihilo 6 300 years ago just like i believe in an old adam that was created
you know and he he wasn't created as a baby so that's that's the whole uh point that i'm
trying to get across in this broadcast and and and matt partially agrees with me
mainstream creation scientists partially agree with me but the view that i'm expressing tonight
in this program is not the mainstream view of creationists or creation science or anything
you know that's why that's why we're having this broadcast so you know i'm providing an
alternative view that that is something a little different so that's part of why we're here and
we're here to just talk about some of the standard things many things that we agree with 100
between ourselves and so keep sending your questions uh call the number 480-519-4999
you can also go in the chat and ask questions okay we got one on
we got one on the line right now you are live on framing the world
how you doing good how are you great what's up uh awesome uh thank you for getting me in line
pastor anderson my question is as like when jesus was born and they were looking at the stars
so you know how the lot of the people look at the stars to look at the future right astronomy as
like this is going to guide us especially in the hindu religions and all these some of the
other religions right well i mean all cultures were pretty into astrology in the past yeah at
some point yeah so so they always some of them always say okay well even in the bible times uh
when jesus was born uh they were looking at the stars and they were following the stars
and they always point you know to that just that one little topic right just to just to
justify their religion that we're looking at the stars while jesus was when jesus was born
you know these three guys they were looking how does that that's a tough it's a tough
question let me let me let me tackle this though okay the bible mentions astrologers like you know
in in daniel you know he's there with the the wise men of babylon and he's one of the wise men
of babylon and he talks about the caldians and the astrologers and the soothsayers
and obviously a lot of that is pagan it's uh soothsaying it's uh divination it's it's things
that are contrary to what the bible teaches the bible there has a passage where he rebukes
the the the stargazers and monthly prognosticators so we don't want to accept
astrology and let me say this by the way modern astrology is a complete joke it's nothing
like ancient astrology because at least ancient astrologers were expert mathematicians experts in
geometry experts in astronomy because astronomy and astrology were were kind of the same discipline
for a long time and you know yohannes kepler was kind of the last astrologer who was actually
into real astronomy and a real astrology today is like basically people just writing down a
bunch of fortune cookie type predictions and putting them in newspapers and magazines and
saying like all these vague things of what your horoscope is for this day and all this stuff
let me just explain to you why astrology is a complete joke okay because of the fact
that the astrological signs that people have today are based on the astronomy of literally like
two thousand years ago and so there's a phenomenon called precession so as the earth rotates and
orbits the sun okay in its rotation where it's spinning it's sort of like a top is spinning
and when a top spins you'll notice that not only does it spin in a circle it also kind of
like makes a it kind of carves out a big circle it's like a wobble effect you know what i'm
talking about well that cycle would theoretically take 26 000 years to make a complete loop okay
theoretically obviously we haven't gone through a complete cycle but if you go back 2 000 years
you're basically 1 13th of the way around the circle so you're basically like a full month off
so basically i grew up with the thought that oh my zodiac sign is leo because i was born on
july 24th that makes me leo but here's the thing if i go on my computer software and roll
back the clock to july 24th 1981 you can clearly see the sun is in cancer not leo
okay so everybody today who thinks they're a cancer or anybody today who thinks that they're
a leo is pretty much a cancer and if you actually look at what zodiac sign the sun what
constellation is the sun in you know on july 24th it's cancer not leo okay 2 000 years ago it was leo
now it's cancer okay so these people are going and reading their their horoscope they're not
even reading the right month the whole thing's a joke because the whole thing is just made up
hocus pocus you know uh uh fortune cookie style predictions that could apply to anyone
um and you read two different horoscopes they're gonna contradict each other you know from two
different newspapers and stuff so obviously and obviously the planets the the where the planets
are in the sky has no influence on our lives like if you're born when the planets are in
certain constellations that has no influence on your life that does not affect your future or
your fate astrology is a pseudoscience okay that being said though okay you know and and my this
is what michael molnar's book is all about and it's very controversial you know with a lot of
people so don't don't hate me for saying that i read michael molnar's book on the star of
bethlehem and i think he's probably right okay and he does give an astrological understanding
to the star of bethlehem because of the fact that if it was an astron an astronomical explanation
everybody would have seen it but yet when the when the three wise men show up at jerusalem
and say where is he that is born king of the jews we've seen his star in the easterner come
to worship him when harry the king had heard these things he was troubled and all jerusalem
with him so they're kind of like what what are you talking about so if it was like a super
nova in the sky or something you know everybody would see that and point to that but if it was an
astrological thing they're coming from the east the wise men are coming from the east
you know they're looking at the sky and they're reading it and saying hey this looks like
there's going to be a great king born in judaea based on this it's i guess i would say it's
like the exception that proves the rule it's sort of like pilot's wife has a dream and says like
oh man don't mess with jesus because i've suffered many things in a dream because of it
it doesn't mean that we're going to start interpreting dreams to figure out our future
and our and make decisions based on that i think this was just kind of a a one-time
exception or a thing where god basically put something in the sky that astrologers would
recognize that would bring them out for the birth of jesus so that they would come out and
visit jesus and bestow gifts on him and fulfill prophecy and and just it was just part of his plan
and i think it's the exception that proves the rule so i do i do believe that there was an
astrological component to the star of beth
and you know judge for yourself but he flat out says in the preface of the book i reject
astrology and i don't believe that the planets and the zodiac signs have anything to do with
our lives and i agree with him they don't it's a joke okay but he basically according to his
view you know he's talking about basically the planet jupiter and its movements and lining
up and all yeah it's very complicated okay but i will say this it's interesting and and
when you look at where bethlehem is in relationship to jerusalem bethlehem is east of
jerusalem okay and the stars move from east to west okay first of all every night all the stars
rise in the east and set in the west except for circumpolar stars but not only that from
night to night they're a little bit further west every night you know they move from east
to west the the planets typically move from east to west okay but the planets have something
called retrograde motion where basically they're moving from east to west east to west but then
they appear to stop and move in the opposite direction and then stop and go the correct
direction again and this is part of how we know that the the geocentric model is false
okay because of the apparent retrograde motion of the planets and so you know if you have
jupiter in retrograde okay they you know the the the wise men from the east
let's say they're also schooled in astrology like the wise men of of daniel's you know
experiences if they come to jerusalem they come to jerusalem they come to the capital
because they believe that there are signs in the heavens pointing to the messiah being born
pointing to you know they know the messiah is coming from daniel's prophecies and then you know
they're looking at the signs in the heavens saying this is pointing to a king of the jews
and they go to jerusalem they just go to the capital like where is he where is he that's
born king of the jews we've seen a star in the east and come to worship him everybody's
like what are you guys talking about because it's like you had to be an expert to
understand what they're talking about then when they head toward bethlehem because remember the
bible scholars tell them well the messiah is going to be born in bethlehem of judia for thus
is written in the prophet thou bethlehem in the land of juda are not the least among the
princes of juda for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my people israel
so they start heading for bethlehem and as they're heading for bethlehem you know it
says it says behold the star which they saw in the east went before them till it came and
stood over where the young child was so that would be a movement if the star went before
them till it came and stood over where the young child was that would be a movement from west to
east which would be a retrograde movement and then till it came and stood over where the young
child was that could be basically the stopping in the apparent retrograde movement the stopping
and going the other direction so i think that's a good explanation where the text in matthew
chapter two lines up with this theory by michael molnar and and look don't lie about me and say
that i believe in astrology or that i'm promoting astrology i repeat astrology is garbage
it's a pseudoscience it was a pseudoscience back then it's a pseudoscience now the planets
and the stars don't affect us at all hey baby what's your sign is basically being answered
with the wrong answer 99.99999 of the time because of the fact that precession has not been
taken into account and if you think whatever sign you think you are you're actually probably
one click off if you'd actually read up on it so i don't believe in astrology but i do
believe there was a special sign in the heavens that pointed to the birth of christ that
astrologers recognized because they were experts at studying the heavens and so kind of an
exception that proves the rule i hope that that made sense i hope that wasn't too complicated
and i hope people don't take that the wrong way or misinterpret that so what do you think
about what i just said i mean that's the best explanation that i've ever heard on that
subject despite the fact that it was a long explanation it was very accurate and detailed
okay well i i hope that um you know people understand and look you know again i'm not saying
that michael molnar's book is for sure right i'm just saying i read it i found it to be compelling
and i i found it to match the text of scripture and i don't think there's any conflict there and
i and i don't think that i i think walking away from that and and just embracing astrology
would be a weird interpretation and and that's not what he's proposing so
all righty we got a caller online right now you are live with framing the world
hello um scientists teach that dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago
but you guys agree that we've only been here for 6 000 years so doesn't that mean the fossils they
find of dinosaurs are they fake no not at all it just means that they're newer right for a long
time well according to evolutionary biology evolutionary evolutionary paleontologists they
say that dinosaurs were extinct for 65 million years now we're digging up in 1990 they dug up
dinosaur bones that had tissue that had blood vessels but the hemoglobin still in the blood so
that shows that the dinosaur died recently and also there's c14 in the bones c14 is supposed to
decay within 50 000 years so this idea that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago is
completely unscientific and the bible says behold now behemoth he move at this tail as
a cedar speaking of like a brachiosaur so that's the best answer that i have on that
i don't know if pastor aniston i agree with you 100 that's a great answer because uh you
know the dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time as man like he just pointed to that evidence
i read some of those articles too about how they found that tissue in those that you're
supposedly millions of years old but yet they have these tissues and like you said carbon 14
you know the half life isn't millions of years it doesn't decay in millions of years
you know so maximum 50 000 maximum 50 000 years and so if they're finding that then
there goes your millions of years for dinosaurs i believe that uh the fossils i i wouldn't say that
the fossils are fake i mean the fossils there the fossil exists it's not a fake fossil
it's a fake date that's being put on the fossil right even the scientists have said well
how did this last for 65 million years they couldn't come up with a correct they came up with
some hypotheses but they were never tested yeah matt and i are in one accord on that subject
because i i you know i believe that life on this planet you know was created
by a miraculous act of god you know approximately 6 300 years ago so right and also look at the
ica peruvian stones every known dinosaur was drawn on those stones and some of those stones
have come back to be fakes but some of them are also authentic so you can do the research
yourself online but every known dinosaur and i was in a debate a while ago where the guy said well
they were just drawing animals that they saw but they were bad artists well i don't know how
anybody could just make up uh every known dinosaur and put them on the stones before
they knew they existed especially a bad artist especially a bad artist but the thing is you
know i strongly believe that leviathan and behemoth are dinosaurs i did a whole sermon
a few years back called behemoth and leviathan and you know i think it's for sure dinosaurs
that are being described that's my view on that and i think you know that for sure
dinosaurs were created you know on the sixth day of the creation week and he even says behold
behemoth which i made with thee with thee he says i made behemoth and you at the same time
right and i think it's you know like you said so great answer
all right what do we got mission control do you copy any yeah they've also found dinosaurs
skin they've also found dinosaur skin that is still preserved and it's actually stretchy so
they could stretch it out and they could look at it and it hadn't fossilized or hardened
and again it's just another proof containing vessels just another proof of dinosaurs living
recently in history rather than 65 million years ago like they claim
okay we got another question on the line you are live with framing the world
hey bass Anderson how you doing man good how you doing
feel good so i know a lot of scientists they like to say how
stars are some you know unimaginable amount of light years away and how they're you know
light years bigger than our sun how you know they're so massive and all that do you think
that the stars are actually that big or you know how do you think god created them well i don't
i don't think that anybody is claiming that that stars are that big but i could be wrong about
that but but but as far as how far away they are i do believe that they are that far away
yes i do because there is a lot of evidence for that you know uh stellar parallax is a is
a big thing with the distance of the stars from us because like for example if you if you
put your finger right in front of your face and you close one eye and then you switch to
the other eye and you switch back and forth between your right eye and your left eye
you'll see your finger like jump back and forth but if you put your finger all the way
out here and do the same thing it's jumping back and forth but it's not as dramatic as when
it's right in front of your face so the farther away things are there's a different parallax
also you know the light coming from the stars can be examined and you know you've got the
red shift and the blue shift and you've got all these different things you can tell if they're
moving towards you if they're moving away from you you combine you know there's just a lot of
different things that go into those calculations that you know would take a long time to talk
about all the different ways that they're measuring the distance of these stars so
and theoretically and yeah there obviously there are stars that are way bigger than the sun
and they're all different sizes of stars and i don't why would you have a problem with stars
being that big and that far away to me it just makes god's creation that much more magnificent
the bigger the better amen so i don't have an issue with the size what do you think
well i was just wondering that because i it seems like the scientists you know i don't know if
you've ever looked up on youtube like star comparison they'll show you the sun and then it'll
show you like the next biggest star like in the andromeda galaxy and then we'll go to the
next biggest star and then when you look at the size of the sun compared to the biggest
star that they find it's just like it's like a pea pebble you know like in comparison to the
earth right you know i think that speaks volumes to um you know how god designed the
universe and instead of you know scientists trying to think you know hey we figured this out
i think it's beautiful yeah i mean when you talk about when we talk about other stars
being an incredible size compared to the sun i think that's i think that's great i mean it
just to me it's just more glory for god the bigger the better yeah by the way i tried that
little finger experiment i looked like a complete idiot doing it so i'm gonna have to look that
up later stellar parallax okay now the in the ancient world the ancient greeks did not
believe that the stars were that far away because the stellar parallax they're so far away
it you can't really discern it with the naked eye you you have to have powerful telescopes
and powerful instruments to be able to discern the stellar parallax that's part of why they
didn't think that the stars were as far away and because they didn't believe that the stars
were super far away that's what led them to falsely believe in a geocentric view okay but
then later you know once kepler explained the elliptical orbits of the planets i mean it's
just the that's the geocentric view went out the window because the geocentric view is
inaccurate and then kepler's view matched the act the accurate observations of taiko brahi
and and he did these very accurate measurements and then kepler explained them with math and
science and it just it just fit and it was like and and the invention of the telescope
is really what just completely did away with geocentricity because you know when you look
at the phases of venus in the ptolemaic geocentric view you would never see venus
uh larger than a half it would be a crescent it would be half but but yet we see venus going
through uh phases of gibbous and even a full venus and so you know geocentricity is
impossible for a ton of reasons all right man thank you for answering my questions yeah no
problem yeah and and by the way a lot of people don't understand the elliptical orbit
they think that basically the elliptical orbit is centered on the sun but the way an ellipse
works a circle has one center point or focus an ellipse has two focuses okay and every point
on the outside of the ellipse is basically equidistant from both foci you know so if you
you know you could like take two poles and take like a yarn and a pencil and you know you can draw
an ellipse by staying equidistant from the two focuses well here's the thing the sun is actually
if you look at what an ellipse looks like and the two focuses the sun is at one of those
foci i don't know if you realize that so the ellipse is not centered on the sun the ellipses
is off a little bit and what happens is when the when the planet gets on the part of the
ellipse that's closer to the sun it speeds up and when it gets on the part of the ellipse that's
farther from the sun it slows down and this is what kepler figured out and he came up with his
laws of planetary motion and it just revolutionized astronomy so all righty we got another caller
online you are live with framing the world uh pastor matthew 24 march 13 stars falling from
heaven um moon shall not give her light how do you think that will physically play out what's the
uh the anderson theory hypothesis hypothesis yeah thanks for correcting that to the anderson
hypothesis sorry but anyway here's the thing about that stars falling you know a lot of flat
earther types are just like when it says stars fall we're talking stars falling okay
and uh actually no the stars falling quote-unquote is what we call shooting stars those are called
stars you have to understand in the ancient world all the objects up in the sky were referred
to as stars so even planets were called stars they're called wandering stars that's where the
word planet comes from planet means wanderer wandering stars are later were just shortened to
just wanderers or planets what you have to understand is that when the bible talks about
the stars falling it's it's a meteor shower okay and i'll give you proof of that biblically
is that in revelation chapter 16 the bible talks about the third part of the sun being
darkened the third part of the moon and the third part of the stars stop shining so if all
the stars fell in revelation chapter 6 then how are there still stars in the sky in revelation 16
so the stars did not literally fall out of the sky what fell out of the sky is what we
know as shooting stars same thing with wormwood you know the star wormwood is actually referring to
a meteor okay because those are called stars in bible days and even today we look up at the
sky and say oh look a shooting star we still call it a star so obviously the stars are
these giant burning balls of gas and if one of them hit the earth the whole earth would be
obliterated you know and if you want to be a flat earther and just deny everything that you
see with your eyes and just think we're living in the matrix or something and just deny that the
moon has craters and deny that the moon has mountains and valleys even though you can look
at them with a with a pair of binoculars for 30 dollars but then you're gonna say the moon's
just a light it's a light it's not even yeah that's what tyler doka the flat earther said
he's like well how could we land on the moon when the moon's just a light how do you land
on a light it's like dude really look at it you can look at it with binoculars you can look
at it with a telescope yourself no faith required to look at the moon and see that it's a solid
object okay now uh so so the stars falling that's not what we today call stars technically
speaking it's meteors okay but how's it gonna play out well the bible when it talks
about the sun and moon being darkened it talks about the sun being turned into darkness and the
moon into blood is is the way it words that well here's the thing in a full lunar eclipse
a total lunar eclipse this the moon is bright red so i believe that it's going to be you know
some kind of an eclipse involved in making the sun turn into darkness and the moon into blood
you know i think that there's going to be an eclipse taking place i mean what what do you
think that that picture right there see that red moon right there that is what a lunar eclipse
looks like a lot of people think a lunar eclipse means that the the the moon just gets
completely blacked out no that is a total lunar eclipse right there where the moon turns
red okay now in a total solar eclipse the sun gets totally blacked out by the moon
and in fact if you are actually there for a total solar eclipse and by the way the chance of this
happening in your area is about one in every 400 years so you're unlikely to to experience
one of these in your lifetime unless you travel to one but if you experience a total
solar eclipse the stars will be visible in the daytime think about how cool this would be
the moon basically casts its shadow over the sun it blocks out the sun
the stars will become visible in the daytime and crickets will begin chirping like all the
night creatures will come out for those 10 15 minutes wouldn't that be a trip it'd be it's kind
of on my bucket list to experience a total solar eclipse at some point but that that's very
different from a lunar eclipse you know lunar eclipse it turns you know the sun's dark and
in a solar eclipse the moon turns into blood in a lunar eclipse those are two very different
things isn't it interesting how the moon is like the perfect size to black out the sun
think about how different in size the moon and the sun are two very different sizes
different distances from the earth but isn't it interesting how they're both in the sky
the exact same size pretty much like when we look up in the sky the moon and the sun appear
about the same size folks that's amazing that's part of god's creation like that right
there is is quite yeah look how different in size and yet well that's not to scale but
the sun's way bigger i'm trying to find one that's the scale
hang on give me a second but but the but the point is isn't it cool that even though the moon's
way closer and way smaller and the sun's way bigger and way farther they both end up being
the same size so that the moon basically just fits perfectly for a solar eclipse now here's the
thing at different points we're different distances from the sun because our orbit's elliptical
and the moon is slightly different points as well so sometimes that sometimes you can have the
moon come directly in front of the sun but you don't have a total solar eclipse you have what's
called an annular eclipse where you have just the rim or the corona sorry to bring that up
you have just the ring of light around so you want to pull up a picture of that solomon the
annular see the annular eclipse where you can see the ring around it okay so that's an
annular solar eclipse because the sizes are not perfect like the moon is a little bit smaller
it's a little too small isn't that cool but then logan's watching this epic playback solomon's doing
right now and this is doing a really good job so that that's an annular eclipse now show a total
solar eclipse son show us the difference because the the annular is when the sizes don't match
up exactly but other times the sizes match up exactly to where the moon just covers the full
sun is that awesome or what i don't know if this is an actual image or if this is just an explanation
or yeah yeah but anyway you know you can see it folks if you want to see it this year you
can go down to chile this december and there's some places in chile where you can view
i'm not going to be able to make it because i'm already going i'm planning to go on a
missions trip to chile in november so i'm just going to miss it but you know what i'm only 38
years old god willing hopefully i'm going to be here for another 40 maybe even 50 years and so
you know i'm not going to catch this one but down the road i hope to catch one a little closer to
home you know north some kind of north america i think it'd be worth traveling because it's
kind of a once in a lifetime to see a total solar eclipse i want to i want to see the stars
in the daytime and hear the animals chirping and stuff the night creatures doesn't that sound
cool ready for what the color okay we have another color online right now you're alive with
in the world i'm only 38 years old
mute your mute your uh live stream we just entered a time warp
we've just bent spacetime and heard the past they're gone all right you just got smoked you
you violated the the the the main rule of calling in to to radio you must turn off
i think they're calling back hang on all right second chance folks
there's a second chance
all righty you you are live with framing the world
all right hello uh greetings from wisconsin um so pastor i had a quick question um so you know
people talk about leaving earth and you know oh you know we might travel to stars and go
to different planets colonize different planets like that um if you think that would happen
what do you think about like the end of the world when you know jesus comes back it talks
about all this stuff happening here on earth so i mean do you think that people that are in
other planets if if that's something that we do people that are on other planets what would
happen to them well here's the thing i don't i don't think we're going to travel to other
stars and and planets in other galaxies or or other star systems because the closest star
is over four light years away and how are you going to travel at the speed of light
and then it would still be four years to get there at the speed of light i mean that's that's
wild so control room we're hearing too much of you you got to turn down that mic up there
so basically uh i don't believe we're ever going to reach the stars i could be wrong but i
i don't think it's feasible anytime soon i don't think it's ever going to happen
but you know who knows but so as far as colonizing other planets you don't really have
a lot of options because the outer planets are the gas giants the jovian planets like Jupiter
Saturn Uranus i mean they're they're giant they're like balls of gas and stuff and the
pressure and so you can't land on them okay and then so when we look at the terrestrial
planets mercury is just like insanely hot or or super cold it's completely dead geologically
it's just like a bad so inhospitable venus is just like what 800 and some degrees Fahrenheit
and like the soviet union sent some rovers and they just like melted within hours because
it's just so incredibly hot it's just ridiculous it's hotter than mercury venus is the hottest
planet and then you know so the only the only possible options to so-called colonize on
would be uh the moon or mars i mean those are your two options if you wanted to set up
and obviously mars is the is the candidate that they would look at because it has ice on
it and everything even though there's no liquid water it's super cold there's uh ice there
supposedly and but you know i don't see how let's say eventually people land on mars or even were
to say colonize the moon or mars i don't really see a problem with that with the end times
because like i said it would be kind of a tribulation in and of itself like if you're
going to try to go to mars or the moon to escape tribulation you're just basically like
putting yourself in your own kind of tribulation you know basically you're going out of the frying
pan and into the fire because living on mars would would just be horrible and and living on
the moon would be horrible like people can't even be quarantined for a little while in their
beautiful homes walking around their beautiful neighborhoods listening to birds chirping and
walking through the parks and and and parkways and looking at the canals and things you know
you want to be locked in some weird spacecraft and then get to the moon or mars and be
locked in some weird pressure containment cell i mean it'd be like it'd be like being in prison
i'm sure some people would geek out on it and really enjoy it but i bet even people who
like that sort of thing would probably freak out if they actually went to mars
and were riding in that capsule for that long and get there and just be locked in you're not
gonna be able to go out without a space suit so you know if that's a strategy for escaping
the wrathful things that are going on on this earth well you know what i think god's just
gonna be like all right go for it you know go punish yourself since i mean do you kind of see
what i'm saying like what do you think about that no it would definitely be a punishment in
and of itself just being out there like that would be very annoying even for a geek like me
i love space i love the idea of traveling to space but but not that far and not living there
no absolutely great place to visit terrible place to live right
exactly i mean look it'd be cool to go up in orbit experience some weightlessness
get a different view of the heavens but like living on the moon or mars like that's that's
gonna be rough man be wild it'd be like it'd be worse than prison in many ways it'd be cool
at first you know but so who knows yeah okay we got another caller on the line right now
you're live with framing the world they're wearing me out here a little bit and genesis
god says multiple times in the firmament if it's not a dome then what does in the firmament
mean okay well here's a question for you how do how do birds fly in the firmament
are they are they flying inside of a dome
i don't know well there you go so the bible says that the stars are in the firmament and it says
that birds are flying in the open firmament of heaven here's folks there's nothing firm about
the firmament okay let me just make that real clear don't get fooled by that word firmament
and by the way butterflies also have nothing to do with butter just so you know okay they're
just so you know okay they're they have nothing to do with sticks of butter that came from
churning milk and joysticks are not going to bring joy to your life either okay so you can't
just take a word firmament you know what the firmament is it's the wide open expanse of
heaven that's what it is and the bible says god called the firmament heaven and there are
three heavens there is the heaven as in the sky there's the heaven as in the universe outer space
and then there's the heaven where god lives and that's why the bible calls it the third heaven
because there are three heavens well you know in that sense you could say there's three
firmaments because god called the firmament heaven so i think when the bible talks about
birds flying in the firmament that shows us that the firmament is the sky and the waters
above the firmament are simply water molecules in the air okay it's the so when god created the
firmament you know he's creating the atmosphere okay and and the thing about this is that when
you say to people how do birds fly in the firmament they're like well it just means
they're inside the dome you know they're in the firmament okay then why does it say they
fly in the open firm it's a closed system no no it's the open firmament matt matt it's the open
firmament they're flying in the open firmament not the closed firmament right flying in the open
firmament flying in the sky where are the stars in the firmament that's talking about the
firmament of the heaven the what does firm it mean it's it's talking about an expanse
yeah whether that's the expansive atmosphere the expanse of outer outer space and by the way
i like what the bible calls outer space what does the bible call space he stretches out
the heavens over the over the fur the empty place uh you know you remember that term
the matt's getting tired see i drink i i never drink coffee i downed a giant coffee drink
before this broadcast because i i start to really like shut down around 8 30 to 9 every night
so i'm i'm fueled by caffeine right now matt didn't do the caffeine injection yeah we're
losing matt we're losing matt but hey you know i like how it says he stretches out the heaven
over the empty place right because isn't that what space means empty yeah space the empty place
and he says he hangs the earth on nothing right that's not compatible with the stupidity of flat
earth so you can sit up on the circle of the earth yeah so so birds fly in the firmament
folks so it can't be a solid dome and you can't say well they're just flying within the
dome because it says they fly in the open firmament of heaven okay so that's you know i
get a little fired up because flat flat earthers are the most annoying people in the world
because they you can't reason with them they don't listen they never say like well you've
got a good point there you know even when i'm disagreeing with someone watch my interview
with the transhumanist guy i say sometimes hey you got a good point there right hey you're
making sense and then he says the same thing to me we're actually having a discussion whereas
flat earthers are it's like talking to a brick wall and and folks they're idiots okay you
can go out with a pair of binoculars and look at the moon and see craters and they'll say there's
no craters on the moon you know it's just a hologram and it's just you know a light it's
not solid look at it mountains craters and and like i said you can look at this stuff yourself
30 on amazon i bought these uh bushnell this is what i got for 30 bucks and this is a
high quality pair i paid like 31 or something including shipping and i got bushnell
uh 10 by 50 binoculars and i mean you know i i'm seeing all kinds of great so i'm looking at the
moon now the main thing when you're looking at the moon with these you got to hold them
really steady because because of the magnification it's good to like prop them on something or kind
of lean them against something so that you can get a really steady view of the moon and again
point them at point them at a star constellation and you'll see a ton of stars that you cannot
see with your naked eye even in tempe even in the middle of a big city
i'm just shocked we haven't had more flat earthers sneaking through the call screening
a bunch of bozos
i'm not saying that guy was a flat earther he might have he might have just been asking that
question but i i don't know i think he was a flat earther but i don't know if you weren't
a flat earther i'm sorry i don't i don't want to falsely accuse you there buddy
god bless you comfort the feeble-minded amen yeah i appreciate their zeal but it's definitely
not according to knowledge like we have so much evidence that the earth is a sphere
and just the bible alone should be enough i don't appreciate their zeal because there's
nothing worse than being zealous for something that's stupid and wrong right they're making a
fool of they're making a fool of the word of god by lying and claiming that the bible teaches
flat earth which is a complete lie right the bible is not the bible teaches that the earth's
round that the earth hangs on nothing yeah i mean the bible is compatible with reality
right and any idiot can look at the moon and see the phases of the moon and see the
shadows on the moon and know that the moon is not glowing with now that's a full moon
that you're putting up there but you know we could put up all the different phases
and you know coming up even there you can see part of it in the shade but they would probably
just say that that picture is just a complete fabrication since it's of the back whoa where's
this guy coming from he's turning up the gas there so we you know if you look at the phase
of the moon you can clearly see it in the shade so it's clearly reflecting the light of
the sun yeah and flat earthers lie and say well the bible says the moon gives its own
light what where does the bible say it gives its own light it doesn't say anything like that
it doesn't it just calls it a light well you know what the bible also says that we're the
light of the world does that mean that we emit our own light right no we're reflecting the
light of jesus right if you took the bible like how they interpret it just everything literally
you'd have to if they'd read thou shalt not kill and you'd have to watch out for gnats
and scorpions out here yeah you'd have to become a giant or something where you can't
end any life or like when the moon turns into blood they probably think it's going to turn
into like actual blood like like like like the blood of an animal or the blood of a human
dead sea the red sea when in reality just turns red right is what it means when it says the moon
is going to turn into blood you know they probably think that the woman clothed in the sun
in revelation 12 that you know is like wearing the sun as clothing or something
right i mean yeah it's just it's off the rails it's off it's bizarre makes we don't even
want to waste time on yeah it's just so crazy we've already debunked it's been thoroughly
debunked many times even geocentricity folks i'm not saying you're i'm not saying you're an
idiot if you believe in geocentricity because because you know that's not as wild as the flat
earth but let me tell you something geocentricity was definitively debunked
about 400 years ago so it's time to just get with the times there's a ton of evidence that
proves geocentricity to be false and so you know there's no point in peddling it and it's
the gateway drug to the flat earth that's the worst part about it yep so
phases of venus that's one of the evidences you know i mean kepler the elliptical orbits
it matched the data right the geocentric model couldn't match the data yeah and then it sucks
that evolutionists have to correct creationists on this it's embarrassing it makes us all look
like a bunch of idiots and it's a blasphemy against the word of god plus if the sun represents
jesus christ he's called the son of righteousness in malachi chapter four wouldn't it make sense
that the earth would go around the sun like why do we just have to be the center of the
universe right there's no reason right i mean you know and and to me the moon reflecting the
light of the sun i i preached a marriage sermon about that in at a wedding where i talked about
how the sun represents the husband he rules by day so and then the moon rules by night he
made the stars also and i talked about how like you know when the man's not around the
wife is in authority and basically the bible says that the woman is the glory of her husband
well the moon shines with the glory or brightness of the sun reflects the sun and i i'm
not going to re-preach that sermon but but i it's on youtube i did a sermon about the
sun and the moon and marriage it was like a 10-minute sermon at a at a wedding
so i i think the symbolism is way more theologically rewarding with the heliocentric
model anyway and by the way the universe isn't heliocentric it's just our solar system is
heliocentric right right and and then people say this you know they they think that we
believe that the sun is stationary or something wow folks the sun is rotating yeah just like
the earth rotates the sun is rotating yeah and the sun's also moving through the galaxy so yeah
anyway we went too far off on that because we don't we don't want to spend too much time on
that because you can't you can't really help the flat earthers anyway you you can't help
people who don't want to be helped you know the first step is recognizing that you have a
problem right now so all righty pastor shelley is back all right you are live with framing yeah
what's up man what's going on i've i've been enjoying the the flat earth bashing so i'll
have to admit like amen profitable for me um but i i wanted to just follow up you know
you're talking about this on the six days of creation and then it's kind of like x nilo like
it's just out of nothing what you know i was trying to ask this about creation as far as like
a baby right so like when the baby's created in the womb obviously we believe in and part
of that being naturalistic but especially when it comes to in material aspect of the soul
would you say that that's not still potentially a creating act on the lord's part
like is he interacting with his creation is it just completely purely naturalistic or like what's
your well no obviously if we're going to talk about the realm of the soul and the spirit
that's not naturalistic at all because i don't think there's anything natural about the soul or
the spirit i don't think that the soul and the spirit have anything to do with matter or
energy that's in the physical realm so when i say that um it's naturalistic i'm only talking
about the physical component you know when i agree with you 100 that the soul and the spirit
is a miraculous act that's happening but but you know i would i don't know if i would call
it necessarily yeah i mean you could call it miraculous for sure but but it's it's not a
suspension of the laws of nature so it's not a miracle in that sense it's just operating on
another level than nature because nature and the physical laws only govern that which is
physical there's another realm that's the spiritual realm and so the soul i don't believe
like there were scientists before that tried to measure like how much a soul weighs
so like when somebody died they wanted to see if like they lost a little bit of weight like when
they gave up the ghost i think that's silly because i don't believe that the soul and the
spirit are physical so that doesn't violate what we said about you know no nothing new being
created we were talking about physical objects and so i think that's i think that the physical
side is not miraculous it's just god's amazing wonderful creation but it still falls within the
natural laws life begets life that's just a process that was set in motion and it just
happens but see with an animal giving birth you know i don't think god's injecting it with
a soul and a spirit you know the way that he does with a human being and i do believe that
god forms and fashions us in the womb but that's just god basically exerting influence over
what's happening of who we are but i do believe it's a physical process i mean does that answer
your question pastor shelley yeah i mean would you say that every soul is kind of created
like in the moment that it's you know conceived in the womb is that kind of
i mean that's what i would lean toward but i think that at that point that's kind of
something that's just beyond our understanding so we can't really talk about it because we don't
know how that works so sure but but i that's what i i would say yeah i mean that makes sense to me
all right i appreciate that i would i just wanted to at least follow up and just get your
idea because it seems like you know obviously the bible talks about being formed in your
mother's womb right in her belly and stuff so like i kind of see that as god's still creating
in a sense maybe it's not exactly the same as the creation in genesis chapter one but
it's some well here's the thing if i it depends on what you mean by create because like if i
took a lump of clay and i created a vase out of that clay i took it to the potter's wheel
and i created a vase you could call that creation and that's what god's doing in the
womb he's forming and fashioning but what when we talk about god creating the heaven and the
earth that's not him taking something that already exists and just forming and fashioning it that's
him creating from nothing x knee hello creation that's the difference that's that's kind of the
distinction that we're making have we lost him looks like you know when you've got pastor
shelly you got to appreciate the time that you have with him because you you know it's
limited so you have to you gotta you gotta seize that opportunity you know to speak with him
right on hello anybody i'm gonna let you go sorry hey what about the chat
okay we we just got a question that just came in actually cool when the new heaven and the
new earth are mentioned is that referring to a new third heaven only or new heavens as in all
three well here's the thing that's that's a big question i did a whole sermon called the new
heaven and the new earth and i did that at the prophecy conference a while back the post-trib
prophecy conference and so i would highly recommend listening to that sermon because i
have very strong views on the new heaven and the new earth and i i made a case in that sermon
but i would say that that's not just referring to the third heaven no i i believe that that's
referring to you know the whole package itself but yeah check out that sermon on it's also on
dvd as you can see on the screen but it's on sale folks so basically the uh that sermon that
i did at the poster of bible prophecy conference on the new heaven and the new earth
you know i would definitely check that out i think we're kind of ready to wind this thing
down you know sort of like the universe is winding down we're kind of ready to wind down
i think so um really appreciate everybody who tuned in and and stuck with us till the bitter end here
anything any other thoughts you want to leave on or anything you want to say real quick
i think it was a great discussion i think it's very beneficial and i think that people
coming across this content when they're researching science material will be interested
to see more of you know your perspective and they're going to be drawn to the preaching of
god's word and if they haven't seen the sermon once saved always saved that's the one i'd
recommend for them so that's all i got amen all right well god bless everybody thank you
solomon thank you paul wittenberger thank you matt powell uh you're an excellent uh
addition to the program tonight i'm really glad that was a fun stream i think uh it went well
well cool man i'm glad you liked it and uh appreciate matt powell he really brought a lot
to the table so i'm glad we got one more call i'm glad that i picked you i'm glad i picked
you to be on the program you did great all right he's gonna sleep all right what's the
final what's the final call let's just go with it just uncensored okay you're online with framing
the world do your worst yes uh quick question on the on the uh on the matthew chapter 24
okay um yeah the uh in the verse uh where it talks about um let me get it pulled up here
so i can read it quoted properly uh it says for many shall come in my name saying i am christ
and shall deceive many um i had the thought one day of thinking that you know where it says uh
saying i am christ um that was referring to jesus and referring to himself you know like
the people that were coming in with jesus name were saying that jesus is the christ
but yet they're still deceiving me what are your thoughts on so i've i've heard that theory
before like like basically they're interpreting the verse many shall come in my name not saying
that they're christ but saying that jesus is christ and shall deceive many but i think if you
actually read it in context he says many shall come in my name saying i am christ and
shall deceive many but then he says there's gonna be false christs so i think they're saying i
am christ about themselves and uh you know that's why they're called false christ but that has
nothing to do with astronomy nothing to do with science nothing to do with creation
hey god bless you thank you everybody and and caller god bless you uh just messing with
you there so have a great night everybody thanks for tuning in and god bless you