(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

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