Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / DEBATE Old Earth Creation vs Young Earth Creation Dr. Kent Hovind vs Smokey Saint

Transcript

DEBATE Old Earth Creation vs Young Earth Creation Dr. Kent Hovind vs Smokey Saint · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 0:00
  All right, welcome to Standing for Truth.
• 0:03
  Tonight we have another epic Age of the Earth debate for
• 0:06
  everybody. Last week we had Doctor Kenny
• 0:09
  Rhodes and Doctor Kent Hovind debating this incredibly
• 0:13
  important topic. Now tonight we've got Smokey St.
• 0:17
  here who will be defending the old Earth position.
• 0:20
  We're going to be starting with 12 minute opening statements,
• 0:23
  followed by 8 minute uninterrupted rebuttals, and
• 0:27
  then we're going to have a an open discussion.
• 0:30
  We're going to keep it as always on this channel, cordial,
• 0:32
  respectful, equally timed, discussing one topic at a time.
• 0:36
  Then we're going to have 5 minute closing statements.
• 0:38
  Serious thanks to Doctor Hovan for agreeing to meet me for this
• 0:41
  debate today. I am familiar with him from my
• 0:43
  youth and this is indeed a cathartic moment for me.
• 0:46
  Thank you to Standing for Truth for helping arrange this and
• 0:49
  hosting this debate for us. I pray the audience will find
• 0:51
  this to be beneficial and inspire all of us to honestly
• 0:55
  reflect upon the justification for the beliefs that we hold.
• 0:58
  I used to be a young earth creationist.
• 1:00
  In fact, I believe that I actually had to be in order to
• 1:03
  be a Christian. I carried this truth with me
• 1:05
  into my adult life and even attempted to defend young earth
• 1:08
  model may define myself, constantly discrediting myself
• 1:12
  to the very people I was trying to reach.
• 1:15
  My belief that this perspective was essential in order to claim
• 1:18
  to believe the Bible and therefore as doubt was given to
• 1:21
  me by the atheist opponents and friends, my faith become frail
• 1:25
  and was influenced by other toxic philosophies until
• 1:28
  eventually I no longer had any faith.
• 1:31
  I don't singularly blame the belief that young earth beliefs
• 1:34
  being essential made me lose my faith, but I also can't deny
• 1:38
  that it was indeed part of it. I have seen Doctor Hovind argue
• 1:42
  science heavy justifications for his perspective time and again.
• 1:45
  Today I would like to challenge some of his philosophical
• 1:48
  justifications and implications to the positions that he holds
• 1:52
  and allow the conclusions to be laid bare for the consideration
• 1:55
  of the honest pursuers of truth here in the audience.
• 1:58
  And so with that, let's begin the apologetic benefits of old
• 2:05
  Earth cosmology. Calm down flat earthers, this
• 2:09
  isn't proof for your model. This is a picture of the
• 2:12
  microwave background radiation, which is arguably one of the
• 2:16
  most significant cosmological finds in human history.
• 2:19
  This image gives us a snapshot of the universe about 380,000
• 2:23
  years after The Big Bang. This is actually the first light
• 2:26
  of the universe that we can detect.
• 2:29
  Now, I am not a cosmological or science expert, but I am
• 2:32
  familiar enough to know that this cosmological discovery has
• 2:36
  given us a ton of information that has helped us to realize
• 2:40
  that there are hundreds of fine tuning constants in our universe
• 2:43
  that must exist with the most extreme of precision.
• 2:48
  There are hundreds of extraordinarily fine-tuned
• 2:50
  cosmological constants that can't possibly have even the
• 2:54
  most mild of variation or none of us would be here to have this
• 2:58
  conversation. As a brief example of one of the
• 3:01
  hundreds of cosmological logical constants that must be finely
• 3:04
  tuned in order for us to even be living, all of the matter in our
• 3:08
  universe is incapable of being destroyed.
• 3:10
  This is an essential fact of reality in order for our
• 3:13
  universe to be geometrically flat, as cosmologists call it.
• 3:17
  In short, all the matter in our universe must be finely tuned
• 3:20
  within a metric of one part in 10 to the 60th power.
• 3:24
  What this means, Well if you were to add or subtract just a
• 3:29
  Dimes worth of mass from the universe, no physical universe
• 3:34
  would exist. The universe would either expand
• 3:36
  too fast and no matter would be able to form, or the universe
• 3:39
  would collapse in on itself and be a black hole.
• 3:42
  This is this is only one of the incredibly and undeniably
• 3:46
  precise cosmological constants that we see, and we only know
• 3:50
  about these incredible fine tuning constants because of the
• 3:54
  scientific discoveries of Big Bang cosmology.
• 3:57
  Young Earth cosmology generally requires people to discount much
• 4:01
  of this field of study and consequently discard some of the
• 4:05
  most incredible and compelling evidence that our entire
• 4:08
  universe is the product of a divine mind.
• 4:11
  This is indeed so compelling that even atheist and agnostic
• 4:14
  astronomers out there have to seemingly admit that when they
• 4:18
  look up at the heavens and consider some of these precise
• 4:20
  metrics that indeed it looks like this whole place was made
• 4:23
  for us. Genesis 1 One in the beginning,
• 4:27
  God created the heavens and the earth.
• 4:30
  I would like to bring this up as a brief note on this Hebrew
• 4:32
  mirrorism and the mirrorism definition is the combination of
• 4:36
  two contrasting words to refer to an entirety.
• 4:39
  A strong essential to sound hermeneutics is to understand
• 4:42
  some of the nuance of the literature of the culture which
• 4:44
  wrote it. Mirrorisms are incredibly common
• 4:47
  all throughout the Bible and are essential to communicate ideas
• 4:49
  with a language that lacked complex and diverse dialectic.
• 4:53
  The complex ideas would have to be communicated in simple terms.
• 4:57
  As we can expect, God spoke down to the writers of scripture as
• 5:01
  He could not communicate with them on His own level.
• 5:04
  This comes true in the prolific presence of mirrorisms in
• 5:07
  Scripture. This tells us that the literal
• 5:09
  things mentioned in the text are not actually the object of
• 5:13
  communication, but an all-encompassing idea of
• 5:16
  totality. So what came first, the earth or
• 5:22
  the universe and matter? Reading the text, I believe it
• 5:24
  is easy to come to the conclusion that the creation of
• 5:26
  the universe precedes the creation week in Genesis 1.
• 5:30
  I don't believe the earth in Genesis 11 can possibly refer to
• 5:34
  the literal earth, but must refer to the creation of the
• 5:38
  whole universe prior to this first day of creation in the
• 5:41
  week. This would mean that God created
• 5:43
  all matter, space, and time before the first day of creation
• 5:47
  mentioned in the text. Which definitely begs the
• 5:49
  question how much time passed between God creating all of the
• 5:53
  universe and day one of creation.
• 5:56
  It is easy to come to this plain reading interpretation from the
• 5:59
  text as we see that before God even speaks light into existence
• 6:02
  on creation day one, which is noticed as the first act of
• 6:06
  creation, the Spirit of God is already hovering over the face
• 6:10
  of the waters of a formless and void earth.
• 6:12
  But none the less, the earth was clearly already there before God
• 6:16
  begins his first day of creation by forming the light and
• 6:20
  separating it from the darkness. This means that the earth and
• 6:23
  certainly physical matter, space and time were already in
• 6:26
  existence before the first day of creation.
• 6:29
  The earth is clearly created before there is even a
• 6:31
  possibility of a solar day, as God had not created light.
• 6:34
  Which means that we must interpret Genesis 1 as a true
• 6:37
  mirrorism, that is talking about the beginning when God created
• 6:40
  the entire universe. And we are not told in any way
• 6:43
  in the text how much time passes between the beginning of the
• 6:46
  universe and the first creation day.
• 6:49
  The correct frame of reference of the text is also important.
• 6:52
  Whose day is the narrative talking about for the first five
• 6:55
  days? With that consider, let's also
• 6:58
  consider this particular point. God is the only person in
• 7:01
  existence for the first five days of creation, and he's the
• 7:04
  only subject in the text. God's reference to time is
• 7:07
  completely different to us, and he is describing events from his
• 7:10
  frame of reference. You must assume that God is
• 7:12
  speaking as if he is experiencing time as a man,
• 7:14
  instead of experiencing it from his own frame of reference and
• 7:17
  then analogically relating it to us US in terms that we can
• 7:20
  understand. I find this far more likely than
• 7:23
  to assume that God is having a human experience before man was
• 7:27
  even created. The fact is that if God is
• 7:29
  indeed experiencing deep time, it wouldn't change his
• 7:32
  analogical communication to the limited and finite mind, and
• 7:36
  therefore this text would still look exactly the same.
• 7:39
  Communicating all the details of his experience and act of
• 7:42
  creation would be both confusing and indiscernible to these
• 7:45
  ancient cultures and arguably even us.
• 7:48
  I see God communicating with man on his level, on man's level,
• 7:52
  not living as a man in the text. I think there is a hidden nuance
• 7:56
  in the text which helps us see that indeed, these creation days
• 7:59
  cannot actually be literal 24 hour periods.
• 8:01
  Every time a 24 hour day is mentioned, it is always
• 8:04
  referenced as evening to evening.
• 8:06
  Yet the creation days are signified at beginning with an
• 8:09
  evening and ending with a morning.
• 8:10
  This could be a 12 hour night cycle, a 36 hour day night
• 8:14
  cycle, or a long but definite period of time.
• 8:17
  But the text insinuates and seems to say that it can't
• 8:20
  possibly actually be a 24 hour period of time.
• 8:25
  Well the question now should be asked, didn't most of
• 8:27
  Christianity over the last 2000 years believe in a young earth?
• 8:31
  Well actually there's 2000 pages of church father writings and
• 8:35
  the evidence is not particularly good for that.
• 8:38
  And it's commonly said that people wouldn't come to any
• 8:40
  other conclusion than a young earth by simply reading the text
• 8:42
  that most of Christianity is held to a young earth
• 8:44
  perspective. This is actually not true.
• 8:47
  By historical evidence, there are approximately 2000 pages of
• 8:50
  Church Father writings relating to the creation account, and
• 8:53
  only two of those pages allude to a literal 24 hour day of
• 8:57
  young earth perspective. Additionally appears that our
• 9:00
  Jewish predecessors whose culture originated this text
• 9:03
  came to many different conclusions about the age of the
• 9:06
  earth long before any old earth sciences had emerged.
• 9:10
  Jewish Rabbis came under an older Earth conclusion long
• 9:13
  before the existence of old earth sciences.
• 9:17
  Rabbi ABBA Who, Rabbi ABBA Ye, and the Talmud and Midrash
• 9:20
  suggest a concept more akin to actually our present knowledge
• 9:23
  where we have billions of years, and that is actually in the
• 9:27
  Talmud and the Midrash. Simon Hahasid in the Talmud
• 9:31
  estimates the earth age is about 40,000 years and based on these
• 9:35
  early ages, many writers of Jewish religious philosophy in
• 9:38
  the 10th and 12th centuries gave ages the earth from 50,000 to
• 9:42
  100,000 years. And there is the reference for
• 9:44
  the J Store article if anyone would like to go read that in
• 9:47
  full. So, and this is the point I'll
• 9:50
  finish with, I have many other avenues and points that I look
• 9:53
  forward to exploring in the conversation to follow, but for
• 9:56
  conciseness and time of my opening, I'll leave this as my
• 9:59
  final point. There is an interesting anomaly
• 10:02
  about day 7 and that it does not have the same evening and
• 10:05
  morning statements of beginning and ending as the other days.
• 10:08
  Arguably, we know that God is currently not engaging and any
• 10:12
  supernatural acts of creation and will not create again until
• 10:16
  He creates the new heavens and the new earth, which could leave
• 10:19
  us to conclude that we are still in the 7th day of the creation
• 10:24
  week and God is still in His period of rest from any special
• 10:27
  creation. This is seemingly backed up by
• 10:30
  Hebrews 4 or talking about Christians entering the Sabbath
• 10:33
  of the Lord or entering his rest, which is still ongoing and
• 10:36
  will continue until the heavens and the earth pass away in the
• 10:40
  end of Revelation and God creates the new heaven and the
• 10:43
  new earth. Aside from day 7 potentially
• 10:46
  still going, I find that day 6 is a lot happening in a simple
• 10:50
  solar day. He doesn't just create the
• 10:52
  garden as he seems to create the rest of earth, but it says that
• 10:55
  he plants it. Then we see that Adam is
• 10:58
  actually created outside the garden and then brought into.
• 11:01
  This is a weird way to put it if we are expecting it to fit in a
• 11:04
  24 hour period and be created quickly ex Nilo like the rest of
• 11:08
  the creation, which alludes to some spans of time in the text.
• 11:12
  Additionally, the story is full of heart as it shows God playing
• 11:15
  the first matchmaker. God declares it is declares it
• 11:18
  is not good for man to be alone, but he doesn't instantaneously
• 11:22
  create woman and bring her to him.
• 11:24
  Instead, God brings all the animals before him until the
• 11:27
  narrative concludes that Adam is aware that all the animals of
• 11:30
  the world have a mate and develops a personal longing for
• 11:34
  a partner of his own. Only then does God put Adam to
• 11:37
  sleep, do surgery on him, then create Eve and bring her to him
• 11:41
  in order for him to exclaim with joy at the sight of her that
• 11:44
  finally a proper helper was found for him.
• 11:48
  Once you crunch this story into an essential 24 hour period, I
• 11:52
  believe you robbed some of the feeling and beauty of the story.
• 11:55
  There's much more I would like to fit in and discuss, but for
• 11:58
  the sake of time, this is where I should stop.
• 12:00
  I hope we will. You'll get the chance to discuss
• 12:01
  several other issues and perspectives during the
• 12:03
  conversation. And with that I will.
• 12:05
  Yield. All right, perfect, perfect
• 12:08
  timing. Thank you so much for that
• 12:10
  opening statement, Smokey. I also appreciate the visual.
• 12:14
  So now we're going to hand it over to Doctor Hovind.
• 12:18
  You also have 12 minutes for your opening statement and I
• 12:21
  will start on your first word. All right, well, thank you so
• 12:26
  much. I've heard this argument many
• 12:28
  hundreds of times and Smokey, you're wrong.
• 12:30
  God is right. He said in Genesis 11 in the
• 12:33
  beginning God created the heaven and the earth and heaven should
• 12:36
  be singular, by the way, not in your in your showing with
• 12:39
  heavens. It wasn't heavens later until
• 12:41
  later in that chapter when he divided it up into three
• 12:44
  heavens. 1st heaven where the birds fly, 2nd heaven where the
• 12:47
  stars are, 3rd heaven where God is.
• 12:49
  Paul said he was caught up to the 3rd heaven but in Genesis 11
• 12:52
  he made the heaven and the earth and when it says he made the
• 12:55
  heaven and the earth that means he made the heaven and the
• 12:57
  earth. Earth was made on the first day.
• 13:00
  Now the fact that he didn't make the sun until later I think is
• 13:03
  an indication that he doesn't want us to worship the sun.
• 13:06
  God is light that we can have one day without even the sun
• 13:09
  being there. One spin of the earth is a is a
• 13:11
  is a day 24 hour day where even if the sun was gone we'd still
• 13:15
  spin around once in 24 hours. So Jesus said in John chapter 1
• 13:20
  just said about Jesus in the beginning was the word and the
• 13:23
  word was with God and the word was God.
• 13:26
  Well, if the word was God, we better figure out who this word
• 13:29
  is. All things were made by him.
• 13:31
  You skip down to verse 14. The word was made flesh and
• 13:34
  dwelt among us. That would be Jesus Christ.
• 13:37
  So Jesus made everything. Jesus is God almighty in the
• 13:40
  flesh. He should know when he made it.
• 13:43
  He's the one who did it. Colossians one by him as Jesus
• 13:47
  we're all things created that are in heaven and that are in
• 13:51
  earth. Jesus is God Almighty in the
• 13:53
  flesh. That's another debate for
• 13:54
  another topic. OK another day.
• 13:56
  But Jesus said in Matthew 19 four he he were talking about
• 13:59
  marriage and divorce. He answered and said unto them,
• 14:01
  have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made
• 14:05
  them male and female? Clearly Jesus said the creation
• 14:09
  of Adam and Eve was the beginning.
• 14:12
  By your theology Smokey, that is not true.
• 14:14
  Jesus was lying in Mark 10-6. Jesus repeated it from the
• 14:19
  beginning of the creation. God made them male and female.
• 14:23
  I don't think it could be any simpler and we don't need a guru
• 14:26
  to tell us what that means. Jesus said the beginning of the
• 14:30
  creation was when God made Adam and Eve and he's the one who did
• 14:33
  it. He ought to know.
• 14:34
  Major point here to bring up in Romans and in First Corinthians,
• 14:37
  it tells us man brought his sin, brought death into the world.
• 14:42
  Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death
• 14:46
  by sin. Why do we have death and
• 14:48
  suffering in the world? By the evolutionist philosophy,
• 14:52
  death and suffering is a wonderful way.
• 14:55
  That's how we get ahead. If one animal evolves a little
• 14:59
  better than the rest, the rest of them have to die to make this
• 15:02
  evolutionary process work. So the question is really very
• 15:06
  simple. Did death eventually bring man
• 15:10
  into the world or did man bring death into the world?
• 15:13
  These could not be more opposite and the Bible is totally clear.
• 15:17
  Man brought death into the world because of his sin.
• 15:20
  By man came death. First Corinthians 15 by man came
• 15:24
  resurrection of the dead in Adam.
• 15:26
  All die. By the way, Adam's sin affected
• 15:28
  the plants and animals too. God put a curse on the ground.
• 15:31
  You can read that in Genesis chapter 3.
• 15:34
  So Jesus said the beginning of the creation was when he made
• 15:36
  Adam and Eve. The Bible says nothing died
• 15:38
  until Adam sinned till man sinned.
• 15:40
  OK Exodus 2011 in the 10 commandments God wrote this one
• 15:44
  on a rock with his finger and handed the rock to Moses.
• 15:47
  In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that
• 15:53
  end them is I don't think it could be more clear.
• 15:57
  He made everything in six days. Exodus 31 He repeats it in the
• 16:01
  mouth of two or three witnesses. Every word is established.
• 16:04
  It's a sign between me and the children of Israel forever.
• 16:07
  For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth.
• 16:11
  And on the 7th day He rested and it was clear.
• 16:14
  He told them, I want, He said I work 6 days, rested one.
• 16:18
  I want you to work 6 days and rest one.
• 16:21
  If the days are not literal days.
• 16:23
  Was he telling them to work 6000 years or 6 billion years before
• 16:26
  they get a day off? No, he said six days.
• 16:30
  It's all through the scripture hundreds of times.
• 16:33
  The six days and rest on the 7th day.
• 16:36
  First Corinthians, the first man Adam was made a living soul and
• 16:42
  the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
• 16:44
  Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of
• 16:47
  all living. So the Bible clearly says #3 we
• 16:51
  all came from Adam and Eve. Now you don't have to believe
• 16:54
  the Bible if you don't want to, but I'm just pointing out that
• 16:56
  is what it says. We were told in Second Peter
• 16:58
  chapter 3 that in the last days there would be scoffers who
• 17:03
  would come along, who would walk after their own lust.
• 17:07
  See, they don't like the Bible being true because that means it
• 17:12
  might put a cramp on their lifestyle.
• 17:15
  This book says thou shalt not a couple of times.
• 17:18
  They don't like those thou shalt nots.
• 17:19
  And so they say, well, we don't believe it or we got to
• 17:22
  reinterpret it my way. They can twist it and change it
• 17:24
  any way they want. Bible says where is the promise
• 17:27
  of his coming? Since the fathers fell asleep,
• 17:29
  all things continue as they were.
• 17:32
  We were warned in Second Peter 2000 years ago that in the last
• 17:35
  days scoffers would say the way things are happening now is the
• 17:39
  way they've always been happening.
• 17:42
  Well this is simply not true. There have been some
• 17:43
  catastrophes that have completely rearranged things on
• 17:46
  the planet like a flood. OK, for this they willingly are
• 17:50
  ignorant of. Peter said that by the word of
• 17:53
  God the heavens were of old. The scoffers are willingly
• 17:57
  ignorant. That means dumb on purpose in
• 17:59
  the Greek of how God made the heavens and the earth standing
• 18:04
  out of the water and in the water.
• 18:06
  The second thing they're ignorant of is the flood,
• 18:08
  whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water
• 18:11
  perished, and they're ignorant of the Day of Judgment, which is
• 18:14
  coming. So the creation 6000 years ago,
• 18:17
  people say, are you a young Earth creationist?
• 18:18
  No, 6000's, a long time. I have a hard time thinking just
• 18:24
  about Abe Lincoln 170 years ago. That's a long time.
• 18:28
  Columbus, my Vikings, my ancestors, the Norwegians
• 18:30
  running around trying to find this place 500 years ago, that's
• 18:34
  a long time. 6000's a really long time, billions is
• 18:38
  ludicrous, absolutely stupid, not necessary, not there.
• 18:42
  OK the Bible says clearly nothing died till Adam sinned.
• 18:46
  Adam was the first man and Adam lived 130 years and had a son
• 18:50
  and that son lived 105 years and he and his son lived 90 years.
• 18:54
  Anybody can graph it out. It doesn't take long.
• 18:57
  Add up the dates in Genesis 5 and you'll get the first part of
• 19:00
  this chart, and then after the flood, you will get the last
• 19:03
  part in Genesis chapter 10 and 11.
• 19:05
  The dates, and we have history, recorded history from the time
• 19:08
  of Joseph on Joseph's, the last actual date.
• 19:11
  We have in Scripture to hang your head on when it comes to
• 19:14
  establishing a creation. But the Bible dates add up to
• 19:17
  approximately 4000 BC or 6000 years ago.
• 19:21
  OK, And I don't say the exact date or time.
• 19:23
  I don't think we can get that. OK, We have a birth certificate.
• 19:26
  God Himself promised He would preserve His words.
• 19:30
  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
• 19:33
  It's profitable for doctrine to reprove correction, instruction,
• 19:35
  and righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, truly
• 19:38
  furnished, and all good work. Here we have God himself writing
• 19:42
  down what happened. The Bible dates up for the
• 19:44
  creation add up to 6000. The textbook says the earth is
• 19:48
  billions of years old. Somebody is lying.
• 19:52
  There's a big difference between 6000 and 4.6 billion.
• 19:56
  Congress has no clue about that difference, but they're
• 19:58
  different guys, OK? The textbooks say the earth is
• 20:01
  billions. Jesus said the creation of Adam
• 20:03
  was the beginning. Was he lying?
• 20:05
  Did he not understand science? Or could he have been right?
• 20:09
  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
• 20:11
  Thou Lord in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.
• 20:13
  Hebrews chapter 10. So when was the beginning?
• 20:17
  There are many script. The scripture could not be more
• 20:19
  clear. The beginning was when God made
• 20:22
  the heaven and the earth and when Adam and Eve were created
• 20:24
  on. Everything was created in those
• 20:26
  six days. You can have a day without the
• 20:29
  sun and there's no gap. God can do all everything.
• 20:32
  On day six, He made Adam, then he made the garden, then he, he.
• 20:37
  So Adam got to watch God make the plants.
• 20:39
  They grew out of the ground. Adam saw that God made one more
• 20:42
  of each animal. The rest of the world's full of
• 20:44
  animals. God made one more of each animal
• 20:47
  so Adam could see, Wow, I need a wife.
• 20:49
  They've all got 1. I don't have one, and that one's
• 20:51
  not suitable for me. No, that one's not suitable.
• 20:53
  That one's not suitable. So God said, go to sleep, son, I
• 20:56
  got a surprise for you. He took one rib out of Adam and
• 20:58
  made the world's first loudspeaker.
• 21:00
  I mean, it's great at Eve. I'm sorry.
• 21:02
  And so here we have God claiming he did it all in six days.
• 21:06
  We don't need anybody to interpret that for us because
• 21:08
  later he said clearly in the 10 commandments and he wrote it on
• 21:10
  a rock. In six days the Lord made heaven
• 21:12
  and earth. So let's look at some scientific
• 21:15
  ways to prove the earth. Can I see 475 OK, scientific
• 21:20
  ways The certainly the scripture comes to 6000.
• 21:23
  Now you can try to twist it or pervert it or change it or alter
• 21:25
  it, but that's what the nobody, just anybody just reading the
• 21:29
  book would come up with that conclusion.
• 21:31
  OK, scientific ways. I understand full well.
• 21:34
  If you take time away from an evolutionist, this is their
• 21:37
  pacifier. They have to have billions of
• 21:40
  years. I understand time keeps them
• 21:44
  from crying. If that doesn't work, you add
• 21:47
  more time. Will.
• 21:48
  You gave me these, didn't you? This is great.
• 21:50
  If time doesn't work. Had more time?
• 21:53
  Hell yeah. Billions and billions of years.
• 21:55
  Somehow they think that's going to solve something.
• 21:57
  If you take away that pacifier, they get frantic because they
• 22:01
  know their whole theory falls apart.
• 22:04
  Now galaxies are spinning, but the stars in the middle are
• 22:08
  going faster than the stars at the outside.
• 22:10
  Therefore the galaxies are slowly winding up.
• 22:14
  They would not have the spiral arms on them anymore if they
• 22:18
  were billions of years old. You can't have a spinning object
• 22:21
  like that go on for billions and billions of years when the stars
• 22:24
  are going different speeds. Hello.
• 22:26
  Can't be it can't be billions of years old.
• 22:28
  The arms would be gone. And they've done all kinds of
• 22:30
  studies on this and what would happen?
• 22:32
  Wow, galaxies with a spiral arms.
• 22:34
  You're interesting. Red, white dwarfs.
• 22:37
  Let me go to a couple of signs. And you've already seen all
• 22:39
  this, Smokey, but some of the people have not.
• 22:42
  Let's see 510. I go through about 30 or 40
• 22:45
  different scientific indicators. The Earth cannot be billions of
• 22:48
  years old. It just can't be.
• 22:50
  If you need billions of years, I'm sorry, you can't have it.
• 22:54
  Jupiter has a moon called Ganymede.
• 22:56
  Jupiter's way out there. I think it's 5 astronomical
• 22:59
  units. It has a moon going around it
• 23:01
  that has a strong magnetic field.
• 23:03
  Whoa, stop right there. That would indicate heat in the
• 23:07
  center. You think that little bitty moon
• 23:09
  way out there in space is still hot and has remained hot for
• 23:12
  billions of years? If you came in the room and
• 23:15
  found a cup of coffee and I said don't touch the coffee, it's
• 23:17
  hot. And you said whose is it?
• 23:20
  I said I don't know. It's been sitting there for 300
• 23:21
  years. I don't think the coffee is
• 23:24
  going to stay hot for 300 years and I don't think Ganymede is
• 23:27
  going to stay hot enough to have a magnetic field.
• 23:29
  Ganymede is surprisingly magnetic moon.
• 23:33
  Interesting. I got a theory about Ganymede.
• 23:36
  God made everything 6000 years ago and Ganymede is only 6000
• 23:40
  years old. Have a problem?
• 23:41
  Saturn has rings that are gradually getting further away
• 23:44
  from the planet. They're dissipating.
• 23:45
  Saturn's rings are leaving us. Wow, the rings are gone less
• 23:50
  than 100 million years. Wow.
• 23:52
  Saturn's rings are an indication it can't be billions of years
• 23:55
  old. Watch my video #1 where I cover
• 23:57
  30 or 40 scientific indicators. You can't have time, I'm sorry.
• 24:02
  Pick a new theory. Go ahead.
• 24:04
  Well, I, I feel like it's kind of, it started with a little bit
• 24:07
  of an insinuation and kind of carried through that I'm somehow
• 24:10
  denying scripture. And I, if I thought for a second
• 24:14
  that I was actually denying scripture, I wouldn't hold this
• 24:18
  perspective. I believe that I am still
• 24:22
  honestly, you know, pursuing the truth and honestly interpreting
• 24:25
  the text. And I did ask this question in
• 24:28
  the last debate on the Super chat as to whether or not Doctor
• 24:31
  Hoeven thought I was saved by simply, you know, saying I do
• 24:35
  believe, you know, in Christ is my Lord and Savior, but I don't,
• 24:38
  you know, hold the younger perspective.
• 24:40
  And he said, yeah, I'm saved even though I'm just wrong.
• 24:42
  And that's fine. And I accept that answer.
• 24:44
  But now it seems like I'm being painted as someone who is
• 24:48
  denying scripture. And I don't think you would
• 24:50
  typically say someone that is denying scripture is definitely
• 24:54
  saved. So I just want to make note of
• 24:56
  that for the audience. I don't.
• 24:57
  I think I'm denying scripture, and I'm certainly not trying to,
• 24:59
  and that's not the intent, and I'm not certainly saying Kent is
• 25:02
  trying to or that that's the intent.
• 25:05
  In fact, I do believe he's trying to go with an honest,
• 25:07
  direct, plain reading interpretation, and I don't in
• 25:11
  any way condemn it. He does say that Earth was made
• 25:15
  on the first day, which is OK, I can accept that.
• 25:20
  But it almost makes it sound like then the Earth is the only
• 25:23
  frame of reference of creation. What about time base and matter?
• 25:28
  I mean, something can't even be created without time.
• 25:32
  You know, the the chronological passing of time is essential in
• 25:36
  order for matter to exist and certainly be changed and for
• 25:40
  things to be created. So certainly there would have to
• 25:42
  be something in existence prior to the beginning of that day.
• 25:47
  One. Also, I didn't really hear an
• 25:49
  answer to the the Jewish mirrorism component and the
• 25:53
  reason that mirrorisms are important.
• 25:55
  And maybe I might challenge Kent to help give me a exegetical
• 25:59
  perspective of this. And this is one of the reasons
• 26:01
  why amirisms are important is like for instance, in Isaiah 45,
• 26:05
  seven without understanding the use of amirism, you could end up
• 26:09
  coming to the perspective that God is a dualistic entity who is
• 26:13
  directly creating good and evil. But amirism lets us know that
• 26:18
  extremes are sometimes painted to talk about a whole or an
• 26:21
  entirety. So I didn't really hear much of
• 26:24
  an answer to that in terms of my my opening of the idea of how
• 26:28
  much time is kind of passing, you know, before, you know, gods
• 26:32
  does the first act of creation, which speaks and says, let there
• 26:35
  be light. He's already hovering above the
• 26:39
  earth and the waters in some sort of time space.
• 26:41
  Clearly he's already hovering above the earth.
• 26:43
  And then and then he speaks and that's the first act of
• 26:47
  creation. There is creation.
• 26:49
  There is something existing before that.
• 26:51
  So I don't feel like that was really answered.
• 26:55
  Death before the fall was brought up.
• 26:57
  I would actually like to go into that more, but I think I should
• 27:02
  probably save it for the conversation period because I do
• 27:05
  have some questions to bring up. I will mention briefly that I
• 27:09
  do. I do, of course, and I think you
• 27:12
  would kind of have to, if you hold to an old Earth perspective
• 27:14
  of the idea of at least animal and plant death before the fall.
• 27:19
  So I do think that that is at least reasonable, not
• 27:23
  necessarily definitive, but reasonable to come to even from
• 27:26
  a couple clues in the text itself, which I'm happy to go
• 27:28
  over with Kent in the conversation period.
• 27:33
  Let's see I another thing. I don't think I'm being a
• 27:36
  scoffer of the text, by the way. And I think that that text was
• 27:40
  kind of brought up kind of to strike at me that I'm kind of
• 27:42
  scoffing at the idea by I'm scoffing at the text in order by
• 27:46
  denying a a literalistic or this this particular interpretation.
• 27:51
  And it doesn't seem to be. Again, I'll reference back to my
• 27:53
  opening this type of, you know, hard rigid stance to this type
• 27:58
  interpretation is not something you'll find anywhere in early
• 28:02
  Christianity and certainly not even in the cultures in which
• 28:05
  this text was originated. They were not necessarily and
• 28:09
  essentially reading this text the way that Kent kind of seems
• 28:12
  to say that we absolutely have to.
• 28:15
  I, I do feel like the way that he kind of answered the six day
• 28:19
  challenge that I put out was kind of a little bit of
• 28:22
  flippant. With all due respect, I am
• 28:24
  talking about a heart component to this story.
• 28:28
  You know, the idea that there's, that there's God sociologically
• 28:31
  working with man on his level, not necessarily keeping him on a
• 28:34
  time clock, you know, and certainly allowing that natural
• 28:38
  urge and desire to develop within him and not, not to just
• 28:42
  bring him the first loudspeaker. And I get it's clever quip, it's
• 28:45
  funny, but you know, just to make note because I don't want
• 28:48
  it to be desensitized. I am talking about God acting at
• 28:52
  a humanistic level with man acting as the first matchmaker
• 28:56
  and showing the importance of this appreciation of the
• 29:01
  fulfillment of the longing that is placed inside the male heart
• 29:05
  for a partner and putting this on a rigid 24 hour time clock to
• 29:09
  me. And again, this is just me and I
• 29:11
  could be wrong, but seems to does steal some of the heart,
• 29:15
  you know, and some of the feeling out of this this text
• 29:17
  that I would read otherwise, that God taking his time with
• 29:20
  man for what developed that needs to develop.
• 29:23
  Anyway, Let's see, evolutionists need billions of years and I've
• 29:27
  yeah, I get it. You know, I do believe in
• 29:29
  speciation. I think even young earthers do.
• 29:32
  In fact, I believe young earthers believe in just as much
• 29:35
  speciation as we do. You know, there's, there's how
• 29:38
  many fossils in the fossil record, how many different
• 29:40
  species that we discovered? It's something like 250,000.
• 29:44
  And we estimate that that may even be only as much as 1% of
• 29:47
  all the species that have existed on Earth.
• 29:50
  So, you know, there's a massive number of species and 99% of all
• 29:55
  of those species are now extinct.
• 29:57
  So it does kind of beg the question, you know, what was
• 29:59
  Noah really essentially saving? Maybe just a certain tier, maybe
• 30:03
  up to the order or the class or the family or something like
• 30:06
  that. Well, and then you guys have a
• 30:08
  massive amount of speciation, not only from the fall where you
• 30:12
  have a whole massive amount of speciation and very quick
• 30:15
  evolution from lots of dietary tracts that are primarily
• 30:19
  herbivorous going into carnivore.
• 30:22
  That requires a whole bunch of rapid changes, really massive
• 30:25
  changes in information over periods of time, which up to the
• 30:28
  flood would be what, 1500 years? So here you have 250 thousands
• 30:33
  or so of species and that's only the ones we know about that are
• 30:37
  all speciating during this period of this 1500 years, you
• 30:41
  know, before the beginning creation and then up to the
• 30:44
  flood and then after that. Well, all of those species, I
• 30:48
  don't we don't even know what no one necessarily saved because
• 30:52
  all of those species that are in the fossil record are basically
• 30:55
  extinct now. So what did he save?
• 30:57
  Which class did he save? Well, whatever class he saved up
• 31:00
  to order class, family, whatever it is, young Earth creationists
• 31:04
  do have to believe in a hefty amount of speciation across the
• 31:08
  board in order to fill in the gaps of all the animals and
• 31:11
  different species that we see today.
• 31:13
  So I almost think that even young earthers in a way are kind
• 31:16
  of almost hyper evolutionists needing all these changes in
• 31:19
  such a short period of time. Not every animal evolves or
• 31:23
  speciates at the same rate. You know, things can have small
• 31:27
  clusters of family groups where there's only one or two born and
• 31:30
  it takes long times for them to give birth and they live long
• 31:33
  lives. They will not speciate as fast
• 31:35
  as bacteria, which multiplies thousands of times in a short
• 31:38
  period of time. So sometimes, you know, we don't
• 31:41
  want to be abusing uniformity or inconsistently holding to
• 31:45
  uniformity. And I guess with that I will
• 31:47
  yield. All right, with 15 seconds to
• 31:52
  spare. So that concludes your 8 minute
• 31:55
  rebuttal there, Smokey St. Now we're going to hand it to
• 31:59
  Doctor Hovind. Dr. Hovind, on your first word,
• 32:02
  I'll start the timer. You've got 8 minutes.
• 32:05
  Well, he seems concerned that God had to have time, created
• 32:08
  time before he created matter, etcetera, was what he said in
• 32:12
  Genesis 11. In the beginning.
• 32:15
  There's time right there. In the third word, the God did
• 32:18
  create time, space and matter. They have to come into existence
• 32:22
  in that order. If you had matter but no space,
• 32:25
  where would you put it? If you had matter and space but
• 32:28
  no time, when would you put it? So I agree, He made time and
• 32:32
  then he made space and then he made matter.
• 32:34
  He could do all that in two nanoseconds.
• 32:37
  He doesn't need long time and God can create everything.
• 32:40
  Your your idea that it requires heart and God had to you know
• 32:45
  Adam had to long for a wife and all that.
• 32:47
  Well that sounds very romantic but the scripture is clear.
• 32:50
  He made everything in six days and there was no death until man
• 32:56
  sinned. Genesis 3 is clear that man sin
• 32:59
  affected the plants and animals. Now whether plants are actually
• 33:03
  alive is another discussion we might need to have.
• 33:07
  Could they be a complex self replicating food source?
• 33:10
  I look at it. The best answer I have right now
• 33:12
  at this stage of my life is there are three types of life.
• 33:14
  There's plants, which only have a body.
• 33:17
  There's animals which have a body and a consciousness of
• 33:19
  life. There's something different
• 33:20
  about animals and plants. There's something different.
• 33:22
  They're conscious of their life. Man has a body, a consciousness
• 33:25
  of life, and a consciousness of God.
• 33:28
  We don't know of any animals that have a consciousness of
• 33:30
  God. None of our pigs pray before
• 33:31
  they eat, they just go eat. OK, so I think there are three
• 33:34
  different types of of life. Now the Bible told God told Noah
• 33:38
  to bring onto the ark all those in whose nostrils is the breath
• 33:41
  of life. Which brings up the question,
• 33:44
  since insects don't have nostrils, they breathe through
• 33:46
  the spiracles in their skin, are they considered alive in the
• 33:49
  biblical sense? I think it could be argued that
• 33:53
  maybe they're just also a complex self replicating food
• 33:56
  source for the rest of the animal.
• 33:58
  They sure have babies. Quick.
• 33:59
  Now you mentioned bacteria. They do have a generation time
• 34:02
  of about 20 minutes. They get born, grow up and get
• 34:04
  married and have kids in 20 minutes.
• 34:07
  That's pretty quick. Have has anybody ever in the
• 34:11
  history of the study of bacteriology, has anybody ever
• 34:15
  seen a bacteria produce something other than a bacteria?
• 34:18
  And the answer I'll give it is no.
• 34:21
  You might get some that are strange this way or strange that
• 34:23
  way, but they're always bacteria.
• 34:25
  People that have been raising dogs for a long time will tell
• 34:27
  you they can selectively breed their dogs and get big ones.
• 34:30
  Their little ones. They can get dogs with long
• 34:32
  hair, short hair, curly tail, straight tail, long snout, short
• 34:35
  snout. But they always get a dog
• 34:38
  recognizable to a three-year old that it's a dog.
• 34:41
  So there has been zero evidence for any changes other than their
• 34:45
  kind. The Bible says they will bring
• 34:47
  forth after their kind. It doesn't use the word species
• 34:51
  or Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus.
• 34:53
  What exactly was the kind? I don't know, but that's the
• 34:57
  subject. I don't think God cares about
• 34:59
  Carolus Linus's classification system.
• 35:02
  So the fact that we have in modern science have decided to
• 35:05
  classify them into species and genus, et cetera, well, that's
• 35:08
  wonderful and that's practical and that's useful.
• 35:10
  But the God God said 10 times in the 1st chapter they would
• 35:13
  always bring forth after their kind.
• 35:16
  There have been no examples given to me in my 249 debates
• 35:19
  before this one where anybody can say we saw this creature
• 35:23
  produce a different kind of offspring.
• 35:27
  Carl Sagan said evolution happens, but we just can't
• 35:30
  observe it. It it happens, but just not
• 35:32
  while we're watching. So it's imagination, it's
• 35:35
  SpongeBob stuff. It happened in the past.
• 35:38
  You got to go back millions of years and imagine this bacteria
• 35:41
  became an elephant because in the evolution theory, and I
• 35:44
  suspect in your theory, smoking, you believe that the bacteria
• 35:48
  slowly became something else. Has any animal ever in the
• 35:53
  history of the world, by your by your theology, smoking, has
• 35:56
  evolution happened? Have any animals ever produced
• 35:59
  something that would be considered other than their
• 36:01
  kind? I ask atheists all the time.
• 36:04
  I say, guys, dogs produce dogs produce dogs every time.
• 36:07
  And they'll say, yeah, that's now, but in the past.
• 36:10
  Oh, stop. So something non dog produced a
• 36:12
  dog. Exactly what was it that was non
• 36:15
  dog that produced a dog? And they say, well, it happened
• 36:18
  gradually, slowly. Well, then it's it's not
• 36:20
  science, it's imagination. We don't observe that.
• 36:23
  Certainly farmers all around the world have observed a whole lot
• 36:26
  of animals making babies. And they always come out the
• 36:29
  same kind as the mother and father.
• 36:32
  There may be variations. I agree.
• 36:33
  There are 70 varieties of sunflowers.
• 36:36
  They might have had a common ancestor called a sunflower.
• 36:39
  That's all that's ever been observed.
• 36:42
  I think evolution is not science.
• 36:44
  I think your theory smoky about the earth being billions of
• 36:47
  years old is not science. It's imagination.
• 36:50
  You may believe that and that's wonderful.
• 36:52
  You can have any religion you'd like.
• 36:54
  But your think your teaching on that is contradicting the clear
• 36:57
  teaching of Jesus, the clear teaching of Moses, or God giving
• 37:01
  the law to Moses. It couldn't be more clear in
• 37:03
  this book that God made it all in six days and nothing died
• 37:07
  till Adam sinned. And you really have the
• 37:10
  philosophy and don't probably maybe won't admit it or don't
• 37:12
  understand it that death brought man into the world.
• 37:17
  Was Adam created from the dust Smokey like the Bible says or
• 37:23
  did Adam come from some type of ape like ancestor?
• 37:26
  What is your theology on the origin of man?
• 37:30
  Did we evolve up through the primates?
• 37:32
  If we are just a complex animal, how do we know right from wrong?
• 37:38
  How do you tell right from wrong?
• 37:39
  Atheist called me today while I was driving the car and we got
• 37:42
  into the topic. If he's in Australia, he said, I
• 37:46
  want to debate you on moral morality.
• 37:48
  I said, OK, how do you decide morality?
• 37:50
  Who decides? Where's the where's the
• 37:52
  standard? We have a standard.
• 37:54
  You know, here's a foot, here's a yard.
• 37:56
  You know the metric system or standard system, English system,
• 37:58
  American system. So you have to have standards of
• 38:01
  weight and measure and and volume.
• 38:04
  We have to have a National Bureau standards to keep track
• 38:06
  of those standards. I think we've got a standard
• 38:08
  right here. God tells us right and wrong.
• 38:11
  I asked the atheist in Australia.
• 38:12
  I said is it morally wrong for the mother lion to kill the baby
• 38:18
  zebra to feed her baby lion? Well, I'm sure the zebra thinks
• 38:24
  it's wrong, but the lion thinks it's right.
• 38:27
  Was it morally wrong for Hitler to kill the Jews and take over
• 38:30
  their property and their gold and to finance his empire?
• 38:34
  Well, the Jews didn't like it. Hitler loved it.
• 38:36
  He thought it was great. Go and kill these people, take
• 38:38
  over their rent, take over their land, get rich quick.
• 38:41
  That's what it's all about. Where's the standard with your
• 38:44
  theology? Could you, maybe you could
• 38:46
  answer. How do you tell right from
• 38:48
  wrong? Was Adam created from the dust
• 38:50
  and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life?
• 38:53
  I think that's what the text says real clearly.
• 38:55
  Do you believe that? Or do you believe man came from
• 38:58
  some kind of lower type creature over millions of years?
• 39:01
  OK, give you my last minute. Go ahead.
• 39:03
  Smokey, why don't we give you the floor and you can start us
• 39:07
  off in? In this discussion, maybe
• 39:08
  there's a few points you wanted to address or a question you
• 39:11
  wanted to ask Kent. Go ahead.
• 39:13
  If I could, I might, may address them kind of one at a time and
• 39:15
  I'll kind of give a thesis statement, then pose a question
• 39:18
  and we'll kind of take it from there for a little bit.
• 39:21
  So I, I guess one thing I'll I'll just touch on real quick,
• 39:25
  the insects I thought was interesting they said about the
• 39:27
  insects like they could just be like a self replicating food
• 39:31
  source. They could technically not
• 39:32
  really be alive. Does that mean that you would be
• 39:35
  OK if like insects could have death before the fall?
• 39:41
  If they're not alive, they wouldn't have death.
• 39:44
  So, well, I mean like they. I don't think any insects died
• 39:48
  before the fall either. But yeah, I don't think we we
• 39:51
  call them living and dying. I understand with our modern
• 39:54
  classification system we call plants living and dying.
• 39:58
  They just may have ceased to cease to respirate.
• 40:03
  And I just point out God told Noah to bring those in whose
• 40:06
  nostrils was the breath of life. So does life require nostrils?
• 40:10
  That's just a, a theory, you know, are fish considered alive
• 40:13
  in the biblical sense? They certainly didn't go on the
• 40:15
  ark, didn't need to. They got plenty of water
• 40:17
  outside. So I I don't think anybody can
• 40:19
  answer that question. It's a fair question.
• 40:21
  Would you go ahead? Would you, would you say that it
• 40:25
  is like say immoral for, for the death of animals to exist?
• 40:29
  Like, I mean, I know you're not a vegan clearly, but like, I
• 40:33
  mean, you know, would you say that the fact that death of
• 40:36
  animals exist is an immorality? It's almost an essential
• 40:39
  immorality, maybe. Well, I do only eat vegetarian
• 40:43
  cows. The cow was a vegetarian for me.
• 40:48
  So he, he did, he did that for me and and pigs.
• 40:53
  I'm glad Jews don't like them because I like bacon.
• 40:55
  OK, so I don't think God told. It's clear in the scripture, in
• 41:01
  the first, in the creation story that God told Adam and he made
• 41:06
  the, all the fruit, the vegetables and the seeds for him
• 41:09
  to eat. Same thing with the animals.
• 41:11
  It's clear in the first couple chapters the animals were all
• 41:14
  vegetarian. After the flood, God told Noah,
• 41:18
  now the animals are going to be afraid of you.
• 41:20
  And I cover that on my video #7 I got about 40 million slides
• 41:24
  here, so I can't. Now just real quick, can can I
• 41:27
  ask you, do you believe that God kind of like supernaturally
• 41:30
  changed all their digestive tracts in like 1 instant?
• 41:33
  Or do you think it was kind of like an ongoing evolutionary
• 41:37
  speciation type of type of thing?
• 41:39
  Like like 'cause they're all herbivores and then the fall
• 41:42
  happens and then what happens? Does God just snap his fingers
• 41:46
  and they all switch to carnivore habits or what?
• 41:49
  What do you think? Well I think going from a
• 41:52
  vegetarian lion to a meat eating lion is a pretty minor change
• 41:56
  compared to going from a bacteria to a lion.
• 41:58
  OK, so we're talking real minor changes.
• 42:01
  There was and I give on my video 7.
• 42:03
  I can't find the slides right now, but are plants alive?
• 42:07
  Just so, just so I can answer two of those challenges can't
• 42:10
  just so you know what you're arguing with against, I don't
• 42:13
  believe Adam came from an ape and I don't believe I'm not a
• 42:16
  theistic evolutionist. I don't believe that all life
• 42:18
  came from a single cell. I think the idea that complex
• 42:21
  life coming from a single cell undergoing a bunch of mutations
• 42:25
  and deleterious changes over time leading to more complex
• 42:28
  systems is just an asinine proposition.
• 42:31
  So I don't hold to that. I do believe in special
• 42:34
  creation. I believe in a special creation
• 42:36
  as it's made out in the text. And I just believe that probably
• 42:40
  God created a lot like he probably did create a polar bear
• 42:44
  and a grey bear and a brown bear, whatever, you know, like I
• 42:48
  don't believe that there was, you know, like like the Cambrian
• 42:51
  explosion. I believe that he, you know,
• 42:53
  created all those animals that there wasn't necessarily tons
• 42:56
  and tons of speciation needed for that.
• 42:58
  I'm sure there was, but I'm not I, I am able to concede to the
• 43:02
  idea of all of these special creation events, including the
• 43:04
  special creation Adam. I just want to make that clear.
• 43:07
  OK, so you do believe Adam was made from the dust and.
• 43:10
  God, breathe in, I do. Yes, Good, good.
• 43:12
  OK. Well, you can move you a couple
• 43:14
  more steps to the right. You can be an independent
• 43:15
  temperamental Baptist again, OK. Doubtful, but you're welcome to
• 43:19
  try. I'll certainly keep trying.
• 43:22
  So yeah, I I don't think there was any death until Adam sinned.
• 43:26
  We don't know how long they were in the garden.
• 43:28
  We do know Adam, according to the Scripture, was 130 when Seth
• 43:32
  was born. That's really the first date
• 43:34
  we've got to go on. We know that they were out of
• 43:36
  the garden when that happened. So somewhere in the 1st 130
• 43:39
  years they got kicked out. We also know that Cain and Abel
• 43:43
  were old enough to have a fight and one killed the other.
• 43:46
  Let's assume they're in their 20s.
• 43:47
  We were that they were out of the garden when that happened.
• 43:50
  But Adam and Eve really could have been in the garden for 100
• 43:53
  years before they sinned. We know that Satan was perfect
• 43:56
  and he was a good guy when he was first created.
• 43:58
  He was Lucifer, the light bearer.
• 44:00
  Ezekiel 28 talks about that that Lucifer was in Eden, the Garden
• 44:04
  of God, until iniquity was found in him.
• 44:07
  So my theory would say the scripture seems to indicate
• 44:10
  pretty clearly God made everything at the end of day
• 44:12
  seven. It was perfect.
• 44:14
  Perfect. Angels and Satan were probably
• 44:17
  made on date day one or two because they rejoiced when the
• 44:20
  foundations of the earth were laid in day three.
• 44:23
  So the Bible doesn't tell us about angels and Satan, but I
• 44:25
  think they're made on day one or two.
• 44:26
  Don't know where I can make it fit like a puzzle.
• 44:28
  Go ahead. OK, interesting.
• 44:30
  I wanted to ask you going back to like the names of the animals
• 44:34
  too and day 6:00 So I meant how do you feel that Adam was naming
• 44:39
  the animals like the names that we have?
• 44:41
  And I know your King James version only is so like the
• 44:43
  names you have in there, like those are the names Adam chose
• 44:46
  or I mean because of course Adam wasn't speaking new King James.
• 44:50
  So like he was giving the names in his language, whatever that
• 44:54
  was, and then Moses wrote it down in that ancient Hebrew, and
• 44:59
  then that's what it was. So is the names that Moses wrote
• 45:02
  down the actual names that Adam gave the animals?
• 45:07
  I I don't think there's any way to know the answer to that one
• 45:09
  either. Maybe Adam spoke Hebrew, maybe
• 45:11
  that's the original language. I don't know.
• 45:13
  I don't think there's any way to tell.
• 45:14
  But but you do. But you do believe what Moses
• 45:16
  recorded, whatever he recorded was the name that Adam gave the
• 45:20
  animal. Like like when when Moses is
• 45:22
  calling an animal a thing, he's calling it because Adam called
• 45:26
  it that or it's just his own culture calling it that.
• 45:30
  I'm not trying to. I don't recall Adam naming any
• 45:32
  specific animals. He just it says he gave names to
• 45:36
  all the animals. I don't think he said this is a
• 45:38
  cow and this is a, a goat and this is a, a snake or I, I
• 45:42
  think, I don't think anywhere specifically named by Adam.
• 45:45
  So again, I don't think there's any way to know that question.
• 45:47
  But in Genesis 129, it seems to give a distinction Here I've got
• 45:50
  it up on screen between God said to every verse 30 to every beast
• 45:56
  of the earth and every fowl of the air and to everything that
• 45:59
  creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life.
• 46:03
  I have given every green herb. So apparently in the scriptural
• 46:07
  classification of things, the green herbs do not have life.
• 46:11
  They are a complex self replicating food source.
• 46:14
  I don't think it's something worth arguing or fighting over.
• 46:16
  But if Cain brought the fruit of the ground, God would not take
• 46:21
  it. There's no blood in a turnip.
• 46:23
  Abel brought a lamb, a sacrifice.
• 46:25
  So the distinction between the fruit of the ground and the
• 46:28
  firstlings of the flock is found again in Genesis 4.
• 46:31
  God said I will destroy all flesh.
• 46:33
  Wherein is the breath of life, every living thing of all flesh.
• 46:38
  He said, I want you to take onto the ark of all food that is
• 46:41
  eaten. So again, there's a distinction
• 46:43
  here between the living things with flesh and the and the food
• 46:46
  that is eaten. So does a carrot die when you
• 46:49
  eat it? It, it you'd have to 1st
• 46:52
  determine is this actually alive, you know, or is it taking
• 46:55
  in sunlight, taking in water and following a complex code to, to
• 46:59
  grow? I mean you can get computer
• 47:00
  programs that'll you know, it'll grow and that on live.
• 47:05
  So I don't know. I don't.
• 47:06
  Think, well, it seems like it, it just ends up kind of being
• 47:09
  really incredulous with what the definition of life is.
• 47:12
  I mean, if we found plants on Mars, I mean, would we say we,
• 47:17
  we failed to find life on Mars or we we say we found life on
• 47:20
  Mars? I mean, if we find plant life,
• 47:22
  we tend to call it plant life, right?
• 47:24
  I mean. That's our in our modern
• 47:26
  classification system, you are correct.
• 47:28
  I mean, it's cells. It's cells.
• 47:30
  It's a complex collection of cells engaging in complex, you
• 47:33
  know, processes. I mean, arguably they don't have
• 47:36
  sentience, of course, but I don't think sentience is
• 47:39
  necessarily a measure of life. We have small, you know what
• 47:43
  bacteria and stuff that aren't necessarily have any real type
• 47:46
  of measurable sentience, but we classify as alive and like I
• 47:51
  just, I, you know, the idea of the universe like what we have
• 47:54
  right now where we have the I guess you would claim then, if
• 47:58
  I'm not mistaken, that the law of thermodynamics or the law of
• 48:02
  atrophy or entropy, that everything's kind of wearing
• 48:04
  down. That didn't happen until Adam
• 48:06
  sinned. So nothing.
• 48:09
  Yeah, I don't think there's any way to know that either that
• 48:11
  would seem reasonable. Let's assume Adam and Eve did
• 48:14
  not sin for 100 years. I think they were designed to
• 48:18
  live forever. The fact that they only live to
• 48:20
  be 930 is the sad part. They were designed to live
• 48:24
  forever. So God can certainly create a
• 48:28
  machine, a man, an animal, or anything that'll last forever.
• 48:31
  The heavens are going to last forever.
• 48:33
  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but he's going to make new
• 48:36
  heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.
• 48:39
  So have to wait and see on that. Do you think that they were just
• 48:43
  like naturally immortal or because they were also eating of
• 48:46
  the tree of life or both? Like what I mean, because the
• 48:48
  tree of life is there and we know that, you know, that
• 48:52
  they're even, you know, cut off from it because God says, well,
• 48:54
  it's not good for them to live forever in their fallen state.
• 48:57
  Basically something along those lines.
• 48:58
  Aren't I'm just gonna jump in real quick, gentlemen?
• 49:00
  So that was about 10 minutes of of Smokey asking.
• 49:03
  Sure, very sure. And and very engaging discussion
• 49:06
  so far. This is a ton of fun.
• 49:08
  We got a great chat. So Ken, if you wanted to answer
• 49:11
  Smokey's question there and then we'll do a a few minutes of of
• 49:16
  Kent asking Smokey some questions pertaining to the age
• 49:19
  of the earth. Go ahead, Kent.
• 49:20
  Sure. Remind me of the question again.
• 49:22
  I'm getting old. And senile it was.
• 49:25
  Oh gosh, I must be getting just as old and senile.
• 49:28
  I now kind of had skipped my mind as well.
• 49:30
  Why don't you go ahead Kent, It's fine.
• 49:31
  I'm sure it'll it'll pop back up again as we move forward, OK.
• 49:34
  Well, that's why I said as best I can figure it out, I've been
• 49:37
  studying the book for 52 years and it looks to me like they're
• 49:41
  plant life, if you want to call it alive, animal life.
• 49:45
  People have a hard time classifying some of them single
• 49:47
  celled organisms. Are they plant or animal?
• 49:49
  You know, they this is all classification dilemma they've
• 49:53
  had for decades. But so I would say there's
• 49:56
  plants, which are a complex self replicating food source.
• 49:59
  Animals eat the plants and and the animals are certainly
• 50:03
  considered alive in the biblical sense.
• 50:05
  But could there be perpetual motion if I developed an engine
• 50:08
  that would run forever, never wear out?
• 50:12
  All you got to do is add fuel. Well, therefore, is it something
• 50:17
  wrong because you got to add fuel?
• 50:18
  I mean, if Adam and Eve would have lived forever just because
• 50:21
  they got to add oxygen once in a while and add food once in a
• 50:23
  while in water, they could still be immortal.
• 50:26
  So the question is, are they immortal?
• 50:29
  Is the engine immortal if I got to keep adding gas?
• 50:31
  So that would be another matter of definition.
• 50:35
  So I think they were designed to live forever.
• 50:37
  Adam and Eve blew it and but God's going to fix it back one
• 50:41
  day. Certainly we're going to live
• 50:42
  forever in the future. The Bible clearly teaches we
• 50:45
  have eternal life. Apparently he can.
• 50:49
  God can do that, OK? Well, do you?
• 50:52
  But do you think the only reason they were alive was because they
• 50:55
  were eating of the tree? Or you think there was something
• 50:57
  else? Well, I think they had to
• 51:00
  breathe. I think they had to drink water.
• 51:02
  Well, no, I know. But but like, I mean like in
• 51:04
  terms of their immortality, I mean is what I'm talking about.
• 51:07
  Well, that's why I gave the analogy of the engine.
• 51:08
  If I had an engine that would run forever but I had to add
• 51:10
  fuel, was is it therefore not immortal?
• 51:13
  I. So like, well then.
• 51:15
  Well, then they would be like taking up the tree and taking up
• 51:17
  the tree of life. They would be adding fuel to the
• 51:20
  engine basically. Right?
• 51:21
  Correct. Yeah.
• 51:22
  OK, So like, but you don't think the animals were partaking of
• 51:25
  the tree necessarily, but they were still immortal?
• 51:29
  It looks to me like the God created them also to be
• 51:31
  immortal, but Adam's sin because certainly God said curse, it is
• 51:37
  the ground for thy sake and he said the end Genesis chapter 3,
• 51:41
  the animals also suffered because of man's sin.
• 51:44
  Right. So these are good, good
• 51:46
  questions. I don't know if anybody's ever
• 51:47
  been able to answer those completely, but.
• 51:50
  Appreciate it. No, and thanks for thanks for
• 51:51
  trying to tackle them for me. I appreciate it.
• 51:53
  These are certainly some of the things I even think about and
• 51:55
  digest. I'm sure certain members of the
• 51:57
  audience do as well. So it's good to hear it and kind
• 51:59
  of unpack it as best as we can. We're not going to have all the
• 52:01
  answers to everything, not until we get to the end.
• 52:03
  So we're just going to do our best as much as we can.
• 52:05
  So I appreciate that. Go ahead, Ken, I'm sorry it's
• 52:07
  your time. I thought it was.
• 52:09
  And then why don't we do this, gentleman?
• 52:10
  Because those were some great points and great questions,
• 52:14
  especially pertaining to Scripture.
• 52:15
  I think that was extremely important.
• 52:18
  Why don't we now focus, let's say, 10 minutes or so on some
• 52:23
  points that that were brought up in the opening statement and
• 52:26
  rebuttal pertaining to the science that either supports a
• 52:29
  young Earth or an old Earth. Smokey, since you just asked a
• 52:32
  bunch of questions there, Kent, if there's a question you wanted
• 52:35
  to bring forth to Smokey pertaining to something that
• 52:39
  let's say supports your position defending today, go ahead.
• 52:43
  OK, I I enjoy science and I mentioned that time is the
• 52:47
  pacifier. They have to have billions of
• 52:49
  years to make their theory job. It said in the book of Job,
• 52:53
  speak to the Earth, it shall teach thee.
• 52:55
  Well, let's see, what is the Earth telling us?
• 52:57
  Does the earth tell us it's billions of years old?
• 53:00
  The Earth certainly has a magnetic field.
• 53:02
  And the Earth's magnetic field, like all magnets, loses its
• 53:05
  strength gradually. We have lost 10% of our magnetic
• 53:09
  intensity in the last 150 years. The Earth's magnetic field has
• 53:14
  declined about 40% in the last 1000 years.
• 53:17
  Well, the Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker.
• 53:19
  It cannot be billions of years old.
• 53:21
  It gives about a 25,000 year Max.
• 53:25
  That means carbon dating can't work because and none of the
• 53:28
  radiometric dating methods can work because the Earth's
• 53:30
  magnetic field is changing. That's one thing.
• 53:33
  National, pornographic, even rather geographic.
• 53:35
  Earth's magnetic field is fading.
• 53:38
  I agree. Computer models indicate the
• 53:40
  strength of Earth's magnetic field declined 10% over the past
• 53:44
  century. Wow, interesting.
• 53:47
  During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and
• 53:50
  then began to decline. So the Earth's magnetic field is
• 53:54
  declining. I don't think anybody argues
• 53:56
  with that. They tried to answer this.
• 53:58
  Here's NASA had an article about the declining magnetic field.
• 54:02
  Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster now.
• 54:06
  So the the way they've tried to come up with a solution for
• 54:08
  this, they'll say, well, the Earth's magnetic field is
• 54:11
  reversing. If you have a spinning planet
• 54:14
  that has a molten core apparently producing a magnetic
• 54:17
  field, it is absolutely physically impossible to reverse
• 54:21
  that magnetic field. It can't be done.
• 54:24
  The whole idea of reversals is baloney.
• 54:28
  What they've done, they've gone to the bottom of the
• 54:31
  Mid-Atlantic Ridge and drilled core samples and notice there
• 54:34
  are areas of stronger and weaker magnetism.
• 54:38
  In some places it's stronger, some places it's weaker.
• 54:41
  There are no magnetic reversals. The Earth's magnetic field has
• 54:44
  never reversed. It can't reverse.
• 54:47
  It can get stronger and weaker. What they were measuring
• 54:49
  actually was the cracks where the Earth cracked up when the
• 54:52
  fountains of the deep broke open.
• 54:54
  The water rushing into the crack would cool it off, locking in a
• 54:58
  magnetic field, whereas the hotter rock between these cracks
• 55:01
  would be losing its strength. So somebody drew a line through
• 55:04
  the middle of that stronger weak or stronger weak or stronger
• 55:07
  weaker, and called everything below average a reversal.
• 55:11
  No, it's weaker. If I lined up all the people in
• 55:14
  the world and found the average height was 5 foot 5, does that
• 55:17
  mean anybody under that is in the ground?
• 55:20
  Or are they just less than average?
• 55:21
  So my point would be there are no such things as magnetic
• 55:25
  reversals. The science tells us the
• 55:27
  magnetic field is getting weaker.
• 55:29
  That tells us it can't be more than 25,000 years old.
• 55:32
  OK, how do you get billions of years then?
• 55:35
  Just with the magnetic field. Well, you did say.
• 55:38
  Go ahead, Smokey. Yeah, just a real quick response
• 55:40
  to that with the magnetic fields if I could no take.
• 55:43
  Your time. Appreciate it.
• 55:44
  So the thing you showed a couple references, you showed one of
• 55:48
  them that said that it's decreasing like quote, UN quote
• 55:50
  10 times faster. Now that almost seems like this
• 55:54
  is one of those instances where we have evidence that this
• 55:57
  decrease is not uniform. It's not a, it's not something
• 56:00
  we can apply to an absolute uniformity in.
• 56:02
  Fact, correct. Yeah.
• 56:03
  And I also found the idea, I think for the sun, like the idea
• 56:06
  of the decreasing sun. There was that paper back in
• 56:09
  the, I don't know if you probably know better than me,
• 56:11
  Kent, just back in the 50s where they were measuring where it
• 56:14
  seemed like the sun was losing like 5 feet a day or something,
• 56:18
  or an hour or something crazy like that.
• 56:20
  And then they have had other measurements that they've done
• 56:23
  since that paper, I guess supposedly wasn't actually
• 56:25
  published, but they've done other references too, where
• 56:28
  they've shown that it's actually fluctuating.
• 56:30
  Like there's times where it seems like it's decreasing over
• 56:33
  a period of time and then it expands and then decreases.
• 56:36
  And different metrics at different time are giving
• 56:38
  different results. And I, I also want to mention
• 56:41
  this too, for the idea of some of the planets you had mentioned
• 56:45
  about this kind of idea of uniformity, losing heat and
• 56:48
  stuff like that. And I get where you're coming
• 56:50
  from too. But I also do know that there
• 56:52
  there are mechanisms even inside like Earth, you know, like our
• 56:55
  plate tectonics that are a form of replenishing energy.
• 57:00
  You know, and some of these planets could have the very same
• 57:03
  thing kind of going on. And there is sometimes this
• 57:07
  assumption, I guess maybe in the uniformity of these things,
• 57:11
  like, you know, throw it away when it doesn't fit and keep it
• 57:14
  when it does type thing. And I said a lot there.
• 57:16
  Oh, yield, please go ahead. Well, one at a time, it's true.
• 57:21
  If the Earth's magnetic field is weakening, which I think
• 57:24
  everybody would agree it is, all the observed measurements said
• 57:28
  it's getting weaker. Now, is it a linear?
• 57:31
  If you go back in time, would it be linear or logarithmic or, you
• 57:34
  know, geometric? There's probably several
• 57:36
  different ways the chart could go, but either way it's getting
• 57:39
  weaker, whether it's log. Same thing with the sun
• 57:41
  shrinking. The sun is shrinking.
• 57:43
  Obviously it's burning up fuel. Step outside and look at it.
• 57:46
  Everybody can see you. The sun is burning.
• 57:48
  We can feel the heat from here, 93,000,000 miles away.
• 57:51
  So I think that it's been observed that the sun is burning
• 57:55
  up about 5 million tons of fuel every second.
• 57:58
  The observation so far have indicated the sun does
• 58:01
  oscillate, you know, like a a burning gas ball.
• 58:03
  It gets bigger and smaller, bigger, smaller, but the overall
• 58:06
  trend is toward shrinkage. It has to be.
• 58:09
  It's losing fuel. I agree with that.
• 58:11
  I, I just, I would say it's not necessarily this idea of like
• 58:15
  uniformity that sometimes is presented like, oh, it's losing,
• 58:20
  you know, 5 feet, you know, per, you know, hour based on this one
• 58:24
  thing when it's really just an oscillation that was being
• 58:26
  measured. And that's I, that's one of the
• 58:29
  things I was just pointing to that that's all.
• 58:31
  And I'm glad we kind of settled that out.
• 58:33
  I appreciate that. I agree.
• 58:35
  I agree it's oscillating, but the trend is still towards
• 58:38
  shrinkage. I agree, Yeah.
• 58:39
  I don't disagree. I don't.
• 58:40
  Disagree. Do you?
• 58:41
  Do you agree that that would put some kind of time limit on the
• 58:45
  sun? I don't know.
• 58:46
  Absolutely. Oh, yeah.
• 58:48
  Oh, yeah. No, absolutely.
• 58:49
  I don't. And in fact, I know there's a
• 58:51
  time clock on the whole universe.
• 58:52
  The universe has a time clock of heat death.
• 58:54
  Sure. Yeah, absolutely.
• 58:56
  The the size of the sun is, you know, oscillating but generally
• 58:59
  shrinking. But that's less important, the
• 59:01
  mass of the sun. The sun is losing 5 million tons
• 59:05
  a second. That's how much fuel it burns.
• 59:08
  My van gets about the same gas mileage.
• 59:10
  OK, but so the sun is burning if you go back in time and start
• 59:14
  adding 5 million tons a second. Now, again, whether it's linear,
• 59:18
  geometric, logarithmic, whatever, I understand all that,
• 59:21
  but the sun would be heavier. I mean, an hour ago the sun was
• 59:25
  heavier, which makes gravity stronger.
• 59:28
  Now we're talking, you know, frightened minuscule amounts
• 59:30
  compared to the size of the sun. But if you want to go back
• 59:33
  billions of years, you got a problem because now I got all
• 59:37
  that stuff in my slide presentation here somewhere.
• 59:39
  But if you want to go back billions of years, the sun would
• 59:42
  be so massive, the gravity would be changing and it would suck
• 59:45
  all the planets in. You cannot say the Earth has
• 59:48
  been going around the sun for billions of years while the sun
• 59:52
  is losing mass. Not geometric, not not
• 59:55
  geophysically possible. That's why I say.
• 59:58
  I think it fire if I if I do know and again I would have to
• 1:00:01
  go look this up. I wouldn't say anyone to quote
• 1:00:03
  me on this, but I do remember in vague reference that the our
• 1:00:07
  particular sun has had different stages of its cosmology.
• 1:00:12
  In fact, there's a stage of our sun where.
• 1:00:15
  You know, habitable life certainly wouldn't be possible
• 1:00:18
  on Earth. We live on a middle-aged planet
• 1:00:22
  in a middle-aged solar system, in a middle-aged Galaxy in a
• 1:00:26
  middle-aged universe. And like everything seems to
• 1:00:29
  just rest in this neat little niche, you know, of like
• 1:00:32
  perfection, where based upon where we are in our universe at
• 1:00:37
  our specific time, this is the reason we can see the heavens.
• 1:00:41
  This is the, I mean, if we were a different place in the
• 1:00:44
  universe or, you know, in a different Galaxy or something or
• 1:00:48
  at a different location, we wouldn't have the same frame of
• 1:00:51
  reference. We do.
• 1:00:51
  We wouldn't see the heavens the way we see it, You know, I mean,
• 1:00:55
  there's there's something to be said seemingly.
• 1:00:58
  And I agree with this fine tuning, even though like the
• 1:01:01
  idea that there's The Big Bang and things explode and go out
• 1:01:04
  everywhere. And yet out of all of this chaos
• 1:01:07
  is the signs of direct intention of both uniformity and merging
• 1:01:13
  matter from just randomness and chaos into working complexity.
• 1:01:17
  And that, I think, is one of the best evidences of a divine mind.
• 1:01:22
  Could it be then that everything is, you know, finely tuned?
• 1:01:27
  I agree that it was created that way 6000 years ago and instead
• 1:01:32
  of saying, well, we just happened to be at the right time
• 1:01:34
  and in the right place. How much is believe the book?
• 1:01:38
  What is wrong with? Well, and I, I would say Doctor
• 1:01:41
  Hovind, I do believe the book. I don't disagree with the book.
• 1:01:45
  And again, this is a difference of hermeneutics and
• 1:01:48
  interpretation. I, I, I mean really, truly it
• 1:01:51
  is. I mean, and maybe you could help
• 1:01:52
  me help me if you could, could you help me with the verse from
• 1:01:55
  from your plane reading Isaiah 45, seven.
• 1:01:59
  I create the light, I form the darkness.
• 1:02:02
  I, the Lord do all these things. It's something that people try
• 1:02:05
  to attribute God for evil. I know it's kind of off topic,
• 1:02:08
  but if we don't address the use of mirrorism and the text and
• 1:02:12
  their utility, we can come to wrong interpretations to things
• 1:02:15
  like that. So I'm just curious how you
• 1:02:17
  would deal with a text like that.
• 1:02:19
  Well, I agree there are what you call mirrorisms, but you can't
• 1:02:22
  apply that to Genesis 11 because it says he made the heaven and
• 1:02:26
  the earth and then the Bible says no prophecy of the
• 1:02:29
  scriptures of any private interpretation.
• 1:02:31
  You have to compare scripture with scripture.
• 1:02:33
  Are there other scriptures that match Isaiah 45?
• 1:02:36
  Seven about I'll do a whole program on mirrorism some other
• 1:02:39
  time, but to say wow, the Bible talks about light and darkness,
• 1:02:43
  black and white. Therefore we can change the
• 1:02:45
  obvious reading of all these other verses.
• 1:02:48
  I think that's less ludicrous. There are many verses that talk
• 1:02:51
  about no death till sin. Six days.
• 1:02:53
  God made heaven and earth and everything he wrote it on the 10
• 1:02:56
  commandments work six days, rest one because I work 6 days and
• 1:03:00
  rested one. The Jews have always understood
• 1:03:02
  that to mean that. Well, no, but Sabbath.
• 1:03:06
  But why? Why deny AAI?
• 1:03:10
  Guess you would say regular reading or plain reading of
• 1:03:12
  Isaiah 45, seven and demand it for Genesis 11.
• 1:03:17
  Like what's the justification? What's?
• 1:03:21
  I would ask you what's the justification of applying it to
• 1:03:24
  Genesis one one that this mirrorism like?
• 1:03:27
  Well, the comparison male, female, light, dark, tall,
• 1:03:32
  short, I understand and but he made the heaven and the earth.
• 1:03:36
  The guy debated last week on this program.
• 1:03:38
  I think you believe the same thing as him when God, when it
• 1:03:41
  says God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn't occlude
• 1:03:43
  the earth. Nobody is going to come up with
• 1:03:47
  that interpretation without going to be taught that
• 1:03:50
  someplace because that's not what it says.
• 1:03:51
  The plain reading is heaven and earth.
• 1:03:54
  Now he made the sun later on day three, I think purposely so we
• 1:03:58
  would know not to worship it. How many cultures have fallen
• 1:04:02
  into that trap of worshipping this?
• 1:04:03
  I can agree with that. I can agree with that, that that
• 1:04:06
  even part of this text is polemics against certain other
• 1:04:09
  cultures that would claim their deities to be the creators.
• 1:04:13
  I agree. I agree.
• 1:04:14
  That's interwoven throughout all of the text.
• 1:04:16
  I think that's a good point. It's still your time.
• 1:04:19
  I I'm. Sorry, when?
• 1:04:21
  When, When Jesus said the creation of Adam was the
• 1:04:24
  beginning? What?
• 1:04:26
  What did he mean? Say again, I'm sorry one more
• 1:04:30
  time. Well, Jesus said the creation of
• 1:04:32
  Adam was the beginning of the creation.
• 1:04:35
  Matthew 19, four Mark 10/6. Was the creation of Adam the
• 1:04:39
  beginning of the creation like Jesus said, or do you believe
• 1:04:42
  Jesus needed you to interpret that for him?
• 1:04:45
  Well, I, well, I'm a little confused because it, it almost
• 1:04:49
  sounds like from like a plain reading of the text, the way
• 1:04:52
  you're kind of throwing it at me that like Adam is created on day
• 1:04:55
  one or something 'cause like in the beginning God created the
• 1:04:58
  heavens and the earth. And here it says in the
• 1:04:59
  beginning he created Adam. So here's the same term.
• 1:05:03
  And it seems like you're the one kind of forcing a weird
• 1:05:05
  contradiction in the scripture. I don't really understand what
• 1:05:08
  the what the question is. OK, well the question hang on,
• 1:05:11
  let me get this down here 5/24. So it says in the beginning God
• 1:05:16
  created Adam. That's just Jesus talking.
• 1:05:18
  But we know Adam wasn't created until day 6:00.
• 1:05:21
  So I don't understand the issue. I, I, if you're, if you're
• 1:05:24
  forcing me to have a real rigid, literal interpretation of it,
• 1:05:28
  then it sounds like you would have to stick to that.
• 1:05:30
  You would have to be consistent. You have to say Adam was like
• 1:05:33
  created on day one because that's in the beginning.
• 1:05:35
  So I don't know. Well, here, here's the verse
• 1:05:37
  Matthew 19 four He answered and stood unto them.
• 1:05:40
  Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made
• 1:05:43
  them male and female? And again in Mark 10/6 from the
• 1:05:47
  beginning of the. Creative.
• 1:05:48
  Yeah. Well, he, OK, well again, you
• 1:05:50
  can't interpret it that he from the beginning of the creation,
• 1:05:54
  because that would be day one, would it not?
• 1:05:56
  Well, no, I think you don't. Want to interpret it that way?
• 1:05:58
  Why? Why day one?
• 1:05:59
  Why not second one or minute one or year one or?
• 1:06:02
  Well, that's what it says it says from the beginning.
• 1:06:04
  Well, when's the beginning? That's the question.
• 1:06:07
  The beginning of the beginning week.
• 1:06:10
  Well, yeah, it's saying. I know I'm saying like it's
• 1:06:13
  saying. It's saying Jesus is saying in
• 1:06:15
  the beginning you created. I think if I said I I had a cup
• 1:06:19
  of coffee this morning, we could argue, well, was that the first
• 1:06:23
  thing when you got up? Well, no, I went potty when I
• 1:06:25
  got up first and then I made coffee so well so.
• 1:06:29
  It doesn't hurt my point either that like, again, this doesn't,
• 1:06:32
  this isn't like treated in some sort of hyper rigid literal
• 1:06:36
  thing that Christ is saying in the beginning, like on the very
• 1:06:38
  first beginning, the very first second, he's creating Adam.
• 1:06:41
  But clearly this is communicated with the sense of, of hyperbole,
• 1:06:44
  which Christ is certainly known for.
• 1:06:47
  It's. Not hyperbole, the my
• 1:06:49
  interpretation is very obvious from the beginning.
• 1:06:52
  Would mean the first week he made everything in. 16 I don't
• 1:06:57
  think. In six days.
• 1:06:58
  That was the beginning, that package deal.
• 1:07:00
  Six days. He could have done it all in six
• 1:07:02
  seconds. I can still even call it the
• 1:07:04
  creation week by the way, and I I still have the interpretation
• 1:07:08
  of Yom and I still have adherence to literal
• 1:07:12
  interpretation of the text. I am literally interpreting the
• 1:07:15
  text. Well then answer me this.
• 1:07:18
  When God created Adam and Eve, how much time had passed since
• 1:07:23
  he made anything else stars or whatever?
• 1:07:26
  Was it billions of years from the stars until?
• 1:07:29
  So when he said the beginning, does that mean billions of
• 1:07:31
  years? Or is one week a little closer
• 1:07:33
  to what most people would understand?
• 1:07:35
  Well, no. And I mean I'm talking about
• 1:07:37
  one. I'm sorry.
• 1:07:38
  I want to be clear, I apologize. I'm talking about how the
• 1:07:42
  literal definitions of Yom, and that's four different literal
• 1:07:45
  definitions and one could be a long but definite period of
• 1:07:48
  time. So when it's saying the first
• 1:07:50
  day, you know, the first Yoam, I'm still being literal.
• 1:07:53
  I'm still taking a literal reading because it's still one
• 1:07:56
  of the literal definitions. I'm just not choosing the
• 1:07:59
  literal definition. You do.
• 1:08:02
  And and so that's, that's ultimately where it comes down
• 1:08:04
  to. I'm just looking.
• 1:08:05
  Maybe you can help me give me a justification for your why it
• 1:08:08
  has to be that literal definition because there's four
• 1:08:11
  of them and you choose the third.
• 1:08:13
  So why do you choose the third? If you look at the order of the
• 1:08:16
  creation, God made the sun on day four.
• 1:08:22
  He made the he made the, he made the plants on day three.
• 1:08:27
  He made the sun on day four. If those are not literal days,
• 1:08:31
  then plants are going to have a hard time survive until the sun
• 1:08:33
  comes up a million years later. So I think obvious reading from
• 1:08:37
  just the order of creation. And he made the insects and the
• 1:08:40
  birds and they pollinate the plants on day 5.
• 1:08:43
  So if you want to say yam means a long period of time, you're
• 1:08:47
  going to have plants sitting around for millions of years
• 1:08:49
  waiting for the sun and millions of years waiting for
• 1:08:51
  pollination. Well, it's not logical.
• 1:08:55
  Actually, I think there there is an idea and again I'd have to
• 1:08:58
  research this a little more. I'm going off of nuance.
• 1:09:00
  I read over all of this prepping, but I believe there is
• 1:09:04
  the idea that there was a protoplankton of some kind in
• 1:09:07
  early form of plant life in various forms that were
• 1:09:09
  basically working as you would say.
• 1:09:11
  I guess you would almost equate it to what is it terraforming
• 1:09:16
  terraform, like you say a replicating food source and and
• 1:09:20
  we would say it's kind of this type of thing.
• 1:09:22
  It's barely probably even life, but it's plant life of sorts
• 1:09:25
  that's not actually yet operating based upon
• 1:09:28
  photosynthesis. It's it's kind of basically
• 1:09:32
  dealing with the methane and stuff that's already inside the
• 1:09:34
  environment and exchanging that for oxygen and then making the
• 1:09:38
  environment more oxygen rich. I'm fine from my interpretation,
• 1:09:42
  and again, this is kind of a little bit flippant, but I'll
• 1:09:44
  give it to you for the sake of time is I kind of think the idea
• 1:09:48
  you have the, the creation of plants a long period of time and
• 1:09:53
  there does reach a point where there's an essentiality of
• 1:09:56
  photosynthesis to the plant life and then the earth.
• 1:09:59
  It's not that the sun is created, but that it's revealed
• 1:10:02
  to the face of the Earth. I, I believe the atmosphere went
• 1:10:05
  from opaque to transparent, and I believe there's evidence in
• 1:10:09
  the sciences for that as well. And then at that point,
• 1:10:12
  photosynthesis can start happening.
• 1:10:14
  And I believe that right there. That transition period could be,
• 1:10:18
  of course, certainly quick. I have no reason not to think
• 1:10:20
  so. All right, so let me be clear
• 1:10:22
  now. So on day three when God made it
• 1:10:24
  says he made the plants and the trees, right, that really that
• 1:10:28
  really only included bacteria or something able to live without
• 1:10:31
  well. Something at the beginning,
• 1:10:33
  maybe that and then as the day got on, you know, life would
• 1:10:37
  reach a different point. And I don't think it's
• 1:10:38
  necessarily the type of thing where there was a zero UV rays
• 1:10:42
  potentially reaching through the Earth.
• 1:10:45
  But I, I mean again, this is not one of these things that I
• 1:10:49
  particularly complexly dealt into this particular little area
• 1:10:53
  to be honest with you. OK, well, I think it's a lot
• 1:10:57
  simpler to believe he made the plants on day three.
• 1:11:00
  He made the sun on day four. They can survive fine with for
• 1:11:03
  one day and he made the insects and birds on day five and they
• 1:11:07
  pollinate the plants. I don't.
• 1:11:09
  To me that's I don't need any help interpreting that well,
• 1:11:12
  just jump. In of course, and I'll allow you
• 1:11:16
  to have the final word on that because I got to say it's been a
• 1:11:18
  great discussion. I have 3 minutes left on the
• 1:11:20
  clock for the discussion portion and we have done so well
• 1:11:25
  discussing all the relevant topics and points of the debate.
• 1:11:28
  So why don't we hand it to you, Smokey, if you want to just say
• 1:11:30
  a few words to kind of end that that portion and that topic.
• 1:11:34
  But just to make the debate complete, let's now allow you to
• 1:11:37
  provide what you believe is a is a good line of scientific
• 1:11:41
  evidence to say support your your position today in older
• 1:11:45
  Earth and then we'll wind it down from.
• 1:11:47
  There I you know, and I guess I'll probably just for the sake
• 1:11:50
  of time, I'll pull it out to the macro level and I will say this.
• 1:11:54
  I do believe God. The heavens do declare the glory
• 1:11:58
  of him. And as we have looked into
• 1:12:01
  scientific discoveries, even from what the secularists have
• 1:12:05
  provide us, we see more and more and more layers of increased
• 1:12:09
  complexity and design and essentiality of a divine mind.
• 1:12:13
  And these sciences provide us incredible tools.
• 1:12:16
  But once we start picking them apart, once we start making the
• 1:12:19
  Bible go against science, sometimes we can be crippling
• 1:12:23
  some of our apologetics. So I, I, I guess just a quick
• 1:12:27
  little summation for me in the science realm, I, I don't
• 1:12:30
  believe God is a deceiver. And I believe that a lot of what
• 1:12:33
  we see, a lot of what we hasn't unveiled before us teaches us
• 1:12:37
  this, this space is young. I mean, old geology, cosmology,
• 1:12:44
  the fossil record, all of this stuff seems to insinuate
• 1:12:47
  collectively to older ages, even the radioactive to take decay.
• 1:12:51
  I'm almost kind of sad we didn't get into that a little bit
• 1:12:53
  because I did have some questions on it that I would
• 1:12:56
  have liked to go into and kind of get clarified.
• 1:12:58
  But there just seems to be all of these evidences that point to
• 1:13:02
  in the natural revelation that it's old.
• 1:13:05
  And usually in order to get to young earth justifications, you
• 1:13:08
  have to flippantly kind of either throw out uniformity
• 1:13:11
  where you don't like it and keep it where you do, and even
• 1:13:15
  sometimes force it where it's not necessarily true.
• 1:13:17
  And this is kind of what I see. I would rather not believe that
• 1:13:20
  God is the greatest deceiver of all time, you know, convincing
• 1:13:24
  us that all of the earth is old in a natural sense and then
• 1:13:27
  telling us it's young in the biblical sense.
• 1:13:29
  I guess that's where I would leave with it.
• 1:13:30
  I appreciate that, Smokey. Let's hand it to Kent.
• 1:13:33
  Equal time for for a response. Go ahead, Doctor Owen.
• 1:13:36
  Yeah, I don't think God's deceptive at all.
• 1:13:37
  I think he wrote it very clearly where nobody can mess it up, He
• 1:13:40
  said many times. God blessed thee 7th day.
• 1:13:44
  Was it the 7th day? I'm fixing my PowerPoint here.
• 1:13:48
  Let me make one more fix and then I'll show you the verse.
• 1:13:50
  OK, there we go. That is slide #388.
• 1:13:56
  OK DV. OK 30.
• 1:14:05
  OK. It says in six days the Lord
• 1:14:07
  made heaven and earth and he rested the 7th day.
• 1:14:12
  So not only are you going to say the, you know the days, was it
• 1:14:16
  the 7th day when he rushed it? He said in Exodus 20, he
• 1:14:19
  repeated in Exodus 31 in six days the Lord made heaven and
• 1:14:23
  earth and on the 7th day again in Genesis 2, on the 7th day,
• 1:14:30
  God bless the 7th day. Was it the 7th day?
• 1:14:36
  Hebrews 4/4, same thing. Was it the seventh day?
• 1:14:40
  I don't think you believe it was the 7th day.
• 1:14:42
  You're going to give us some interpretation, but go ahead.
• 1:14:44
  No, I believe, I believe it is the 7th day.
• 1:14:47
  And I believe he's not supernaturally creating anything
• 1:14:50
  right now. And he won't until the old
• 1:14:52
  heavens and the old earth has passed away and there is no
• 1:14:55
  place found for them. And then he's going to create a
• 1:14:56
  new heaven and a new earth and I believe he will come out of his
• 1:14:59
  day of rest. You know, it is his day talks
• 1:15:02
  about in Hebrew four of us entering his Sabbath, entering
• 1:15:05
  his day of rest, you know, which is what we do when we come to
• 1:15:08
  Christ and recognize him as our Lord and Savior.
• 1:15:10
  So I again, day 7 is that one day where that is the day where
• 1:15:15
  it doesn't say evening and morning were the 7th day.
• 1:15:19
  That's not there, you know, so there is no differentiating end
• 1:15:23
  point in that. There's you could even if you
• 1:15:25
  interpreted for sure very rigidly that day one through 6
• 1:15:29
  were 24 hours because of the justification of the evening and
• 1:15:33
  morning being stated. Even if you did that, you can't
• 1:15:36
  necessarily use the same logic to now refer to day 7 because
• 1:15:40
  those words are missing. And I do think that there's
• 1:15:42
  stuff in the text in the rest of the Bible that does elude.
• 1:15:46
  And also philosophically, God's not creating new stuff right
• 1:15:49
  now. He's not supernaturally creating
• 1:15:50
  things. What's here is here.
• 1:15:52
  And he's waiting for this all to, you know, pull its course
• 1:15:55
  for all of the account, the number of the Gentiles that are
• 1:15:57
  supposed to be saved to come into the Kingdom.
• 1:15:59
  And then and then it's game over.
• 1:16:01
  It's on. And then we're on to phase two.
• 1:16:02
  And then he's going to create again.
• 1:16:03
  So that's what I would say, Ken, honestly.
• 1:16:05
  OK, now this this method you have of interpreting the
• 1:16:08
  scripture mirrorism or whatever, I would think this would have to
• 1:16:12
  give you bad dreams at night. What if you have to do the same
• 1:16:16
  thing on salvation? Maybe he didn't really mean he'd
• 1:16:19
  save you and take you to heaven. Maybe you really mean something
• 1:16:22
  else. I mean, this is going to
• 1:16:23
  undermine your faith. In every I disagree, and I I'm
• 1:16:28
  not looking to apply mirrorisms in places where it's
• 1:16:30
  inappropriate to do so. That would just be being
• 1:16:32
  flippant with the text, and that's not my intention.
• 1:16:36
  If there is a clear sign there, I don't know.
• 1:16:38
  In fact, if you even look up mirrorism on Google and I go
• 1:16:42
  ahead type it in, the very first example you'll have of any type
• 1:16:46
  of biblical mirrorism is this exact one in Genesis 11.
• 1:16:50
  It's claimed by a vast majority of Hebrew scholars to be a
• 1:16:53
  mirrorism. That is talking about an
• 1:16:56
  entirety. If it is a mirrorism, and if
• 1:16:58
  that is true, then it is talking about the creation of all
• 1:17:02
  physical space-time and matter and the earth is present and
• 1:17:07
  then God is hovering over the waters and only then is the
• 1:17:10
  first spoken part of creation that's actually recorded.
• 1:17:14
  You know, so there was something created seemingly at a time
• 1:17:17
  where, well, there was no time space in which for God to speak
• 1:17:22
  for it to be created. So but we have something that
• 1:17:24
  exists and has created time, space and matter and the earth
• 1:17:28
  is there. And then God speaks and says let
• 1:17:30
  there be light. So he's present already in a
• 1:17:33
  space before he does that first speaking moment of of, unless
• 1:17:37
  you believe he was speaking things before that and it's not
• 1:17:39
  recorded. I mean, you could.
• 1:17:41
  Say that I think you're talking about a totally different God
• 1:17:45
  than the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is not your
• 1:17:48
  your God. Seems am I not saved anymore
• 1:17:50
  then? No, no, you keep saying what God
• 1:17:52
  did before, that just the word before implies time.
• 1:17:57
  God did not. God was.
• 1:17:59
  He's outside of time. Space matter.
• 1:18:01
  I agree. I agree that's.
• 1:18:02
  What I think you do, I don't think you do agree because you
• 1:18:04
  said what did God do before this creation?
• 1:18:08
  Well before the earth that is sitting before he speaks the
• 1:18:11
  first words in the text, he says let there be light.
• 1:18:14
  There's no recorded speech of him before that yet he's
• 1:18:17
  hovering above the surface of the waters on the earth.
• 1:18:21
  See what I'm saying? But you're, yes, I do see what
• 1:18:23
  you're saying. I don't think you do though.
• 1:18:25
  You're still trying to put our human limitations, time, space,
• 1:18:28
  matter on God. You've used the word before
• 1:18:31
  several times. There is no before God is
• 1:18:35
  outside of time. We are stuck in the river of
• 1:18:38
  time. God is not.
• 1:18:39
  He is like he's outside of time. I don't know if I'm necessarily
• 1:18:43
  being understood. OK.
• 1:18:44
  All right, That's fine. Well, I, I, I agree.
• 1:18:46
  I don't. Well, I mean, you well, Ken, I,
• 1:18:48
  I'm a little bothered that it seems a little duplicitous in
• 1:18:50
  communication sometimes because you tell me I'm saved.
• 1:18:53
  You said I believe in Christ, so I'm saved.
• 1:18:55
  But then you say I say things like I serve a different God and
• 1:18:58
  I'm rebelling against Scripture and denying Christ.
• 1:19:01
  I mean, could you ever look at someone honestly and say you're
• 1:19:04
  saved when you know that they deny the teachings of Christ?
• 1:19:06
  I don't think you would ever say that that's OK for someone in
• 1:19:09
  any other context. Oh yeah, let's hand it to Kent
• 1:19:11
  now. Go ahead, Kent, I have.
• 1:19:13
  No idea. I have no idea if you're saved
• 1:19:14
  or not. I suspect you probably are.
• 1:19:16
  That's I can't tell. I can't look at anybody and tell
• 1:19:18
  that. But no, believing something
• 1:19:20
  wrong doesn't mean you lose your salvation.
• 1:19:22
  Probably everybody's wrong on something.
• 1:19:25
  Some people voted for Democrats, but so they have to sit in the
• 1:19:32
  back row when they get to heaven, but they can go.
• 1:19:34
  So no, this is not a salvation issue.
• 1:19:38
  And I didn't say you served the wrong God.
• 1:19:40
  I said you're thinking of the wrong God when you're trying to
• 1:19:42
  put your limitations just by using the word before he's
• 1:19:46
  hovering above the creation. That implies space.
• 1:19:50
  God's not limited by time, space or matter.
• 1:19:53
  He in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
• 1:19:56
  Time, space, matter. He's outside of all that.
• 1:19:59
  He's in a totally different dimension.
• 1:20:00
  I don't think we're capable as humans of understanding that.
• 1:20:03
  But he calls himself when they said.
• 1:20:06
  He Moses said, Who shall I tell them sent me?
• 1:20:09
  God said I am that I am. Did he OK?
• 1:20:15
  Did he create anything? I'm sorry, did he?
• 1:20:18
  I'm sorry, did he create anything before he created
• 1:20:21
  light? In the beginning God created the
• 1:20:26
  heaven and the earth and then he said let there be light.
• 1:20:29
  He made heaven earth light all on day one.
• 1:20:32
  OK. All right.
• 1:20:34
  He made light, but then later he made the sun.
• 1:20:36
  He made the sources of the light.
• 1:20:38
  See light. There's two Hebrew words or and
• 1:20:41
  may or God can make the we have two things.
• 1:20:43
  I call that a light, but it produces something called light.
• 1:20:46
  Well, we have one word. That means you're actually two
• 1:20:49
  different things. There's the source and the
• 1:20:51
  product. So God is light, he later made
• 1:20:54
  the source, the sources that we need, the sun, moon, stars,
• 1:20:57
  etcetera, while the moon just reflects it.
• 1:20:59
  But so yeah, I don't think God's limited by our time space
• 1:21:03
  matter. He just is, He's the eternal 1.
• 1:21:06
  And I'm I'm curious to understand that someday, but I
• 1:21:09
  don't get it yet. You've got 5 minutes for your
• 1:21:12
  concluding statement. Appreciate it.
• 1:21:14
  Thank you. All right, well, certain,
• 1:21:17
  sincerely, thank you so much to Standing for Truth.
• 1:21:19
  Thank you to the audience. Thank you to Doctor Hovind for
• 1:21:22
  showing up. This, this was an honor.
• 1:21:24
  This was definitely a boyhood dream come true for sure, to
• 1:21:27
  show up and contend with him on the field of battle, of debate
• 1:21:31
  and exchange of ideas. I really do hope the audience
• 1:21:34
  enjoyed it, that it brought you guys to really think a little
• 1:21:38
  deeper about some of these perspectives and the
• 1:21:40
  justifications that you hold for these ideas.
• 1:21:44
  We do want to be the best apologist that we can.
• 1:21:47
  We want to be the best tools to the glory of the Kingdom of God.
• 1:21:50
  And I do believe that there is something to be said for us to
• 1:21:54
  consider this from a macro scale.
• 1:21:56
  If it really isn't an essential issue that you believe young
• 1:22:00
  Earth or old Earth, and it doesn't really ultimately matter
• 1:22:04
  in terms of your salvific situation, then sometimes it
• 1:22:08
  could behoove us to consider that we could concede some of
• 1:22:11
  the points of the scientific field without having to pitch
• 1:22:15
  this argument that in some ways almost essentially requires the
• 1:22:20
  Bible to go contrary to many of the discoveries of science when
• 1:22:24
  it comes to the age of things. And yes, there are decent
• 1:22:28
  arguments that I have come across for young earth, but
• 1:22:31
  there are also lots of instances where young Earth, I don't think
• 1:22:34
  has successfully into the occasion in in every single Ave.
• 1:22:38
  And certainly the atheists notice this.
• 1:22:41
  And this is one of the things that I've come to realize.
• 1:22:44
  In fact, I'll let you guys know if you have not seen it.
• 1:22:46
  There was an interview of R and Raw on James is Tired.
• 1:22:50
  That's the name of his channel. James is tired and it was very
• 1:22:53
  revealing. He's a very soft spoken man and
• 1:22:56
  he asked Aaron Raw out outright. He said why?
• 1:22:58
  Why do you spend so much time and focus on young earth
• 1:23:02
  creationists? And Aaron Raw just exclaimed.
• 1:23:05
  Well, because it's easy. I believe it's the easy way to
• 1:23:09
  take down Christianity as a whole.
• 1:23:11
  That's why when he shows up to debate someone like Fez Rana and
• 1:23:14
  gets completely owned, an abiogenesis, he looks like an
• 1:23:17
  idiot. And then he doesn't bother
• 1:23:18
  usually with anything else when it comes to the old earthers.
• 1:23:22
  And he's decided to fixate on this.
• 1:23:23
  So the atheists view this to us as almost like a weak link in
• 1:23:27
  the chain. And I'm not telling anyone to
• 1:23:29
  stop believing on Earth or that it's wrong or that it's really
• 1:23:32
  ultimately a problem. You guys have to do where the
• 1:23:34
  Spirit is leading you and convicting you to believe.
• 1:23:37
  But at the same time, I just ask for everyone here that's viewed
• 1:23:40
  the debate and everyone in perpetuity to just consider this
• 1:23:43
  and consider how essential it actually is in your apologetics
• 1:23:47
  and how much you essentially need to apply it.
• 1:23:50
  And there aren't some areas where you can, you know, shorten
• 1:23:53
  up some of the natural, you know, contradictions and some of
• 1:23:57
  the things that that would limit some people to coming to the
• 1:24:00
  faith because they believe that they have to take a perspective
• 1:24:04
  of Scripture that runs contrary to scientific narratives and
• 1:24:08
  evidences that seem to coincide with the idea that we're living
• 1:24:12
  on a older planet in an older universe.
• 1:24:14
  And inside those evidences that they've discovered are
• 1:24:17
  incredible extra evidences that there's no chance that we could
• 1:24:21
  possibly be here without a divine mind having been
• 1:24:25
  involved. Which means that we are all
• 1:24:26
  intentional beings. We were put here with intent,
• 1:24:30
  which means that we have a purpose, which means that there
• 1:24:32
  is objective morality, which means that there's substance to
• 1:24:35
  reality, which means the things that we do, actually we have
• 1:24:37
  meaning. This is really one of the only
• 1:24:40
  ways that we can shake off the bonds of nihilism that
• 1:24:44
  naturalistic philosophies drag us into.
• 1:24:46
  So we have the upper hand, whether we are young earth or
• 1:24:50
  old earth, we have the upper hand and that we notice that God
• 1:24:54
  created everything and that he is the source of everything and
• 1:24:57
  it's the source of all good and that we can all agree on.
• 1:25:00
  And I'm very thankful for that. I'm very thankful to Standing
• 1:25:03
  for Truth. I'm very thankful to Kent
• 1:25:05
  Hovind. I'm very thankful to my brother
• 1:25:07
  and sisters in the audience. I do wish the peace of Christ to
• 1:25:11
  you all. I hope you found this educators
• 1:25:13
  educational and built you guys up and really made you think and
• 1:25:17
  delve into these perspectives. Don't be like the atheists.
• 1:25:20
  The atheists run into rooms and just play team sports.
• 1:25:23
  They don't pay attention to arguments.
• 1:25:25
  They root for the person that they liked.
• 1:25:27
  They have no idea what was really said.
• 1:25:28
  They can't repeat the arguments. Don't be like them.
• 1:25:31
  Really digest all these ideas and pray that God sharpen you,
• 1:25:35
  that He guide you to all truth by the work of His Holy Spirit,
• 1:25:38
  and that you be open to these ideas wherever they may lead and
• 1:25:42
  the evidences wherever they may go, as long as you keep your
• 1:25:45
  eyes fixated on Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
• 1:25:48
  And with that I'll. Yield.
• 1:25:51
  All right, just on time. That's 5 minutes of Smokey.
• 1:25:53
  I appreciate the concluding statement.
• 1:25:55
  So we're going to hand it over to Doctor Hovind Kent.
• 1:25:59
  You have 5 minutes. I'll start the clock on your on
• 1:26:02
  your first word. OK.
• 1:26:04
  Well, thank you so much. I've enjoyed this.
• 1:26:06
  I think, Smokey, you've said something several times tonight
• 1:26:08
  I didn't get the chance to point out.
• 1:26:11
  You seem to indicate that there's some kind of conflict
• 1:26:14
  between science and the Bible. You talked about the discoveries
• 1:26:17
  of science. I would love to know any.
• 1:26:19
  I taught science for 15 years. I happen to really enjoy
• 1:26:22
  science. We have a Science Center here.
• 1:26:25
  I'm not aware of any science discoveries that would
• 1:26:28
  contradict anything in the Bible.
• 1:26:31
  If you know of one, the Bible clearly says the animals will
• 1:26:34
  bring forth after their kind. Has science ever discovered an
• 1:26:37
  animal producing something other than its kind?
• 1:26:41
  And before you get off into definition of kind, what would a
• 1:26:43
  5 year old say that's the same kind of animal?
• 1:26:45
  OK, so I'm not against science. I love science.
• 1:26:48
  We have all kinds of science activities here and science
• 1:26:50
  lessons that we blow things up and burn things down and have a
• 1:26:53
  wonderful time. But there's no conflict between
• 1:26:56
  science and the Bible. Now, there is a conflict between
• 1:26:59
  evolution and the Bible, and there's a conflict between
• 1:27:02
  evolution and science. And I think there's a conflict
• 1:27:05
  between billions of years old Earth, as you call it, and
• 1:27:08
  science. There are scientific ways to
• 1:27:10
  show it can't be old. I'm sorry, the sun is burning,
• 1:27:13
  the moon's moving away. The Ganymede's got a magnetic
• 1:27:16
  field. Our magnetic field's declining.
• 1:27:18
  The oceans are filling in with sediment.
• 1:27:19
  The oceans are getting saltier. Every day I go through 30 or 40
• 1:27:23
  on my video. Number one, get my whole series
• 1:27:25
  for 50 bucks, Creation Seminar series at doctordino.com.
• 1:27:29
  So I'm not aware of any conflict between science and the Bible.
• 1:27:33
  I am very well aware of the conflict between evolution and
• 1:27:37
  old Earth and the Bible. Those both conflict.
• 1:27:39
  The Bible and science deals are things we know we can study,
• 1:27:44
  test. A word comes from the word seer,
• 1:27:46
  Latin word seer. What do we know by observation,
• 1:27:49
  experimentation, testing, etcetera.
• 1:27:51
  We know dogs produce dogs. We do not know that dogs and
• 1:27:55
  amoebas have came from an amoeba or the dogs are related to pine
• 1:27:59
  trees. We do not know that you can
• 1:28:00
  believe that. I think Smokey, your approach to
• 1:28:04
  this is going to raise doubts in people's minds rather than raise
• 1:28:09
  confidence in God's Word, your ministry, if you want to call it
• 1:28:13
  that, your, your YouTube channel is, is going to raise doubts
• 1:28:19
  rather than faith. I think you need to look at
• 1:28:21
  that. The average person listening to
• 1:28:23
  you and watching you is say, wow, maybe those aren't days.
• 1:28:27
  Wow. Maybe the earth shouldn't be in
• 1:28:28
  day one. Maybe there's a mirrorism.
• 1:28:30
  I wonder if there's, I wonder if this applies to other things in
• 1:28:34
  the Bible like thou shalt not commit adultery.
• 1:28:37
  Well, maybe it really is OK, you know, because I think your your
• 1:28:40
  approach, even if you're right, your approach is raising doubt,
• 1:28:44
  not faith. And you mentioned that in yet
• 1:28:46
  you want to pray that God guide you and into all truth.
• 1:28:49
  I agree. He sent me Smokey, get right
• 1:28:52
  with God.