Is the Universe Young? W/ Dr. Danny Faulkner

Hello everyone, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today

I have a very special guest joining me for an exciting discussion. I am honored to have

Dr. Danny Faulkner with us Dr. Faulkner is an accomplished astronomer and he is an advocate of the young earth creation position which we're going to be talking about today and I had the pleasure of visiting with my family the

Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter which we absolutely loved But we also had the opportunity to hear dr.

Faulkner give a talk on a flat earth, which was super fun to listen to and I was able to Meet with him afterwards and invite him on the show.

And so here he is And so let me just give you folks some background on who he is if you're not familiar with dr.

Faulkner Dr. Faulkner holds a PhD in astronomy from Indiana University and has spent over 26 years as a professor at the

University of South Carolina Lancaster where he taught physics and astronomy And so I think currently he serves as a researcher a speaker an author at answers in Genesis Contributing to the

Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter in various capacities. Dr Faulkner has written extensively on the topics of astronomy and creation with notable works such as the created cosmos and The universe by design you guys can check those out along with many other works that he's written

On Amazon and of course probably on the answers in Genesis website. We'll kind of send people over there as well

He's well known for his ability to articulate the young earth creationist position

This is what something that I saw while listening to him And this is really hard when you are trying to get someone to interview on an interesting topic

Especially someone who's very knowledgeable in a particular area You have people who are great up here, but they're not really good communicators

And so what came out to me very clearly while listening to his talk is that not only does he know his stuff?

But he is a very clear communicator And so I thought he would be a perfect guest to talk about the topics that we're going to be discussing today

So without further ado, I'd like to introduce for the first time on revealed apologetics. Dr. Danny Faulkner.

How are you doing, brother? Pretty good. Thank you Eli for that very kind introduction Well, it's my pleasure.

I know that you're a super busy guy And so I thank you for making the time to join me here to talk about these issues now

Before we went live just to say this to the audience before we went live. I was just talking with dr. Faulkner very briefly

And I had expressed to him that I just recently Not like yesterday, but a few years,

I guess it hasn't been an area that I've explored in great depth But I recently come to adopt the young earth perspective on biblical grounds and of course the science is the area that I probably need to brush up on as I My focus is in philosophy and theology so I'm looking forward to not only hearing your answers to my questions with respect to kind of the biblical understanding in defense of Younger, but also exploring and learning from you the scientific aspects of that And so that's what we're gonna be discussing today

Would you like to say anything before we get started to the audience anything you want them to know about you? No, you've said it pretty well,

I'm just looking forward to the interview that answering your questions rather than me just spewing forth All right.

Well, thank you very much. I'll still straightforward So what I want to start off with Is a video.

Okay, we're gonna we're gonna play a brief video here that I have set up here And it's a portion and a lot of people who are listening to my channel.

You guys have asked me to do a Debate review which may still happen.

It just depends if I have the time But for now, we're just gonna take like a small portion of the debate between very well -known atheist

By the name of cosmic skeptic his his real name. That's not his real name is His mother didn't give him that name.

His name is Alex O 'Connor a very well -known atheist He recently had a debate with Dinesh D'Souza and there was

You know a moment in the debate where the issue of Genesis came up and I was like wow You know, that was that was really rough to listen to and so I thought this would be a great

Opportunity for dr. Faulkner as I knew he was coming on today to address this so he has not seen this clip

He has not watched the debate, but I'm sure he'll have something to say. So let me just get this up on the screen here

Let's see here Okay There we go

Now I'm gonna press play and let me know if you hear it because sometimes the audio doesn't go through reach the top of the

Okay, good. So let me give you some context. They're having a dialogue. Dr. Faulkner and Dinesh D'Souza asks the cosmic skeptic about how

What does he think about the fact that the Bible was able to predict the beginning of the universe? And so he now is quoting or retelling a story

From his professor Dr. Jastrow, I think that name will be familiar to you.

He's very prominent scientist and he is Summarizing the story of the the scientists climbing the mountain you're familiar with this and when they get on top of the mountain, right?

You got a bunch of that was written back in the mid to late 70s. That's right. That's right And so he's he's explaining this to show that the

Bible Got it right before the scientists and of course the you know the atheist is going to do a strategic debate move here and kind of do like a

Intellectual judo move and turn it around on him and then we're gonna see the interesting response from Dinesh D'Souza Which I think is going to be very relevant to what you're gonna be able to speak to so let's let's listen to this

And then I'll stop it and then you can comment on it. Does that sound okay? Yeah. All right.

Let's go And there was a bunch of Hebrew prophets or theologians sitting there wouldn't been there from the beginning.

So I'm describing now a Skeptic a true skeptic and a true scientist describing the scientific shock that attends to a discovery

That and I think it is out of the spirit of that discovery for you to go Oh, yeah,

I mean could have been this week. It's like tossing a coin. It isn't like tossing a coin This is a question that's been argued for two centuries and only resolved in the last several decades and resolved decisively in one side on the other and the fact that you're

Not willing to just straight -out say yeah, it is actually an astounding fact that we now know

No, no, no, and I mean look the the scientific method is also revealed to us that the

Earth was formed about four and a half billion years ago That is much later than the Sun the gossip the the

Old Testament account the Hebrew Bible account tells us that it was the other Way around so got that bit wrong All right.

So so so so we're Yes, the Bible is not To get things wrong, you know, the

Bible is not a science. It's not listing out a sign Well now hold on a second You can't now move the goalposts, especially if you're still gonna especially if you're still gonna miss the the or the the issue

Well, well, you know the issue of the origin of the universe is you just told me that Genesis predicted or knew about or somehow knew

About the scientific hypothesis of the origin of the universe Then when I pointed out another scientific observation that doesn't accord with Genesis You tell me that Genesis isn't the scientific texts to begin with well, if you if you read if you read

Genesis, it is making a Astounding claim which pertains to God obviously God created the head isn't making a scientific claim or not

Is it telling us how the universe scientifically formed or not? It's not telling us how the universe scientifically formed because if it did they would be outlining the history of the

Relevance of bringing this up in the first one because because it is stating a conclusion not a process. It's all right

So someone I'm sure That little clip gives you feelings you have things to say

I am sure and this is the first time that you Have watched this but it's not the first time that you've heard this line of reasoning.

No doubt, right? No many times. Yeah many times Why don't you explain to us in terms of your reaction in terms of why do you think?

Dinesh D'Souza is struggling. Oh There are many reasons why one is that he didn't think this through carefully before he had

Also, he didn't look at the details of the thing I think the basic argument the Jastrow made in the mid 70s and this that that He distilled the creation of Genesis 1 to one essential element the universe had a beginning you have to realize that for 2 ,000 years preceding that in the

West the belief was the universe was eternal that idea persisted well through the 1960s and really turned around by about 1970 which

Jastrow was writing just a few years later And I think that's the what D'Souza was taking there

He was taking the the that one distillation and making hey They see the Bible's is is proved by this

But the devil's in the details always in and he had not looked through that entirely at all

I've seen this this argument used by many different people I could mention names I won't but many many

Christians and people I don't doubt they're they're they're born -again Christians But they have not thought this through carefully and I don't think they really have understood scripture carefully and what this says the scripture says more than just The universe began suddenly in the past It says much more detail than that and as soon as he it was ambushed on one with ambush

He set the trap himself. He then started doing a lot of backpedaling. It really really was pretty embarrassing.

I think yeah And and I've only seen that clip once before I knew the moment that I saw it

I'm like, oh and we need to use this because I think and it's not just to show Oh, look how silly Dinesh D'Souza is obviously we you know again,

I don't agree with Dinesh on a lot of areas I think he's actually he might actually be Roman Catholic. I don't even know much about him

I've only seen debates. So if he's Roman Catholic, I obviously would disagree with him coming from a

Protestant perspective But I don't want you know a person debating the issue of God to get destroyed, you know you want them to make good points, especially if there's going to be a lot of folks watching this video, but To be fair there are other people who make the argument that D'Souza was making there

Who have thought it through a little better they have they have would have a counter that I wouldn't agree with that either, but at least they were better prepared.

I'm just surprised how poorly prepared he was for that comeback Yeah What do you think about the idea of the inconsistency that on the one hand he wants to use the

Bible to show? Look, it makes these predictions, but then when pressed for consistency, right?

He doesn't want to take the traditional, you know straightforward reading of Genesis And so he's gonna he's gonna say what what anyone who's been trained on kind of like a

Hugh Ross or progressive creation or the old Well, you know the saw it the book the Bible isn't a science textbook, which is true

But it seemed to be weird that he wanted to use it to support science But then when based on you know, based on the science from at least from a secular perspective, it doesn't you know

The Bible gets it wrong. What do you think of that? Yeah I Again, he's not not thought this through and prepared for this

The Bible does give details and that's where you come down to presuppositional approach of either scripture means what it says and says what it means or it doesn't you can't go in in Smorgasbord fashion and pick and choose what parts of the

Bible you want He was going to take one thing away from Genesis and nothing else And when when his feet were held of the fire the look in his face, it was a spotlight of deer

I think he had he realized instantly that he had a problem. Hmm. You can see that in the silence, too

You know in a debate I mean, there's nothing wrong with silence if you have to think about something but in a debate or discussion long pauses are not

Are not always good. It means that you're not prepared for that particular particular particular issue brought up I hope it will do better in the future by going back and trying to work his way through all that Yeah, excellent.

So now so before we move into some of my other questions as I wanted to start off with that I thought that would be an interesting way to begin this discussion here

What would have been your answer if you were sitting in the the seat? In that debate in that discussion about the the issue of what we know the universe

I think me. I don't remember exactly what he said. Let me see if I could Let me sit here

Okay, so let me let me put the video up here I'm gonna stop it early so that maybe you can comment and respond to the actual point that Dinesh D'Souza seems to be struggling

With okay, let me put this up here Okay, let's play it again

So relevance of bringing this up in the first place because because this isn't the scientific texts to begin with Of the origin of the universe then when

I pointed out told me that Genesis predicted Listing out a sign. Well now hold on a second you Okay, all right, so so so the

Old Testament account the Hebrew Bible account tells us that it was the other way around So got that bit wrong

We don't want that four and a half billion years ago that is Was formed about four and a half billion years ago

That is much later than the Sun the gossip the the Old Testament account the Hebrew Bible account tells us that it was the other

Way around. All right, so it's to stop right there That is what? Dinesh D'Souza would agree with as well as I understand.

He is I think having read his book a long time ago I think he's a theistic evolutionist

So he would probably hold to the 13 .7 billion years in terms of the universe and the the six

Million years of the earth he would agree with that portion if you were in the chair, he made two statements here

He said something about the age of the universe and then the day in which the Bible says the

Sun was created How would you how would you have responded at that point? Responded to Dinesh or to the atheist to the to the atheist.

Well, you have to grant that he's correct about that of the

Big Bang Responding to people who want to make the Big Bang part of their apologetic is the fact that that the order of Events is incorrect according to the

Bible if the Big Bang is correct The Big Bang happens 13 .8 billion years ago the

Sun and the solar system including the earth come about around four and a half a billion years ago Which means the order is completely wrong because it's pretty clear in Scripture that the earth

Was the first thing created and the and the Sun the moon the stars everything else they came along on day four which by the way also contradicts this because the whole secular cosmology cosmogony about how the world came to be is

After the Big Bang a few hundred million years later there were stars or galaxies And so there were stars and other astronomical objects existing prior to the earth for about nine billion years

Before the earth came along again out -of -order things and there are many other examples like this again

That's a criticism I often bring to the to the idea of trying to merge the current scientific

Thinking of how the world came to be with what Scripture says the order could not be more clear in Scripture and the order according evolutionary ideas cannot be any more clear either and the two are very contradictory and People who

I found who want to make them blend somehow come up with very creative ways of saying

Getting around that and they never they never adjust the the secular ideas. They always adjust

Scripture they would argue for instance there was a shroud of a cloudy atmosphere of Blocking the view of the stars and they only became in the

Sun and the moon Became visible on the fourth day once the atmosphere became clear enough and you know, that was a pretty common belief a hundred years ago

But over the past 50 60 years this idea of a cloudy atmosphere for the early earth in the evolutionary circles

That's been thrown away. It's been transparent from the very beginning now So that that attempt is really out -of -date scientifically so it's a mismatch of this and that trying to reinterpret

Scripture to make it fit what what the what the science says and I That's wrongheaded

Christians should not do that. That's I said Jesus or reading into the passage not exegesis reading out of the passage

Excellent. Those are excellent points now How would you interact with the idea that you know, the

Bible seems to describe that the Sun is being created on day four Someone says hey that that doesn't make sense.

Dr. Faulkner How can the Sun be created on day four? We know that science has told us blah blah blah blah blah blah fill in the blank

How would you begin to address that line of thinking? Well, you're referring to the the need for light for the plants prior to that Are you talking about what was the earth orbiting before the

Sun? Maybe all of those are included in the assumption that the day of the day for creation of the

Sun just doesn't make sense For the person who's coming from this other perspective. Yeah on day one.

God created light He separated light from the darkness. He called the light day and then not darkness He called night. That's the real quick synopsis of the first day of creation

Plants come along three two days later on day three and you already have the day -night cycle

You have you have the light on those on the first three days before the Sun comes along Doesn't have to be the

Sun You can buy plant lights We had a house that had some plant lights in one of the rooms and you could you could leave the drapes closed and turn

On the lights and grow all the plants you wanted. I don't know. I'm not an expert about this I only know what I read but there are many marijuana plants that have never seen the light of day in fact,

I had a co -worker and she and her husband were busted because they had a Marijuana operation going on in the basement.

They have the windows covered over with with I think black garbage bags and they had

They had the boxes down there with soil and they had the plant lights that were running it those those marijuana plants are doing just fine

Without any sunlight at all what they needed was light in order to operate So it's silly to suggest that that the

Sun before the plants was a problem It really isn't if you understand how these things work as far as orbital motion

We can I think pretty well confirm that the earth is orbiting around the Sun today.

I Believe it's been doing that for a while. But how do you know what was going on at the beginning of creation?

This is getting into the question of how do you know what was going on in the past? What was the earth doing for the first three days?

Well, I don't know it was it orbiting something probably not I think what happened was on day four when

God Transferred that light giving a property of daytime light property to the Sun the earth began to Revolve perhaps around the

Sun at that instant maybe started rotating on its axis to I don't know not enough information is given But I don't think there's anything contradictory at all

Unless you really are looking for some sort of contradiction that you want to read into the scripture Which again is

I said Jesus not exegesis Yeah So now getting back to this light source because I often hear this in in discussions people say well what well what was the light source?

as though not knowing the light source somehow refutes the fact that there was a light source and that that's sufficient and To answering the question with respect to light in those, you know, the previous days leading up to the creation of the

Sun What do you what do you say to that? Well, is there anything wrong with simply saying, you know,

I'm not sure The Bible doesn't tell us directly, but here's what it does tell us and here's what we can infer

Yeah, I would just speak to that I'm very emphatic that the Bible doesn't tell what the source was

It just says there are light there could be almost anything No Well, the most common speculation as long as you recognize the speculation then you're fine

It's when you've been to transfer that speculation into truth that you have a problem The most common speculation is it came from the

Lord himself? They point out and at the end of the book in Revelation 22. It says that that Jesus will be the light of that city.

We won't need the light of the Sun of the moon So they'll always be light because of his he's a source of the light That's a good that's a good parallel and there are some things that are similar at the beginning of the book and the end of the book

But it's not a guarantee that that is all the conditions at the end of the book are gonna be like they were in the Beginning so we need to be very careful.

It's conjecture. Not a bad one I don't have no quarrel with that, but don't tell me this is what the Bible teaches because it doesn't it's a it's a speculation

People have made no, but the nature of the speculation. Dr. Faulkner is not very scientific, right?

Jesus is the light, you know, blah blah blah I think this is so important because our explanations we can we can use science

Christian worldview provides a foundation for science And we've spoken about that on this channel before But that doesn't mean that we do science independent of theological

Considerations even with respect to some of the things that we're allowed to within certain boundaries to speculate on isn't that isn't that right?

I mean Yes, yes definitely so We tend to think of science and theology being opposites of one another at one time

The theology was considered the queen of the sciences. It was considered that the capstone it that's in the last 400 years

That's been flipped around somehow, but you know science does not have all the answers science is very limited science is something that people do

People make mistakes and so scientists make mistakes and science can be wrong and often is wrong If you study the history of science

You will find that it's littered with the resting hulks of all sorts of scientific ideas that were once thought to be absolutely true

Only to turn out to not be true I could give you a long laundry list of of those things and it's pretty arrogant to think that only today we have we have

The final answer on things plus we divide the way we do science two different ways I mean some people tell them what's called operational science, which is the science of the here -and -now

Experimental observational science how the world now exists like we can determine that the earth is moving around the

Sun each year Rotating on its axis, but the other is origin or historical science and this is talking about past processes and You weren't there to actually test that What was going on when the earth?

Came about to come out through and slowly gradually through a naturalistic a random process or was that a guided creative act?

We simply don't know now many scientists want to insist that we can't allow creative acts to come into play

But I'm asking well, why not? Science itself is limited to the natural world but it doesn't really address if there's a supernatural reality that can intervene with the world in the past or in the future even today for that matter and People make the grave error of assuming that the science we have today can answer all of those questions

I like to go back if you will let me late Carl Sagan He did that Cosmos TV series in like 18 1980 1981 and he began with a statement something like this

The the cosmos is all there is all there ever has been or all there ever will be and many people

View that as being a great scientific statement, and it really isn't at all. It's a it's a philosophical statement

It's his starting point is the position that he has philosophically and theologically It's a denial of the supernatural because when he says the cosmos he's referring about the physical natural world

He's not saying the natural world at all He's practically saying it doesn't exist because that's all that exists is the natural world

But how could he know that with any kind of certainty? Well, he would have to get outside of the cosmos and look around and see there's nothing there, but he'd have to do that internally in the past To see that there's nothing there in the past and he'd have to be internally

Eternally in the future looking around outside the cosmos to make sure there's nothing there So to make that statement without with with certainty

Carl Sagan would have to assume the properties of the very thing is denying a supernatural Beyond beyond the the world we have right right and the fact that that is a philosophical

Statement and not a a scientific statement should be that should be we should all agree if you're an atheist watching this

You should agree that that statement is philosophical It's not scientific just because someone wears a white lab coat and says something doesn't mean everything they say is science, right?

Yeah, I would I appreciate what what you said was you talked about how many times science has has been mistaken?

And I don't think that you're doing that to demean science science is a beautiful tool But I think as you would agree, it's important to Understand science within its proper context just to bring up tonight.

I want to make it very clear I believe science is that it can be a very God honoring thing I have was called to be an astronomer to be a scientist so that to say that science is trash or Is it's horrible.

It would be a gross Misrepresentation what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that science has its limitations Unfortunately many people not just scientists

But the average person on the street many times thinks that science can do more than it can really do That's correct

And and a lot of unbelievers who are informed Recognize the limits of science in ways that maybe a lot of people like an online kind of you know

The popular level kind of don't understand to quote Sean Carroll, which I'm sure you sure you're familiar

Sean Carroll is an atheist He said and I think it was in a debate. It might have been his debate with dr.

William Lane Craig, but he said that Science is not a science doesn't give us truth

It gives us theories that work and and I appreciated that because it is an acknowledgment that science is a pragmatic

Discipline that doesn't make it bad. That's a it's there's nothing wrong with that But to acknowledge that it has its limits

I think is is one small step forward and having meaningful discussion with people who disagree over these issues and in science we often use

Contradictory theories at the same time. I mean, there's a old theory that Heat is a fluid that flows from from a place of surplus to a place of deficit

We've since replaced that with what we call the kinetic theory of heat but guess what we still use that theory of the

Caloric the fluid that flows from from positive to negative We do that we talk about heat flow inside of heat engines and so forth

So we continue to use that that discredited model. We also use a geocentric model for many many times

I use it many times at least well, we've got these cool models We just happen to have it here really a celestial sphere like this knows its geocentric

The earth is at the center and you got the got the world spinning around the earth like this. This is not true folks

It was once thought to be tuned about 400 years ago. However, I find it very useful We do some workshops here at answers in Genesis the

Creation Museum based upon that So we have many contradictory if you will or even it blatantly incorrect models

We use because we find them what's the term you use useful because they work I think you said So it's perfectly fine to do that.

Now. You did make mention and I think it's important I was just after visiting the creation museum and the art encounter

Like I couldn't go home and just like You know look into some styles like a super interesting

So, of course, I watched the classic debate between Bill Nye the science guy and Ken Ham since there are a bunch of books

I even picked up this this book here because I just love debates I know this was a debate that happened a while back.

I love debates I love analyzing debates and so I was like, yeah This might be something to pick up at the gift shop or whatever But by the way when

I watched the debate first time I first time I heard I listened to it I didn't watch it, but I was happy to see one of the scientists that popped up on the screen

There was yourself. I was like, I know that guy But what what was brought up in that debate and what you brought up here and I thought was a very helpful distinction was was the difference between operational science and historic and historical science

In the debate as I was just recently watching it listening to to Bill Nye he said that that is a distinction that scientists don't make and that's just something that is characteristic of what chemist

Ken Ham was putting forth or people who kind of support can quote -unquote Ken Ham's position is operational science and historical science a

Distinction that is typically used by scientists. That's my first question. And then my second question

I'll save until you answer the first one because I don't want to lose my train of thought. Go ahead. Oh I I I'm not aware that that's used much by secular scientists

Will admit that we talked about it much but you know Just because secular scientists don't recognize that distinction doesn't mean that there is a distinction there

That's again making an assumption ahead. But most scientists think the thing don't think that way So therefore that must not be true.

It's just simply wrong. Obviously it comes from the fact that these standards of Evidence are different in every case and he was talking about what happened in the past.

You can't experiment on it the way you can To today in the lab, you can't even observe it like like I would an observational science today like astronomy

You have to conjecture about things you use Principles you you glean from how the world works today and ask well what could have happened in the past, you know

Forensic science is like that. You can't totally reproduce an accident. Let's say or a crime scene for that matter but you can use some principles to try to figure out if an

Explanation is plausible or not or how plausible it might be and We creation scientists engage in the same thing

We have geologists who have different models of how Grand Canyon might have formed by the way There are secular models about this and many of them are converging on one another believe it or not

There are many geologists today are thinking there's a somewhat catastrophic origin for Grand Canyon What's not this gradualistic thing the signs at the park would tell you so Again the rules are very different and you you have a hard time really

Disproving an idea that happened in the past because the past is past with apologies to William Faulkner Well, that's excellent

I think that's that was one of the first things that popped into my head Saying that a group of people do not acknowledge a distinction about something doesn't mean the distinction is false

Just because Ken Ham brings it up in a debate and people might not like Ken Ham for whatever reason doesn't mean that Ken Ham Is wrong even just as I was listening to the debate

I was thinking I mean, I'm not an idiot. I don't have PhD in science or anything like that, but I'm thinking sure Yeah, there's there's a difference between the science that goes into you know

Making a computer or you know You know x -ray machines and things that's clearly different than when we're trying to talk about things of the past I mean, you don't have to be a

Rocket science our scientists to recognize that and so it's very interesting to hear bills Bill Nye say, you know

Scientists don't make that distinction like maybe they should that's a I thought it was a pretty good distinction to make so But anyway, so a couple of things here.

So I have some comments here that I'm interested Maybe you made mention to something that was speculative which let's qualify it

You said there it's speculation to suggest that God was the source of light at the beginning But someone asked the question

With respect to God not being a being that emits photons, let me see if I could find it here

So so, you know see Let me find it here so that I could put the person's statement up there and I think with stream yard

You got to search the column Let's see here. There we go.

All right Placid light says but God is not physical. How could God emit photons? How would you how would you address that?

Perhaps that's a very good point. However, there are mentions in the scriptures of Appearance of God put it that way

We and Jesus in the book of Revelation the very beginning there He appears and he's very bright as it says in the in the in the context also when when

Moses encountered God There was this indication of light coming Blinding light coming from God.

So you're right. I don't think God is physical, but he can manifest himself in a physical way He did of course as Jesus Christ himself.

He's God with us Emanuel So that's a good point. I mean if you're gonna stick to God being purely purely non -physical

Then that is a bit of an issue But then you're supposing that we know everything we know about light and that the light was somehow the same back then

You get all these sort of questions and this is getting getting whacking in the weeds over analyzing it to a point again it's speculation and Those are speculations counter speculations.

I should say refuting it or trying to refute the thing but a good point I would not want to argue with it It's a because we we don't have any scriptural specifics on this.

We really don't know That's right. And that's why you prefaced with with speculation which science even you take the realm of theology revealed theology.

We have Explicit and implicit we have explicit Propositions in Scripture that give us on God's revelation that certain things are the case and then there are implicit things that we may infer

But we need to kind of cautiously walk and navigate those waters And so I really like the idea that God can manifest in various ways, which kind of reminds me as a teacher

I always talk about the importance of Knowing your theology because your theology could actually help you help you speak to some of these issues even if you are engaging in Speculation with care and caution

So, you know the person probably didn't even think of theophany when you you responded to that But that's not to say that that's what was the case, but that's not impossible within a

Christian worldview So I thought that was an interesting way to go there But thank you for that. All right, so When when people ask the question, you know, how old is the universe all these sorts of things?

I like to ask people from certain perspectives to see if they could explain

The best they can the other perspective. So for example, how would you?

Explain to us and summarize the most popular Old earth perspective and what do you think is the strongest biblical support for the other side before I want you to then?

I know that's really hard because There is good biblical support, but if if you had to say, okay,

I disagree I don't think they're interpreting the Bible correctly, but if I were to give them an inch

Here's what they they might with a lowercase m. They might have is there anything like that that you could express for us before?

We get into some other details. You're giving me a difficult task I spent a lifetime studying these things and I'm I'm pretty pretty sad in my ways.

I suppose I guess if I were gonna make an argument biblically for for The earth being very old the world being very old.

I would I would do what most people do They would argue that the word day in the creation account can have have a range of meanings

It can have I'm aware of four distinct meanings and one of them is is some period of time And so that's that's the approach that certain people take you

Ross for instance takes that approach You mentioned here earlier. And by the way, you and I have a good relationship. I consider him a friend

We disagree, but we don't do so disagreeably and I like the man and I think he likes me too.

And and the thing is He makes the case that that the day day could mean a longer period of time now

I disagree with that and I have reasons for that but you didn't ask me about that You just simply asked to give it to give an argument for biblical

I love questions like these because and I'm not doing it to make you feel uncomfortable, but but no, no

I'm quite fine. But thank you. I want to ask the question when someone is so firm in a position

It becomes it can become awkward to try to like well No, you see if you were to ask me for a physical argument for for an old universe

I could give that instantly Yeah, what is I were if I were wanting to support billions of years a thing

I would go to every time would be the size of the universe and the light travel Time involved in all of that that's to me is a powerful argument

And it's one of the more difficult arguments is something I have to deal with and I have dealt with and but the thing is it

It's an argument. I would use on the other side, but notice it's not a biblical argument. It's a it's a it's a coming from from not presuppositions presuppositional ism, but but Evidential ism there.

Yeah. Why is the universe so big and there's an answer to that too, of course Hmm now, how do you deal with people who and I had

Jason Lyle on not that long ago to talk about it is Young earth creationism biblical and we talked about some things

But what do you what do you do when someone tries to use the idea that what appears to be?

Statements in Scripture with respect to the nature of reality the nature of the universe and they say look this is the Bible's teaching for Example geocentricity.

I mean you brought up this little thing With the the geocentric model there a lot of critics think that's what the

Bible is teaching And so Christians have to do back flips and back handsprings to get around the fact that you know

The Bible is giving us false information that we could observationally Refute, how would you how would you interact with someone coming from that line of reasoning?

Well, I've given that a lot of thoughts in the last eight years dealing with the flat earthers on this sort of issue

But I've come to conclusion for studying it very deeply that the Bible is rather ambiguous on cosmology

It doesn't endorse Heliocentrism, it doesn't really endorse endorse geocentrism. It doesn't really endorse the earth being a sphere doesn't endorse the earth being flat there are a lot of questions in the

Bible that Questions we can have there the Bible never addresses and so you you

There are things that does address pretty clearly. We shouldn't have any arguments about those things But but the point is many questions we may have aren't addressed

And so the Bible is silent upon the cosmology now the problem you mentioned geocentrism from about the time of Timus Aquinas forward for three or four hundred years the position of the church increasingly

Read that Roman Catholic because the process of Reformation hadn't happened yet was was that of geocentrism and in fact the early reformers were kind Of stuck in geocentrism as well and it was a big battle that was fired off by Galileo in the early 17th century and That that really kind of informs most people about all of this

But if you go back and look at the whole Galileo affair the it was a scientist that got upset with him It wasn't the theologians the

Antolian theologians are okay with with heliocentrism They thought the Pope himself thought it was an interesting theory worthy of discussion it was the other scientists who called in the called in the authorities say we can't have this and the other the other aspect is

When he was refuted the vast majority of the arguments against him were not scriptural. They were

Scientific very few of them were actually scriptural and compounding this problem is the fact that people Interpreted certain passages of scriptures in turn of that in terms of that geocentric model and there's quite a lesson here for us today

We should be very very careful in interpreting scripture in terms of man's current ideas because you're gonna end up with egg all over your face when you do that The the fact is they dug their heels in on geocentrism and that went went went away

Then it kind of made them look silly and we're still paying the price with that today Incidentally, I make a parallel to the modern urge to Incorporate the

Big Bang into the Bible if you interpret the Bible in terms of Big Bang Then when it goes away, which it will if this history of science is any kind of indication

Then what happens to your your apologetics at that point? so we need to be very careful and how we how we interpret scripture and particularly in terms of Scientific issues and incidentally,

I I'm probably guilty of that myself I can't help it I'm a scientist and I and I want to take serious scripture seriously and I people have accused me of interpreting

Interpreting the Bible in terms of what I know or I think I know and that's because I'm human I don't think

I've done a bad job of it that I need to be very careful I'm very aware of the danger that's there if you're aware of a danger

You're gonna be more cautious in the approach you take and less likely I won't say an immune but less likely to repeat the same sort of mistakes.

Hmm Now, of course people who watch my channel are very much aware of my emphasis on the importance of presuppositions and worldviews

What role do presuppositions play in these entire discussions because a lot of times and you'll even see it in some of the comments

They might even pop up comments in this discussion here People say well such -and -such of you has been refuted and then when off when asked for evidence

They'll just point to some data point as though as though it's self -evident, you know, there's even a statement here.

Someone said Young earth creationism has been here we go Sorry, John.

We're putting up on the screen. That's okay. You put a comment there So you give your indirect permission for us to put you on the screen, but no disrespect, sir

He says young earth creationism has been refuted ad nauseam and then someone of course rightly asked what's the refutation and here we go

Dr. Faulkner ready the Grand Canyon And and I love

I love in the comments because because this is also true Someone says saying the Grand Canyon is not an argument and that's true.

That's true You can't just point to Grand Canyon or the moon or something like that We need to get into some of the details and then when we get into the details as you know

Are the the conclusions that are drawn are impacted by our presupposition? so so can you talk a little bit about that the importance of presuppositions and how that Impacts how we address these questions.

Yeah, you know, we don't just have data points sitting there We just don't have conclusions sitting there the all of those rest upon certain assumptions that you make many of them are hidden I mean hidden from the people are making what may be self -evident to one person is not self -evident to another person and So we need to be

I'm always curious about Assumptions that people make if a person clearly delineates to me what their assumptions are for I can perceive what their assumptions are

Then I oftentimes can predict where they're going to end up what kind of conclusions they are going to reach

So I'm very very keen on assumptions that go into these things and I start with a different set of assumptions

So we've got a different worldview here the typical or secular science approach is to exclude the supernatural and You're in fact now they're teaching the definition of science is a search for for natural explanations

I like the older definitions study the natural world using the five senses those may sound like similar definitions

But they're not the assumption of a search for natural or the definition of science being the search for natural natural explanations if a priori

Excluded any supernatural explanation it begs the question whether whether it's exist or not

It's not the issue. The question is what if there is a supernatural explanation? So if you encounter something out there that has no natural explanation

And I think the origin of life is one of those examples There's abundant evidence that that life is a very complex thing.

We don't see complex things arising naturally out of things If there is no natural assumption, there is no natural explanation for for something such as life

But yet you've excluded the alternative supernatural then what must you do? well, you you make up a natural explanation and no matter how convoluted no matter how illogical no matter how

Ill -founded it is. It must be true or else we wouldn't be here and so I think that that's what it leads you to and and I think a

Person who's truly honest about exploring the world at least needs to hold open the possibility

There might be a creator there might be a supernatural reality and that's better reflected by a person who truly is an agnostic

There are many people who claim to be agnostics Carl Sagan being one of them but I think his bold statement beginning of cosmos indicated he was not he was he was an atheist and He assumed that naturalism was all that there was and it wasn't really open.

I don't think to any kind of supernatural possibility Well, dr. Faulkner Okay, you said that complexity right requires a designer

But surely the design is more complex than the complexity that we observe and so who created the designer, right?

Do you ever you ever hear those? Oh, yeah, it's sort of a it's sort of like what's what's the term? Terrible impression of Richard.

No. No, that's fine But the term is is, you know going back a little earlier a little earlier and and that's it

That's a good point except for one thing You're missing the nature of the supernatural if you truly grasp what supernatural is it goes far beyond what?

What this natural world can do and so the crop proper Christian for biblical perspective is that God is eternal

God is all -powerful. God is all -knowing and he transcends space and time and so It's it's difficult for the finite mind to comprehend just what that means

But yeah, God is very complicated bar. God is very complex, but it dwarfs anything that we have and since he's eternal

He's always existed. Remember I talked I mentioned earlier that the belief for a long time prior to say 1970 was that the universe is eternal.

Now. This is a contrast actually contradictory to the second law Thermodynamics, you can't have an eternal universe and have one that's not wound down already

But never mind people didn't even think about that for some reason for so long and so The reason for that goes back to the ancient

Greeks. They they couldn't conceive of the world creating itself And they could not conceive of a creator created because their gods were not much more than Superman They were very limited

And so to them is much easier to believe that the universe has always existed and always would exist with vortices

You know coming along and giving rise to some order from time to time in the universe and that the idea persisted for a very long time so either

You you presuppose an eternal world or you

Presuppose an eternal creator. I think both are logically viable options at the get -go at least at the starting position

Now you you might have run into problems on either side I've already mentioned entropy as a problem for in eternal universe

But you something has to be eternal either the world is eternal or God is eternal. Hmm That's as interesting so so I did have a question that I want to ask you before I forget because it kind of relates to the

Interaction between how we understand scripture and how we understand the role of science I mean is something a lot of people struggle with what is the relationship between scripture and science?

I know we can make kind of what we call kind of a magisterial and ministerial role in which scripture is more authoritative But is there ever is there ever a situation where what we observe in nature?

requires us to return to the text and Change how we understand the text.

How does that interplay work? Because I know a lot of people struggle with this. That's tricky Again, I use the example of geocentrism

The geocentrism became the vogue in the ancient world when Christianity came along eventually people began to read scripture in terms of geocentrism

They were wrong about that later on when geocentrism was was was displaced It caused consternation for people for a while and still does for some people

That's one example of where science as we know it was not correcting scripture

It was correcting our fallible understanding of scripture you see people are involved in science and people are involved in studying scripture and People can have wrong ideas about both

Scripture is I think authoritative inspired by God and and and I we it doesn't make mistakes

However, our understanding can be faulty and throughout my lifetime I've changed my position on a number of issues theologically and otherwise because I came to understand

Well, I was wrong before there's nothing wrong with with saying you're wrong about something In fact, if you never say you're wrong

You've got a real problem and I continue to refine my ideas about science and about scripture as it turns out

Yeah, thank you for that. Okay, so when I read the scriptures and this was something that even

Before I kind of thought about these issues even just growing up when I read Genesis 1

It seemed pretty straightforward to me as a kid. Yeah, these are regular days Yeah, I couldn't answer all the questions or how did

Adam do all that stuff? And in what seems to be a short amount I didn't think about those type of questions that typically come up But it seems pretty straightforward.

Yeah, even old earth creationists will give this inch if I had Hugh Ross here

He probably would say, you know, well if I had to defend the young earth position They do have what seems to be a straightforward read that's always been the for critics critiquing young earth creationism they always give the young earth position at least that that it seems to be the straightforward reading of the text and so but what

I think a lot of people struggle with is not so much what the text says, but how We understand the text in light of what appears to be the conclusions of mainstream science

And so I want to shift over to the discussion of science and things that are probably old hat to you but some of the evidences that people point to for an old universe and age and Dinosaurs and all that kind of stuff you have the issue of radiometric dating the the geological strata distant starlight these sorts of things ice cores

Plate tectonics, which is something I'm interested in in terms of the breaking apart of the formation of the continents

How did that that work? Can we kind of talk a little bit about those one by one point by point you don't have to be so Expansive in your answer because I know you can talk you do one video on one of those

But um, can we explore a few of those before we? Maybe take some audience questions.

Sure. Okay, so Radiometric dating methods. Okay when people say well clearly, you know

Dinosaurs, you know, they went extinct. What is it? 65 billion 65 million years ago something like that And this is clear and if you reject this you're just ignoring the evidence which obviously young earth creationists are always accused of doing

How would you interact with someone who comes from that perspective? Well, I'd argue that the rock strata we find dinosaurs and other fossils in were laid down in water

All over the world. In fact, I'm not aware There may there may be a few what they call a oleander that is windblown deposits, but most are a water laid

Indicating a lot of water at some point I didn't I would suggest that's probably the flood and the whole question of fossilization.

How does it occur? You know, there's a things just don't die and get covered up gradually They have to be buried very rapidly that is in a catastrophic sort of environment

Wouldn't it begins to start sounding an awful lot like what happened in in Genesis during the flood account?

We would we would argue that the the dating of the the strata have been been an error

But the assumption again that gets back to assumptions the assumption being that only gradual Gradual processes can be allowed and so the thick layers of rock you find in in Grand Canyon for instance

So nearly a miles worth in some places They assume that it can only happen gradually because only gradual deposition is occurring today but that overlooks the fact that you weren't there and what kind of Deposition might have happened in the past and other evidences within those rock layers and indicate rapid deposition

And I think there are I'm not a geologist. I need to be careful talking about these kind of matters so now okay, so I hear this a lot from young earth creationist when someone appeals to historical science and then the response is

Pardon, the response is well, we weren't there and that's true. We weren't there so you can't observe it

But is that all we have in response? Do we just say well you weren't there. So you don't know Is there any kind of positive?

Arguments and evidence that we point to in terms of showing not only do you not know because you weren't there

But here's another model that works better Yeah, again, it'd be better off asking a geologist question

But we have we have very competent geologists who are flood geologists And I have back my former boss here

Andrew Snelling was a very competent geologist And he spent a lot of time studying in Grand Canyon John Whitmore at Cedarville's another one

But yeah, there's evidence within the rock layers that they were laid down very rapidly They were not laid down very gradually

One of the big projects that Andrew worked on was some of the folding that occurs Down into Pete sandstone in the bright angel shell right above it

The monument fold is one of the best examples and the argument is that well this this was happened after the rocks solidified and Became hardened but Andrew has done extensive work studying the rocks in there

And he has very strong evidence that no the rocks were not solidified at the time So you've got hundreds maybe a couple thousand a thousand feet of strata

That had not solidified yet had not been cemented into rock That suggests that the stuff was rapidly buried and before it could solidify was subjected to pressures and forces within the earth

Which caused the folding to take place? That's just one example There are many others of evidence that indicates rapid deposition and rapid formation of rock layers around the world

Yeah Now you said that that's strong evidence for now Anyone can get pushback as to whether they think that's strong evidence

And that's why it's so important to focus on what we were talking about before the presuppositions Yeah, so, you know the fact that someone could think of a counterpoint to what you said.

Yeah Yeah, the argument is is that if you've been if you've been rocks that are solidified and they're bent like this

I mean, there's U -shaped things like this. The rocks are going to shatter and That's a good point.

And and yet the the response is well maybe there's a lot of heat and pressure and provided in these things and So that's what

Andrew was looking into in this very famous case of Gathering rock samples if you have this heat and pressure that's responsible for allowing this stuff to be deformed then it will it will

Have an effect upon the grains the material in the in the rocks itself and his detailed study

Which is published on our online answers research journal here at the answers in Genesis org Gives abundant evidence

That that wasn't the case that these the rocks were not the grains in the rocks were not changed

We're not metamorphosed by by this slow and gradual process I'm not a geologist.

So I'm not really competent to To assess those sorts of things, but that is in print. It's online for anyone to investigate for themselves

Okay. Thank you for that. Now. I don't know if you know this Dr. Faulkner, okay,

I'm gonna teach you something now that you didn't know All right. Did you know that when we look out into the sky the night sky?

We are looking at the past Did you know that to a certain extent yes, yes,

I mean, I remember the Apollo 11, you know tomorrow is the 55th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11 and when we're on the moon

Back in 1969. There was like a three -second delay when when somebody from the earth would say something it was about three seconds before they responded and the reason for that is it's about one and a third second to send the

Transmission to the moon. It's about one and a third second to come back and you've got a little reaction time involved there

That was it that was looking into the past as it were So we're looking at the moon as existed of one and a third seconds ago

We look at the Sun about eight minutes ago. We look at say Jupiter's existed like 40 minutes ago And so it goes yes, there is a certain amount of look -back time involved in that.

Sure But okay, so so so light from distant stars and galaxies is kind of where and this is this is your wheelhouse

Measured in billions of light -years seems to imply an age of billions of years for the universe

How would you reconcile what the secular perspective is with what you take the

Bible to be saying? Well, a lot of people aren't gonna like it because I'm gonna invoke a miracle You're expecting a scientist to give a scientific explanation

But you know what? I believe in creation and the creation week was anything but natural right anything but physical

Over and over again the creation work week you have these supernatural things taking place of creation

We and sometimes we creation scientists even underestimate that Some of the answers that some of my colleagues have given to the light travel time problem have done just that So but I think what happened is

God on on day four not only created the distant lights But he brought the light here very quickly much as he caused the plants to grow up very rapidly on Day three and I've written and spoken about this quite a bit and the the argument

I'm making is is that there's a very rapid directed process on day three So why can't that same sort of pattern play out on other days?

It's speculation keep me in my keep that in mind, but I think God is a God of patterns and consistency

He doesn't do things willy -nilly changing changing all the time. He changed he does the same thing

I think in a consistent manner Before we move on though. I want to point out that the secular

Astronomers have a light travel time problem as well. It's called a horizon problem

The best evidence for the Big Bang is they what we call the cosmic microwave background

It's coming from 13 8 billion Light years away And the idea is is that you got a photon of light coming from this direction over here for say point

A to where? I am at point C And it's just now getting here after 13 .8 billion years and then you have a point over there called

I'll call it point B That's coming toward me right now at point C and they meet here at the same time perhaps

But they're coming from disparate parts of the universe if the light from B has just gotten here and a has just gotten here

There's no way that light from a could get to B or B have gotten to a now

What's interesting is when you do a diameter the opposite directions like this you find an incredibly precise Temperature about the same in both directions to one part in ten or two hundred thousand

In every direction you look diametrically. It's that way. There's a principle in physics that things

Come to the same temperature after they come to thermal equilibrium They've been able to exchange heat the most the most effective fastest method is through exchange of photons

But that's not possible. So why does the universe have the same temperature in every direction you look?

It's called a horizon problem been recognized for about 50 years About 40 years ago.

They came up with the explanation for this called cosmic inflation What happened is very early in the universe like 10 to the minus 36 seconds after the

Big Bang the universe went through a very Hyper expansion far faster many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light and by 10 to the minus 34 seconds stop

This allowed the universe to be in thermal contact with itself before that expansion that then inflation to reach the same temperature

But then pulled it out of thermal contact, but still kept it at a uniform temperature After 40 years, what is the evidence for cosmic inflation?

There isn't any what is the mechanism of cosmic inflation? Wait a minute. Wait a minute Science will find an answer.

Just wait. Just maybe they will maybe they won't but What is the what caused cosmic inflation to happen?

Well, we don't know we have speculation about it And what is the Stop, well, we don't know that either

In fact, we don't know anything about cosmic inflation except that it must have happened. Otherwise, we would not be here so if people can if the evolution is that the

Big Bang people can invoke this unknown process that that Nobody knows seems to know how it works and there's no evidence for it.

Then that sort of sounds like a miracle to me So if they're allowed to have their miracle, why can

I have mine? Yeah, I think that's that's interesting that you said that because when a creationist says oh, you know

God intervened and they think that's ridiculous But then when they have problems with their theory and they come up with some kind of you know ad hoc explanation

That's okay, because that's science and the other thing over there is religion I think that's a very and I would make that observation even if I were not a

Theist that just seems like a double standard just from a logical perspective. It seems like that seems special pleading over there now

You did mention miracle How would you respond to someone who suggests that well there's there there lies the problem dr

Faulkner the fact that you invoke a miracle that you are suggesting an outlook on science and an outlook on the world that would destroy the

Possibility of doing science altogether because whenever you don't explain whenever you can't explain something, you know

You just are going to kind of you know, slap God on it. God did it You know the God of the gaps kind of thing. So how would you respond to that idea that?

Your outlook with the allowance of miracles would would would destroy science. Well, I'm not invoking miracles today

I believe that the reason why the God that the universe is is so knowable and so consistent is the fact that the

Lord upholds the creation by the power of his word according to Colossians 1 16 and 17 and Hebrews 1 3 and God is a

God of order. It's a God of decrees I think he does this in a very consistent manner and the working hypothesis 400 years ago of making science possible

Sciences, we know it at least was that the universe was knowable and many people made the argument that science as we know

It is a product of Protestant Europe It was did not come out of ancient Greece roots are there but not the real sciences

We know it did come out of the Far East because they didn't have a philosophical foundation for it it took the

Protestant Reformation to give that philosophical foundation of a God of order that that Imposes that order up on the universe now

God can intervene today and if he wishes but he generally does not wish to do that That doesn't mean he hasn't done it in the past or won't do it in the future

That's a mistake people make is that that they close their minds to that even that possibility of happening

I'm not trying to argue science proves God exists I'm simply saying that that God's is not inconsistent with science is properly understood in practice and not only is he not inconsistent

He also provides within a worldly perspective a foundation for the very tools of science that we use to do all the things that we're doing

Today, that's my point. Yep. Yep. So, all right. Well, we're at the top of the hour. Dr. Faulkner I'd love to get to some of these questions.

Would that be okay? Yeah, sure. All right. Let's see here We're gonna go down the line here. Let me find some good ones here.

Here's the first question I'm sure this is not new to you I heard a theory that young earth creationism has its roots in the visions of LNG white of the

SDA the Seventh -day Adventist That Henry Morris used a lot of the SDA arguments in the

Genesis flood his book there. Is there any validity to that? Well, that was Ron numbers claim

He was an SDA or former SDA So he had a kind of an axe to grind there Ronald numbers wrote the book called the creationist back in the late 80s

I guess 1990 maybe Here's here's the rub The position of the church was recent creation until we get into fairly modern times in the 1800s

It was a there was a rapid retreat There was the gap theory put forth a little over two centuries ago

Theistic evolution all this sort of stuff by the middle part of the 19th century many people were arguing for millions of years within the church trying to accommodate all of this and there were a few people that held out and LNG white was one who held out and so she influenced the

Seventh -day Adventist Church And there was a man named George McCready price I guess about a hundred years ago who was one of the lone holdouts for recent creation

He happened to be a Seventh -day Adventist and Henry Morris read

Price's work and was much impressed with it and liked a lot of the arguments that price made and so Morris Naturally borrowed heavily when it came to geology at least borrowed heavily from from From prices work.

It doesn't mean then that that this all started with with Ellen white though It means that they're that that white affected price and price affected

Morris, but Morris had many other influences as well He himself was not SDA and would have disagreed with that many points, but he also went back earlier than that There are many other creations prior to that that he borrowed from as well.

So I'm not going to deny that that White in an indirect way played a role in the what we call the modern creation sense

But but to say that it's merely a product of that I think is incorrect. Sure. Very good Let's see here.

And by the way, you mentioned that young earth creationism goes back before that time period but the

And you said it was the majority view you can find exceptions where people have certain understandings

But the the majority for the most part has been the kind of the straightforward reading of the text, right?

Yeah Okay, all right from Cody us Jesus not the real one Does dr.

Faulkner believe in dark that dark matter exists Yes, I do I've investigated this quite a bit and I'm convinced that there is something out there that's causing these gravitational interactions

And we don't know what it is yet but we're trying to different theories have been put forth that different theories have been have been have been

Disproved one by one that so they came up with new theories about the origin about not the words But this but the identity of what kind of particles are involved here the the evidence for dark matter that goes back 90 years and there are three major lines of evidence the

Rotation curves of galaxies, which Vera Rubin did a lot of in the 70s. There's also the the expansion as it were of clusters of galaxies that was done by Zwicky back in the 30s and been

All these have been replicated by other people since and then the other one is gravity the gravitational lensing

Very massive objects and you can solve for the mass each one these are three independent in that lines of evidence and they all kind of converge on the fact that the

Universe has only about 10 % of visible matter. The other 90 % is invisible through like an iceberg

So I think the evidence is quite compelling and I think it's really cool that God made the universe this way He'd made a very curious universe for us to explore and I love the possibility and I'm kind of put out with my fellow

Creation scientists who like the dis dark matter because I think the evidence is very good Dissing dark matter.

That's an awesome title for a book I'm gonna use that one day. There we go Placid light says the creation story has to have it's not a question a statement

But maybe you can speak to this the creation story has to have allegorical elements That is the only way I can make sense of Scripture and scientific data

Is that the only way we can make sense out of the text and the scientific data? What why can't the scientific data have allegorical elements to it?

I mean if fair is fair if you're gonna say one is allegorical, why can't the other be? Hypocritical, you know, there are allegorical things in Scripture a big shock here.

Not everything in the Bible is literal the Jesus told parables They said the kingdom of heaven is like this and like that there are there are poetic devices in the prophetic

Prophetic and poetic books there are there's a lot of imagery a lot of metaphor But those are largely absent from the historical narrative.

And so the the creation account if you read it straightforward There's not any hint really that there's an allegorical thing going on It's pretty pretty clear that it's an account of what was what was happening during the creation week

So I reject the premise that you have to you have to Have to treat as allegorical to make it fit

The argument could be as I'm making and I believe firmly that there's something wrong with what the scientists are concluding about the history

Of the world. Hmm. Thank you for that The John Smith says the Grand Canyon proves the earth can't be young This is part of the kind of the funny little thread.

I was sharing before Someone says you can't you can't say Grand Canyon because that's not an argument.

It's kind of like saying, you know Atheism is true or naturalism is true because of chemicals like you're not really good

But you gotta flush that in a little bit right now now, I'm not sure this is not your area

But how would you begin to to show why this statement itself? I think moves beyond what a scientist?

Oh, yeah, I've I've made a number of raft trips through Grand Canyon. I went through again just a few weeks ago

It's one of those terrible things. They make me do every year Francis in Genesis I have to take this week -long raft trip in Grand Canyon.

So I've picked up a few things along the way There are two processes going on one is the deposition of the rocks and the other is the removal of the rocks to make the

Canyon you so it's not even clear from his point there which one he's talking about or is he talking about both?

we've talked a little bit about the about the Deposition and I and I said in very broad terms because I'm not a geologist

But there's compelling evidence in in Grand Canyon that those rocks were not laid down very slowly

But they were done very rapidly as far as the removal of the rocks We believe we're kind of converging on an idea that there was a probably a post -flood

Lake behind behind all that that wrote it away. If you go there and read the signage It's saying well this little bitty river down there eroded away this this thing

Very slowly and that used to be the theory of scientists That's no one believes that anymore, even though the science continues to say that there have been many theories proposed over the years of formation of Grand Canyon newsflash many secular scientists now are saying that the canyon formed very rapidly and Somewhat recently it was the rock layers.

They still say took a long time, but the formation the carving out of the canyon Is probably was done in a very rapid rate through a dam breach that occurred

They're even talking about this large lake backed up behind it People don't know this but when you if you go down to Lee's Ferry, it's the last place

You can really cross the river easily it's only about 3 ,000 feet above sea level But downstream a little way is you go through the south rim and the north rim and there's seven and eight

Thousand feet above sea level so there's plenty of room for a lake to back up there And it's impossible for the stream to have eroded uphill for a while and then back downhill again

That's just one of the problems wrong with the original theory that it keeps getting repeated That was a gradual erosion through all of this.

So There's abundant evidence I think if you want to look at it that way again your people are free to disagree with it

And let me let me say also that Since there are several different creation theories about the formation how

Grand Canyon carved out and on the secular theories of how Grand Canyon Carved out that ought to tell you something

It ought to tell you That the problem of what carved Grand Canyon is not a simple one if it were we would already agreed upon a solution

But the creationists can't agree and the secular scientists can't agree on that either It's a mess trying to figure out some of the geology down there

It's not as simple as people might think by reading the signs when they go to the park. Sure. Sure now, dr Farkin, I do apologize.

I'm gonna address this comment real quick Nick Jones is someone who has commented on some of my videos and he

I think he's an atheist a skeptic And I just want to explain briefly. There's a reason why

Nick that I don't typically respond to your questions I think your questions are fine if they're worded differently, but Anyone who interacts online knows that it's a death trap to enter into a testing back -and -forth

Debate with someone who doesn't give me impression that they're really interested in what I have to say

So maybe in the future Nick if you kind of rephrase your question in a more respectful way

I mean, oh, wow, this is truly pitiful. I mean, I don't know what you're referring to the whole thing everything I'm not sure tell us

Eli Do you have any single scrap of credible evidence now folks who are familiar with my channel?

And I know dr. Faulkner would agree with what I'm about to say is this is a very surface level

Question give me credible evidence. What am how am I going to respond to this? What is considered credible is worldview dependent?

What is considered good evidence is going to be worldview dependent So what am I going to do Nick? I'm going to give you evidence and you're going to reject it.

Why because you have different presuppositions I'm going to get right back to the issue that no skeptic likes to talk about their worldview

And so I won't answer your questions anymore Unless you ask them a little bit more respectfully

I think people who know me I try my best to be respectful to those and so I Hope that you would do so and then

I would probably give more time to some of your questions So when I when I encounter this kind of question, I often ask well, what sort of evidence would you would you accept?

What kind of evidence would you think might be out there if God exists? And if you can't you can't give me an example of that then

I can't we can't agree on that Then you get it gets back to the worldview. There's nothing to talk about. That's right But but when

I say what you just said, this is what I get. I'm diverting to childish word games You see so it's it's very superficial way of thinking.

I'm sorry Nick that you feel that way But those are my thoughts there. I share them respectfully and we're gonna move on but I just wanted to address that.

Sorry about that Let's see here. Here's a question from mark Rate rate a maker.

I apologize if I mispronounced that was there a form of light before the stars slash Sun and the Big Bang mindset

Thank you Was there a form of light before that? Yeah, I think in the Big Bang mindset there was light from the very beginning you have very dense a very hot state of plasma and Photons of light were emitted they were scattered reabsorbed re -emitted in this this haze that existed

So yeah, there was light from the very beginning in in in the

Big Bang model, hmm, okay Let's see here. I've got a few more and then we'll wrap things up.

I really appreciate your time I hope you're having a good time as much as I'm having a good time. I hope I'm doing okay as a host Oh, you're doing a fantastic job.

I'm very relaxed. All right. Thank you very much. Let's see here There's a question here and The person you have to preface your questions with question because I have to scroll down these these long lists and it's just there's slash

Debate there's discussion and then there's a question tossed somewhere in there. And when I don't ask their question, I get accused of skipping their question

Yeah, let's see here Yeah, we did mention the horizon problem

Question. Okay. Here we go. Here we go. There's a question and it's prefaced with question. There we go

Accidentally unplugged myself. There we go. See him all wild up All right. Here's a question.

What is his response to dr. Lyle's? Position concerning distant starlight depends on what synchrony convention you use.

What it what are your views on? Dr. Lyle's view? Let me make very clear. Jason.

I have friends. I know Jason not talked to him in a while I disagree with him on this and it gets back to he's invoking a

Physical explanation for the light travel time problem much as Before him Russ Humphreys did and then for a while John Hartnett They were pursuing general relativistic explanations for the light travel time problem, but I'm asking

I asked the question Well, what part of the miracle of creation? Don't you understand? I think all of these people would readily recognize that everything else in the creation week is is is

Miraculous, it doesn't follow the rules of the physics as we know it today except for this one issue

And I'm asking why why the inconsistency on that? Why is everything in the creation week miraculous except for this one thing?

They're wanting to impose the way the world currently works back during the creation week and there's a term for that It's called uniformitarianism and we critique our our opponents evolutionary opponents when they when they use uniformitarianism

So why would we give our own fellow creationists a free ride in this? Hmm. Okay. Thank you for that Magnus Conner asks, do you believe in time portals?

No, the great science fiction but in fantasy, but no. All right, very good. I wish I wish they were there.

They'd be great I like to go back and correct a few things. Yeah Yeah that also assumes again talk about presupposition you talk about time portals and time travel that that presupposes different theories of times which are highly

Controversial get the a theory and B theory and things like that I would love to go back in time and talk to myself about age 12 or 14 or so and give a few nuggets of advice

Not that I made a lot of mistakes, but I think I could have I could have avoided some some issues along the way I think that's true of everyone now again

I apologize for this question But I think it's helpful because people the average person who's trying to defend what they take to be really what the

Bible's teaching Will often kind of get you know, the perception is is going to be reflecting this question

But obviously we're in disagree here, but maybe you could speak to it Okay, so the question here says why our young earth creation is people so gullible

What what's wrong with that question? And then maybe you can respond to it. Well, welcome to the infant into the internet.

Dr Faulkner, well, I I get this kind of stuff dealing on the internet myself. It's just What's kind of inflammatory?

It's an accusation being placed in there without any foundation It's a penny to this person. We're gullible, but it's not been demonstrated.

So I'm not gonna accept the premise of the question. Very good Okay, let's move on.

We'll do one more question. And Actually, you know, I think that's the last one. Okay. I apologize if I missed anyone

I think this is be a good place to wrap things up What can you share with us just very briefly some other resources that you've written and maybe?

You know where people can find you if they want to get more of your resources Okay, well I published much of my stuff on the answers and Genesis website is answers and Genesis org

We have technical and less technical. In fact, I've got a movie review going up as a blog tomorrow at last

Last week on the premiere I went out to see fly me to the moon and I was asked to write a movie review and I was happy to Do it.

I've never written a movie review before so it was interesting Are you a movie guy you like you like movies?

I like really classic old movies, you know, like the black -and -white Oh, yeah, we've been watching my wife.

I've been watching these old Detective movies from and mysteries from the 40s and 50s and man, they're good.

They really are the best year ever in Hollywood was 1939 You had the

Wizard of Oz. Mr. Smith goes to Washington stagecoach But none of those three movies stood a chance against gone with the wind

There's never been a movie a year that good in Hollywood, really On the classics, but I don't go to the theater very often first time.

I've been in a theater in years I've watched most of my movies on TV or downloads or something or DVDs or VHS got a bunch of those

I grew up in the 90s I I don't see myself as an as a fossil, but I had

VHS. Yeah, I've still got a player for the stuff I'm a big Jimmy Stewart fan the best actor ever.

I've got about 60 of his movies So I'm kind of an old movie guy, but not a new movie guy I went to see this one because I thought it was interesting.

It has a well It has some implications with a big conspiracy going on, but I won't go into that that's

Anyway, I'm getting back. I've written several books You mentioned the creative cosmos and the universe by design universe about design.

It was my first book of 20 years ago about cosmology I'm working on a revision a second edition of that.

There's also the there's a companion book to To the creative cosmos called the expanse of heaven

The creative cosmos is about biblical astronomy such a book had not been written in a hundred years It was time to write and revisit this that whole subject.

The the expanse of heaven is about the creation science of Astronomy and it refers back to the first book quite a bit.

I wrote the the the new astronomy book It's a youth book about astronomy

I've written the one book on the flat earth called the falling flat the reputation of flat earth arguments

My most recent book is called the the heavens a different view It's a coffee table book with a beautiful pictures

Some of which I took but mostly two other amateur astronomers who are much better Astrophotographers than I'll ever dream to be

I did write the essay. So it's a it's a beautiful Illustrated book. I also came out with a high school astronomy textbook called as intro to astrophysics

It came out about a year ago, and I suspect some homeschoolers are using that book quite a bit. It's meant as a like a

Senior junior senior year of science course not forcing everybody to take chemistry or physics or the last couple of years

So I've written a couple of pocket guides ones on flying saucers UFOs and the other one just on astronomy

That's sold here at the answers at the Creation Museum in the Ark Encounter Those are some of the books that I've written again

I've written numerous articles probably hundreds of them by now on the answers in Genesis website I've written a few and other creation literature out there.

You can have to go searching for some of those Okay, very good. Now. Here's here's my last question and this will determine your

Orthodoxy and whether you know Is a very very important question, okay? Ready?

Yes our Trek or Star Wars and when I mentioned Star Wars don't think Disney Star Wars So Star Trek or Star Wars before you answer this will this will either destroy my perception of you

Two different universes really You mentioned

Disney and and I have not seen the recent Star Wars movies because they just didn't get good reviews

Oh boy, two different epics and all that kind of stuff. It's a tough call.

It really is I Guess I'm gonna have to say for just pure entertainment value if nothing else

I enjoyed the Star Wars franchise more than Star Trek surely from pure purely from entertainment.

They're so so different Hard to compare to one another as far as a different the different enterprise the different Manifestations of Star Trek the one

I enjoyed the most is probably Voyager I thought that was interesting the one I did not like was deep six nine

I didn't like that one that much at all, but people try to correct me. It's deep space. I know it's deep six nine

And I like the one they did the Enterprise the one that flopped so miserably I thought was a good show

I enjoyed it so At any rate the movies the movies have been pretty good

I've noticed over the years the Star Trek movies tend to have a parody problem The odd numbered ones aren't very good.

The even one number ones are good. I don't understand You know, why why can they get it? So right in the next movie so wrong and then back to right again

It's just kind of weird and that's the problem the problem of evil That's that's what it is You would wish that they made these movies and they were all amazing the recent

Star Wars stuff with Disney You know, you got all the woke stuff in there and it's hard to watch Because you see really that philosophy come in on the screen and these awesome characters that I grew up watching

It just kind of it's not the same you kind of like Star Wars guy my myself

Like the original ones that did in the 70s and early 80s and then the second which were prequels I still call these episodes 1 2 3 and 4 5 6, even though they've reversed the numbers on me

That's right. When we got into the last trilogy. I I didn't think was up to the level the other

Yeah Yeah, this has been an excellent discussion dr.

Faulkner I'm so happy I was able to meet you in person I if I can just real quick I Am I am a big entertainment person?

I love movies. I love theme parks I I am very critical of things that are produced by Christians because pardon because Christians when they do movies can be very preachy and very low quality and I have no qualms of saying that because I Appreciate good art good entertainment

My family and I a lot years ago Okay went to this theme park as a

Bible theme park called the Holy Land experience in Florida I've been there.

Yeah, I Did not like it at all. I Apologize if you liked it. I did not like it.

I I Didn't think the quality was up to par. I did like their script

Orem That was really cool and kind of the temple there. But for the most part we went at the tail end of its existence

It's gone. Oh, yeah. Okay. We went at the tail end. You can you can kind of know it was kind of on its last legs

I didn't like it and I kind of became disenfranchised with like Christian stuff now Those are my expectations going to the

Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter I never I've only seen quick little video clips and I'm just like, all right

We're gonna go went to the Creation Museum. My kids loved it. I loved it. I thought it was awesome It was top tier then we go and I'm like, there you go.

Okay, we're at the Ark Encounter. We're taking this bus I see a little rainbow arch. I'm like, okay. I saw this on YouTube somewhere and When I walked through those arches and saw the

Ark in person, I was like, okay Like all of the stereotypical like the the low -level expect

Exploded and the entire time dr. Faulkner when we were walking around. I just kept looking at the

Ark I'm like thinking how amazing it looked and It made me want to go back and just read my

Bible again and everything all of the exhibits made me want to do that So we were pleasantly surprised.

It was awesome I would totally highly recommend folks who watch my channel check it out Even if you don't agree with Young Earth, just go it's awesome time with the family and it's great for conversation starters

Patrick Marsh was our main designer of both attractions and he really knew what he was doing

He had a great vision and he actually got When the Creation Museum when Ken was planning it

He decided to open it up on you know some of the pole barn and kind of add exhibits and kind of add as it went by and Patrick Marsh came in said

I want to design this for you when he when he took two minutes confidence He told Ken said no, you don't want that.

You want this thing to be world -class from the first day. Yeah, and Hadrick won out when convincing

Ken of something like that. It's hard to do but but Patrick did it and he was brilliant He really did a good job

And I've had many friends over the years come visit both attractions and I've never had anybody say well It's about what

I expected or I was expecting more or better Everybody's like wow, you know just goes beyond anything you could have anticipated

So it really is a testament to the hard work that Patrick put into that to get it, right? And we continue to make upgrades.

I tell people if you've not been to Visit us in the last three or four years. You need to come back because it's changed and we're continually making changes

We've got some things that are opening Here at the museum This this fall.

We've got another thing big thing opening Next year sometime at the arcs We keep keep adding exhibits as well in addition to the big projects we work on and they're actually be starting design people don't realize this but the arc was and originally envisioned as three phases and the arc is only phase one and now after what eight seven eight years of seven years of operation we are finally

Starting work on phase two. That is that is so cool I'm when

I tell you we had a good time. I'm not I'm yeah, I let me give an example here Here's the cherry on top for me.

Dr. Faulkner because this this matters to me. Okay, it's not just The production value in her

The coffee I'm a coffee guy. Okay. I got myself a cup of coffee It was delicious.

My kids were playing in the playground and I always worry about my kids Because of their little so they don't want to get hurt.

You had the soft padded. They're like softly pad Like this is so safe. I feel no stress.

I have this awesome cup of coffee I'm Tom talent I'm talking to my wife about how I watch this place is awesome and you have this giant arc looming in the background and I Looked at my wife like is this what heaven's gonna be like?

The coffee and the food everything mixed in with actually it was such a great experience We were so happy.

Do you eat in Zara's restaurant at the arc? Where did we eat? We? It's a it's a buffet.

You would remember the buffet. No, I don't think we did the buffet. We got the Pork but next time.

Oh, yeah, the buffet is my wife and I went down there last week We just a little little time after there and then we had dinner there and to me

It's a treat when I go down there to speak. I like to eat lunch before I speak it's awful big mistake because then

I'm awful sleepy after I eat lunch, but at the at the Buffet is incredible And if you if you can't find anything to eat there

Then you just can't be satisfied and I tell people what you do is you skip breakfast and you don't do dinner You just eat lunch.

That's right. Hey, I love how everything was very biblically based There's only one unbiblical thing that I observed and that was on the original arc.

There were no buffets and coffee, but that's okay Oh Man well, ladies and gentlemen,

I've been talking with dr. Danny Faulkner astronomer and I guess how would you describe yourself?

In terms of your work in answers in Genesis. Are you are I don't want to just say you're an employee at you know

Well, I'm in the research department and my title is astronomer. Okay, excellent Well, I there are other videos with interviews of Danny Faulkner on YouTube if you want to check him out

His books can be purchased on the website answers in Genesis as well as on Amazon And of course, you could always return to this wonderful interview and discussion.

Dr. Faulkner Thank you so much for giving me your time. Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for giving me yours until next time