Good video. The text clearly states the days are 24 hr days. People like Hugh Ross, who think the original author was intending to communicate long periods of time, are mistaken. Hugh still teaches this. Having said that, I agree with Hugh: we live in an ancient universe. The creation story is not meant to teach scientific lessons or exactly how God created things. God communicates through science (the book of nature) which clearly shows an old earth.

What is your opinion about the geography in Genesis 2 and the possibility that it matches the modern world?

Pretend there is a magic genie who can do anything that's logically possible. But, imagine this genie is in place of God prior to the creation of anything. So, this genie is all that existed prior to the existence of anything else. Then this genie created (and designed) everything else. Now, additionally pretend that this genie created and designed everything in random ways. Horses have six legs, dogs are a lot centipedes, and most kinds of trees have mouths and intestines. Clouds are in all the space, and so is the kind of air that animals breathe. So, there is no cosmically precious atmosphere around only the Earth. Also, there are no humans, no sin, and no Gospel. So, this genie has created everything in random ways, in random sequences, and in random lengths of time. The genie first created rocks. No air, no space, no gravity, no time, no etc.. Just some rocks. Next, the genie creates elephants. Still no air, and no Earth. Just elephants. So the elephants were just there with the rocks. Still no space or time yet. So the elephants were, say, in some kind suspending animation for now. But, hey, there were elephants even if they were not active yet. Only then did this genie create space and air. So, now, there was space and air and elephants are rocks. Nothing else yet. Assuming this kind of scenario is logically possible, it would have been possible for God. In other words, if anything like this would have been logically possible, then, instead of the genie doing this, it would have been possible to God to have begun to create in this arbitrary way. My point in all this is to define for the reader what I think is the essence of the claim, held by many of my fellow YEC's, that Genesis 1 'plainly' teaches that God created the lightbearers belatedly (specifically on Day Four). Why Day Four? Why not, say, as the final thing God creates? Thus, all else of the text being shifted one day: that the Day Four text for creating the ocean animals and birds, the Day Five text for creating land animals and humans, and the Day Six text for creating the lightbearers. Logically possible. Why Day Four? Surely, God could have created EVERYTHING in a NORMALLY expected sequence. Why did He, supposedly, create the lightbearers BELATEDLY? Again, why did God, supposedly, create the lightbearers BELATEDLY? Is that the most NATURALLY plain reading of the Day Four portion? And, for the Hebrew people, in their own language usage, is the resultingly compulsory reading of vs. 1-3 the most naturally plain reading of those first three verses?

dinosaurs having feathers does not mean that they will turn into birds. There are many more changes that a reptile needs to turn into birds. and how would they know how to change. they need special lungs, hollow bones (not just the neck) oil glands and not to forget that every feather on a bird is different and has a different function. Also, those feathers on the dino could also be crushed collagen. They would also need all the brain power to operated all the new vital parts.

where can we get the book when it comes out?

Have you shown Lisle this information? I know his manager, she lives 2 towns away from me in NJ

Dinosaurs are just reptiles. They first appeared about 243 million years ago and all died 64.8 million years ago. Dinosaurs are not in the Bible, but many animals are not in the Bible. Dinosaurs help lay massive biodeposits. The biodeposits include limestone, marble, coal, oil, and natural gas. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” referring to the whole time of the six days, The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

Given some of the comments below, I should clarify: This book/episode is NOT *in principle* an argument for being more ecumenical in theology as creationists, even though some of my responses to those comments will indicate I do bias more ecumenical in that sense. The book is WAY more about a way forward in terms of creationism as a movement and being less critical toward each within creationism, *regardless of any theological persuasion.*

Theres no evidence for creation

Yeah most Christians believe it is allegory because of the problems it causes since in a global flood water covering the entire earth and rising above Mt Everest in the great flood would destroy the earth's crust, all plant life, there were recorded thriving civilizations during the flood, climate change, etc are kind of problems. And yes God could revert everything back to normal, not make the water affect anyone, etc, but that would contribute to last Thursdayism, which is the belief that God just made us last Thursday and our memories are fake. For example, the early church believed that the creation story was allegory, but it was more likely they believed it was based on what really happened since they believed Adam and Eve were real people. Most Christian's probably also believe the great flood (which I just talked about) is based on what really happened. Now the only way I think I could kind of make the great flood make sense is by saying it traveled across the globe to different areas over time and didn’t cover the entire earth all at once, but then there are still some problems since I believe the Bible says it DID cover the whole earth.

8:56 God IS loving! But the "God" of the Old Testament is vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty, cruel, genocidal, etc. There are only TWO possibilities concerning the O.T. description of "God": It's simply WRONG, perhaps a fabrication, a projection of the worst attributes of a savage People, unto their imaginings of what the Deity is, OR, the truthful portrayal of a real MONSTER!

Evolution is not an argument against God. Arguments against religion are not arguments against God. Would you understand the atheist logical fallacy to not lie to your own innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?", that means "who created what is not created?". I encourage you to read Spinoza to understand reality. The kalam cosmological argument proves logically God exists: what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence must exist. Did you understand why God exists? God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. God exists because logically not all reality can be created or have a beginning of existence. Your understanding is your salvation. I am trying to overcome an unjust censorship. To overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. Why humanity censor knowledge? Who benefits censoring knowledge and what are the consequences of censoring knowledge?. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Emergency! Thank you.

I like the idea behind this. There are soooo many secondary and tertiary issues that get so tied up in everything that people get confused on what exactly it is that YAC is trying to say. I can think of 10 examples right off hand ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnPPoqKDd95mfassi=ekBnKWEvlzQDxe93 ). Not to be critical, but constructive from a place of love and respect, there were a few places where your wording seemed to imply choosing your interpretation of the text based on wanting YAC to be true, rather than following the testimony of Scripture to the right conclusion. I know that's NOT how you approach it or what you meant, so I thought you might like to know. 12:57 & 15:13 are the spots that jumped out at me. Great stuff! I love the channel. Looking forward to the book. Keep up the good work!

I like the video format 👍🏼

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think the concept of "mere young age creationism" is as misguided as the concept of "mere Christianity" is. The source of division and conflict in the creationist movement is not that too many things have been added on to what it means to be a young age creationist, though that has been a result. The source of division is that few will recognize the fundamental importance of hermeneutics to "rightly dividing the word of truth". Instead, the "big tent" approach has led to welcoming anyone who is willing to say the Earth was created in six 24-hour days less than 10k years ago, regardless of the hermeneutics they used to reach that conclusion. As a result, when it comes to trying to understand literally any other aspect of the text, starting with the very first verse of the Bible, there is a huge amount of disagreement. Why should we be surprised? We have a movement with Presbyterians, Charismatics, and Baptists (which I mention solely because they represent fundamentally different hermeneutical methods) in it, and as much as we might like to say everyone can just ignore the very real fundamental differences that exist between those groups, that isn't actually possible. If we all began with a clear understanding that a normative (i.e., grammatical-historical) hermeneutic is correct (not to mention involving more theologians in our research efforts, as Bill Barrick strongly emphasized in his ICC talk), then we would have a standard outside of ourselves by which our interpretation of Scripture could be judged. This would enable us to have more clarity on what Scripture is and is not saying and thereby more clearly delineate when a disagreement is over the text of Scripture, and when it is over some scientific conclusion. But this isn't happening, and won't any time soon because ever since the Donatist controversy of 300s, Christians have generally elevated unity over doctrinal truth, and the ironic result is increased division and conflict.

I like the idea of the book and I think you are senior to me in that topic. So I doubt my input on how to categorize stuff is relevant. As I usually just listen to your youtube video, I don't see any reason why I should oppose to you not looking at the camera. If it brings benefits then go for it.

11:55 I think Islam also has something similar to that chronology. But it is like everything else in Islam, a bad copy of the orginal without actually understanding why it is done in Judaisma and Christianity.

I kinda like the not looking at the camera. It helps me do the things I actually need to do. lol

I like the idea of "mere YAC." I understand why you put animal death before sin outside of the main tenets, but I would say that without the issue of death before sin, the theological argument for YAC loses a lot of its punch. Yes, you can argue that it is important for maintaining a grammatical-historical hermaneutic, but the issue of death before sin seems like an issue of more far-reaching consequences than just the issue of taking the days and genealogies at face value.

Your book sounds good; I will buy it.

Did you say that there exist YEC evolutionists? Is that true, or did I misunderstand you? Thank you

Well, there are not more creationists be the evidence overwhelimgly points to an ancient earth and Evolution - to continue to hold to Creationism is not faith, it is ignorance dressed up as a virtue to make it look authentic.

Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours.

Lol, love the UFC. But have to laugh at the question, why dont more people believe in a ridiculous mythological story that has no basis in science or reality?

Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

How does this channel not have more subs? Great stuff!

!00% of the evidence, when interpreted honestly and accurately, proves the Biblical account. The earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. *We won.* End Of Story.

Very much looking forward to your new book - I have reason to believe that it will be a game changer. Thank you for your ministry and desire to be a faithful steward of God's Word and His Gospel through your ministry. I appreciate you :-)

When did you measure the speed of light and how did you do it? Nobody else can. And it makes more sense if it is instant one way. Then not being able to go faster than light makes sense. And why photons dont experience time. Also why we dont see black holes possibly. (This is just an idea of mine). Even if ASC wasn't correct you still need a much faster speed of light to make sense of observations. Such as the horizon problem.

It amazes me how anyone can still be a YEC in this day in age. Are you aware that ancient Hebrews believed in a geocentric model? Most religions believe the same thing around that time. It wasnt until a telescope was invented and allowed us to make better observations of the natural world.

There are two kinds of Creationisms. One of a God Creator... Or... One who thinks the Earth is 6k years old. At least God has some merit if done well. While the other is nothing more than akin to Flat Earth. The Creation of the Universe from a Hyperion Star is but one of many... All religions are not old enough to understand what I mean.

What a sad waste of a young life. I hope that at some stage you decide to use some portion of your life to do something which actually helps the world, or society, or the future.

I have been waiting for a book like this for about 15 years. As someone who is a YEC, it has really annoyed me that it seems like so many of the YEC leadership gets away with false/bad claims and unchristian like behavior because they are pushing YEC. I watched Kent Hovind way back in the day, my family had his VHS set and he spoke at our church in San Diego. He was the one who tipped me over the edge to say that we shouldn't let leaders get away with bad things because we like parts of their message. I look forward to reading your book, as a pastor, I am hoping it will help me be able to point to someone else who is a little more winsome about this topic.

U know about the heat problem?

Always sad to see something like this.

27:07 Thanks for so much for your winsome creationist attitude. I would love to be involved with your ministry and any advice on my Drawing Animal podcast especially on presentation would be greatly appreciated. Your brother in Christ Wesley

I am very much looking forward to your book. You know I'm not a YEC but I believe this is the way forward for creationism. I was able to spend some time with Paul Garner this summer and very much appreciated that interaction. I count The New Creationism and Faith Form and Time and as the better YEC (YAC) books. If you want an outside YEC but friendly review/feedback on some chapters let me know.

Dr. Jason Lisle does not believe in time travel, I don't believe. Dr. Dennis is possibly misstating or misinterpreting quotes from Lisle's book. Following is a question and answer from an interview with Jason Lisle at The Master;'s University. He clearly states that faster than light travel is not possible. Logically, that eliminates travel into the past as well. "Q. Star Wars or Star Trek? A. There is room in my heart for both of them. Is there anything factual? Some things, but they take a lot of license. Faster than light travel is just not possible based on the way God has constructed this universe, and both of them have to use that in order to get people from one planet to the next in any sort of reasonable amount of time. Both are fascinating works of fiction and I really enjoy both. In Star Trek they will use terms like Heisenberg compensators, because they know the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would make transport impossible. They throw these little words in there that show they thought it through and so have gotten some of the terminology right." So I agree with another comment that Dr. Dennis is destroying a strawman, not reality. And he's spending a lot of wasted effort on criticizing that strawman. Why is he doing this?

Most enlightened people accept evolution because of the overwhelming proof. Various plants and animals evolved and got extinct at different times, as seen in the fossil record. Creationists largely believe that most sediments were laid down as a result of Noah's flood. One should, therefore, conclude that most fossilised pollen came from the same season. Yet, one can't find one single fossilised grass pollen particle from sediments that are dated 150 million years old. It should be so easy to disprove the "old earth." Just get a sample from the Jurassic and find one single grass pollen among the trillions of other pollen particles in the samples. Grass had not yet evolved, and therefore, there are no grass pollen in such old samples. No creationists "scientists" will bother to try to disprove evolution in this way because they really know that they will not find any. No "evolutionists" are worried that pollen of modern plants will be found in such old samples because the evidence for old earth and evolution is so overwhelmingly strong. Instead, people who accept evolution think that creationists are extremely naive.

The only thing that makes sense to me is the variable speed of light. So much of so called science is not even science. We need to get our experts to stop looking for aliens and believing in invisible matter and invisible inflators not to mention their belief of something from nothing and the belief that mistakes selected by the environment write billions and billions of bits of viable functional programming that’s not there for every different living organism there ever was. Tell them to stop spending money looking for aliens that aren’t there. Then I would respect them more. In physics matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. So there was a time when matter and energy were made as well as time itself since measurable time can’t exist without a great amount of matter. This means there was a time when time was made in the not too distant past. This shows that every physical thing is the result of a Creation. Only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can. That’s how you were ordered to be a human instead of a squirrel the first time around. This is the only absolute truth there is. When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the rate of causation including the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are with a different amount of gravity? Scientists can’t figure out that where gravity is the power that changes the measures of time and distance and it changes the speed of light. Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed travel at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched light must travel that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more. It’s not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. The *force* that causes the effects we observe *must* exist. That force is the gravity from the supermassive black holes and the rest of the mass inside of galaxies. This force alters the measures of time and distance altering the rates of causation throughout the galaxy in the process making things farther away from the center appear to be moving faster than expected because of the speeding up of time and stretching of distance. There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass. Speed is measured by time and distance which change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated.) 😎 We know redshift happens when light leaves the mass of a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters into a massive galaxy. All things being the same, the light will be redshifted and then blueshifted back again. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the mass between here and there is large causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is causing more redshift. There you go, everything in cosmology explained!

I hope my age at the time won't detract from the story but I was 14. (This was a long time ago.) I was a declared atheist and very much interested in learning of origins and also determining if my atheism was correct. I was introduced to a pastor and we went to his home office to discuss these issues. I knew virtually nothing about Christianity or the Bible but I knew about evolution and also the Big Bang. This pastor opened a Bible in front of me to Genesis 1. He began to explain all of human history to me, starting in Genesis and leading me to Jesus first coming. I was very impressed with the Genesis account and also with the number of ways God insured Jesus would come. Human history began to seem to me like a Shakespearean play with God, as Jesus, being the lead actor. Long story short, it all made sense to me. I walked out of that office as a believer in Jesus Christ and also a young Earth creationist. In 60+ years, I've never waivered on either of those two ideas. Yes, an atheist can absolutely be exposed to the biblical creation narrative, see its evident veracity, and come to believe it. For me, the Gospel begins in Genesis 1.

Richard Dawkins has done my homework for me. There is no reason to think he's wrong. Simple.

First, "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. Science does NOT start with the conclusion and then cherry picks or invents "evidence" to support the conclusion, as all creationism does. Science is driven by evidence, NOT some presupposition. Second, all of creationism is nonsense. It has no basis in reality.

hey wince, long time listener/subscriber. you used the word "evolution" so I appear to ask. You said that the evolution worldview has evidence. What do you think is the best evidence for the evolution worldview? Growing up in South Carolina I was told there is no evidence for evolution.

People believe in evolution because its true with tons of facts! Creationism has zero proof!!! Creationism is magic making things from nothing!!!

Here's a link provided by a friend of mine that links out to at least 9 scientists that decided to become a creationist based on the evidence: apolojedi.com/2020/04/22/amod17/

Creation and flood models tend to fail when making predictions and this is what makes them not very robust.

Dr. Ron Neller is an Australian Fluvial Geomorphologist who first became convinced by the geological evidence for a global flood, then learned to trust other biblical claims, eventually becoming a Christian. His testimony is very interesting, bro. Btw, thanks for your content! God bless you and your work. We are working to provide creationist evidence for the flood in a video within the next week, partly based off of Dr. Neller's arguments.

Spike Psarris claims to have believed in creation before becoming a Christian. Not sure of young earth, but he is now.

Questions for evolutionists: What caused the Big Bang? Where did the original material come from? How did the BB material slow down? How did the BB material clump together? How did the first star form? How did subsequent stars form? How did galaxies form? If the universe is expanding, where is it expanding to? How did our sun occur? How did our solar system occur? How did our moon occur? How did chemical elements occur? If nuclear elements are decaying, how did they form in the first place? How did our atmosphere develop? Why is our atmosphere so conducive to life? Why do we have a protective magnetic shield? Why is our sun so conducive to life? Why is our position in the galaxy so conducive to life? Where did all of earth’s water come from? Why is the earth’s orbit, rotation, and shifting conducive to life? Why don’t other planets have a similar atmosphere? Why is there a limit to the speed of light? Or is there? Can you define energy? Can you define gravity? Where does non-material/energy concepts originate. Beauty, logic, morality, ideas, etc. Where did earths carbon come from? Oxygen?nitrogen? How did organic chemistry work in a water environment? Life’s organic chemistry is so complex! How did racemic amino acids originate? How did the twenty racemic amino acids polymerize in the proper order and proper sites to form even the most simple 200 chain protein? How did DNA originate? What is life and how can even organic cells be alive? What is the mechanism for evolutionary change? Can you explain the dichotomy of erosion and top soil formation? Can you explain soft tissues in fossils? Can you explain giant animals in the past? Pterosaurs, dragon flies, beavers, etc. If coal, oil, and natural gas are of fossil origins, doesn’t that indicate much higher levels of CO2 in the past with living things prospering? How did all the limestone originate? Sodium chloride salt? In pure veins? How did male and female kinds originate on the same timeline in evolutionary theory? Faint young sun paradox? Origin of the moon? How do evolutionists explain C14 in supposedly old fossils? How can you explain coastal erosion? How does one explain the lack of erosion and the lack of zones in the geologic column? How does one explain soft tissue in supposedly 64 million year old dinosaur fossils? The problem of chemical purification for initial amino acids, even if one could produce amino acids, how to separate from the residues and separate into purified racemic types. How do you explain magnetism and the decrease we see?