6000 Years and Counting
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:12:53 — 254.3MB) | Embed
Hosts
Corey J. Mahler
The ‘scientific’ consensus is that the Earth is some billions of years old (on the order of four-and-a-half billion years old) and that the Universe is some fourteen or so billion years old. But Scripture paints a different picture. Which may, should, or must the Christian believe?
Is the contention of the so-called ‘scientific community’ even reasonable? Which is to say: Does it stand up to scrutiny? Knowledge is warranted true belief, and so it is vitally important to ask upon what warrant the scientists base their beliefs.
As we will show in this episode, the Christian position is — unequivocally — that the Earth is ancient in terms of created age and young (some six thousand or so years) in terms of chronological age and that God created all things in six literal, twenty-four-hour days. As to the supposedly ‘scientific’ position? Well, it does not stand up particularly well under scrutiny.
Subscribe to the podcast here.
Show Notes
- Hexameron [Wikipedia]
See Also
- “Geochronologically Speaking”
- “James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained” [YouTube]
- “James Tour & Stephen Meyer Bring Clarity to the Origin of Life Debate (Ep. 1)” [YouTube]
- Discover Science [YouTube Channel]
- “Copying and Pasting Passwords”
- (Relevant for the math involved in the latter part of the episode.)
- Creation.com
- CreationWiki.com
Further Reading
- Cosmic background radiation [Wikipedia]
- DNA [Wikipedia]
- RNA [Wikipedia]
- mRNA [Wikipedia]
- Chirality [Wikipedia]
- Amino Acid [Wikipedia]
- Abiogenesis [Wikipedia]
- Neo-Darwinism [Wikipedia]
- Modern Synthesis [Wikipedia]
- Hard Problem of Consciousness [Wikipedia]
- Qualia [Wikipedia]
- Probability [Wikipedia]
- Blood Clotting
- Vision
- Visual Phototransduction [Wikipedia]
- “Phototransduction”
- Labeling of Fertilizer [Wikipedia]
- Deoxyribose [Wikipedia]
- Organophosphate [Wikipedia]
Books
- Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe
- Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique edited by J. P. Moreland, et al.
Parental Warnings
None.
Support the Podcast
- Recurring Donation
- One-Time Donation
- Mahler’s Amazon.com Wish List
- Woe’s Amazon.com Wish List
- The Stone Choir 2024 Challenge Coin
- [Use coupon code SHIP4FREE for — you guessed it — free shipping (in the US only).]
- Update: The sample coin has been received (click the shop link to view the images).
Comments?
Join the discussion on Telegram, visit the feedback form or comment below.
Let’s be honest, there were no church fatherS (plural) that questioned a 6 day creation. The only church father to question the 6 day creation is that same one that cause all other kinds of mayhem, like inventing Calvinism by teaching you are born incapable of believing the gospel and must be zapped with a super special enabling grace first, inventing the belief that unbaptized infants go to hell, AND, inventing the doctrine that men should not have sex with their own wives because its concupicence, AND, fighting to bring in priestly celibacy, AND, who said “I would not believe the gospel if Rome did not tell me to.” In other words an arch-heretic erroneously passed off as a saint by a corrupt Rome and ignorantly kept by some Protestants.
It is entirely possible to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Scripture very clearly teaches that all are born in sin, and that rather obviously applies to infants. When it comes to the fate of unbaptized infants, we can look to the example of David’s first child with Bathsheba: David, a prophet, says that he will again see his son, who was not circumcised (an OT figure of Baptism), so we can safely conclude that the unbaptized children of believers will still be saved, but Scripture is silent as to the infants of unbelievers, so we cannot speculate on that matter.