Six Days... Really? | Creation Ministries International

See, God created everything very good. Fall hasn't happened in creation week. It wouldn't be very good if the fall had happened. So, Satan hasn't fallen yet. In creation week, it hasn't fallen on day seven because God blessed day seven and it was holy. Satan hasn't fallen yet. Therefore, humans haven't fallen because Satan fell. Then he tempted Eve to disobey too. And then she tempted Adam to disobey. So no one has fallen

Yet in creation week. But it must be after. So the no it cannot be after Cain was conceived. Now remember if you look at the Genesis 3 at the very end of Genesis 3, God expels them from the garden. He actively drove them out of the garden. After that in Genesis 4, Adam and Eve knew each other and they conceived Cain. So the so Cain's concept was after the fall. So you got the timeline. It can't be before creation week, but it can't be after Cain's Cain was conceived because Kane was clearly a very wicked man. Okay? So you got this window of this window the end of creation week to the conception of Cain. And that's the window you have. Then you have a look at what God commanded them to do. God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply. See, marriage and children were prefall ideas. It didn't. Marriage happened before the fall. Children did not. Okay? So the thing is by definition if you are obeying God, God has told them to multiply. If they didn't multiply, they'd be disobeying God, which means they'd be sinning. But the sin happened when they disobeyed by eating the fruit, which means they couldn't have been disobeying God by refusing to multiply. Okay, so you got that issue, too. But also having perfectly fertile bodies that have no trouble conceiving. I mean, I think I was conceived on my parents wedding night or a few days afterwards. I wasn't supposed to work that out, but you get the idea. So, I think even Adam, my parents obviously have mutations which Eve and Adam did not have. So, they would have had no trouble conceiving. So I think the fall happened before the first female cycle was completed which I think means you have a month at the most after creation week till the fall. Not very long but I think that's

The logic I'm using. If you want to challenge the logic then you have to explain why I'm wrong here. Okay. I think you only have a few days because you do seem to have a few days between creation and the fall Adam and Eve getting to know each other. The thing is also God walked through the garden. When Adam and Eve sinned, they tried to hide because they knew God was about to walk through the garden. The garden and I think that was a pre-incarnate Christ walking through the garden. That's what I can't prove that. That's what I think what I think. Disagree with me if you want. I don't mind. It's not in the Bible. So, you're free to disagree with anything I say that's not in the Bible. If you disagree with me with that is in the Bible, it's not me you're disagreeing with, is it? So, but yeah, I think it was pre-incarnate Christ. And the fact is that Adam and Eve expected Cain God to walk through the garden at this particular time. It was a habit of his. In fact, the Hebrew verb the hit pale form of the verb means a habitual action. And you can't have a habit unless it's happened a few times, right? Which means you probably have a few days between the creation and the fall. But I don't think very many though. Now when you look at the Jewish calendar, you got an interesting thing. You have the creation commemorated by the Jewish new year. The Rash Hashana is the Jewish new year. 10 days later, you have Yamipura, the day of atonement. And is that because the fall happened on day 10? I don't know. It's possible. I.e. Three days after creation week. It's possible, but I'm not going to be dogmatic on Again, the Bible doesn't say so, so I'm not going to be dogmatic where the Bible isn't. Okay? And a few things here. Remember again, the diets were changed, too. Because humans and animals were created

To be planteaters because no broccoli yet because the world hasn't been cursed. Okay? So, you'd have all this nice fruit, nutritious fruit. But after the flood, God created gave man permission to eat meat and by this time animals were already meat eaters. Now back to my home country of Australia. I think we've got very good proof that the world has fallen. Thanks very much. Well, the Australian Tourist Commission has asked us to come up with a song that we could perform overseas. A song to help bring the tourists back to Australia. That's right. So we focused on the wonderful wildlife and the fabulous fauna that Australia has to offer. Red back funnel web, blue ring octopus, ta pan, tiger snake, adabox, jellyfish, stonefish, and the poison thing that lives in a shell. The spikes when you pick it up. Come to Australia. You might accidentally get killed. Your life's constantly under threat. >> Yeah. Yeah. So we live in a fallen world definitely. So now what about death according to Scripture? See human death I think people overlook human death is enough of a problem for the millions of years view. Now I think passages like Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are concentrating on human death not animal death. The problem is for the long age view if you accept long age dating methods you have clear homo sapiens. We're supposed to be homo sapiens. That's what we are biologically homo sapiens and homo sapiens fossils have been dated at 350,000 years ago. So it means you have human death before the fall if the if the long age view is correct. And they're quite clearly intelligent humans. You can tell that they're intelligent people. They're humans made in God's image. And they also killed for by sinful means like murder. Even cannibalism is in the

Fossil record. So you got sinful human death before Adam sin. But Adam is the ancestor of all other people who ever lived. So again, there's a problem here. The problem is with the long- aed dating method. But I think people forget people who should know better that human death alone is a problem for the old for the old earth view. Now animal death is a different thing. But see again animals were vegetarian before the fall. No, no question there. And also you have this passages, the passage in Isaiah 11 and 65 about this animal harmony, the wolf with the lamb and the leopard with the young goat and you cal and the lion and a nursing child playing over the hole of a cobra which is now a highly venomous snake. Okay, so you got this animal harmony there and it says they will no not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain. So that's an interesting thing. See the commentators on Isaiah believe he was referring to he was alluding to the Edenic situation where animals lived in perfect harmony. No animals hurting or destroying each other. The present world has animals hurting and destroying each other. But it clearly is not going to be the in the way in this future state that Isaiah talks about. And he's referring back to the Edenic state before sin came and ruined it all. Now, what about plant death? Well, as far as the Bible's concerned, plants aren't alive in the first place. See, there's a Hebrew phrase nephesh kayah, which means living creature. When God breathed into the dust to make Adam, it says that the man became a living soul. Man became a nephesh kaya. But nephesh kaya is also used of the whales and the birds and the beasts of the earth is he's not used of plants. So plants as far as the Bible is concerned aren't living. They are self-reroducing food factories for the animals. And

Insects I think are God's robots. Again, I don't think insects are classed as nephesh in the Bible. And the Bible says that plants wither rather than die. The only time you have something hinting of plant dying, it's not dying the way we mean it. Because Jesus talks about the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies and becomes a plant. That's not death the way we mean it. It's death because it changes its form from seed to plant. But plant death the way we mean is called withering. And so when did animals become carnivorous? Well, as I say, meat eating began for at least God believers in God. Who knows what Cain's line got up to. They may have eaten meat for all I know, but the godly people weren't supposed to eat meat until after the flood. Remember the first diet, green plants. Now I'm allowing the animals. But humans I think between the fall and the flood because we have fossils which are clearly from the flood that show animals eating each other very clearly animals inside each other. I showed you the fossil of fish swung another fish right that's eating. Okay. So you got animal carnivory by the time of the flood and possibly before Cain killed Abel. So when you look at the text, it tells you God has given go Cain is war God is warning Cain that sin is crouching at the door and the grammar suggests that it's a grammar of a masculine gr grammar agreeing with the sin because it's the same word as a predatory animal lying in weight to crouch on like a lion lying in weight to crouch on it to pounce on its prey. So crouching and weight with bad intentions. So sin is doing what a predatory animal had done. And this is 129 years after the fall. I say this because u Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. And Eve named Seth as a replacement for Abel that Cain slew.

And since Seth was born when he was 130, maybe 129 is what when se when Cain murdered Abel. Okay. So you got some idea. So, so clearly animals were probably already eating each other by the time Cain killed Abel. So God could use that as a warning for him. So I don't agree with some scenes where you have Adam and Eve children playing with the baby T-Rexes. I think T-Rex probably were already meat eatating by then. So I wouldn't recommend it. Wouldn't be very good pets or anything. Now you also got this thing here. Here's a T-Rex and a duck build dinosaur tailbones, which means that this animal, this duck build dinosaur survived a T-Rex attack, which means a T-Rex was an active hunter, not just a scavenger. And the duck build dinosaur survived enough for the teeth to heal around the bone healed around the tooth. Then the animal got killed in the flood anyway. So what was the point? So that's the issue here. So those are some points here. Now another thing I just want to talk about is the idea of who wrote Genesis. I think Moses was the editor of Genesis. See Moses is clearly the author of Exodus through to Deuteronomy. And then after Deuteronomy was finished, Joshua put a note to say that Moses died. I think Joshua wrote the note at the end that Moses died about Moses's death. But the books were written by Moses. I mean, my edition of Shakespeare has a has when he died, too. Okay. Joshua did the same for the books of Moses, telling us when the author died. Okay? And Jesus quite clearly believed that Moses was the author. In fact, he denounced people who denied G Moses as the author. If you believe Moses, you believe me, for he wrote to me. But if you don't believe Moses's writings, how can you believe my word? So if you don't believe Moses wrote the books attributed to him, you're going to have trouble believing what Jesus said. And you have Abraham quoted Jesus was quoting, this is about the rich man after death. And Abraham is telling the rich man that if they don't hear Moses and the prophets, they won't be convinced that someone rises from the dead. So he's basically saying if you haven't if you haven't believe the Old Testament Scriptures you have no excuse. Even a risen Savior would not be enough for them. Now you see Exodus through to Deuteronomy Moses was an eyewitness of he wasn't an eyewitness of Genesis. So I think Moses edited much older documents and sometimes you quite clearly see editorial notes like he's explaining some things to people who just come out of Egypt. He's using Egypt as a reference point. He's saying, "Well, the Hebron is like the city in Egypt." Well, hang on. If there would been Israel for generations, you wouldn't need to explain what Hebron was. Hebron was. So, clearly Moses is writing things which only make sense if these guys had just come out of Egypt. So, these editorial notes in the text point to writing to people who just come out of Egypt and they're into a new land and not familiar with it any yet. So they Moses goes by what is familiar and he says things like even to this day we still do this referring to say when God crippled Jacob after wrestling with him that's again the pre-incarnate Christ wrestling with Jacob that's my opinion anyway okay and then even to this day we don't eat that particular part of the sheep or whatever it is okay so again even so this is Moses writing editorial comments to people who just come out of Egypt. So again, the liberal theory is that this is this is written during the Babylonian exile. But then you wouldn't need to explain these things in

Genesis which would be very well known to the to the readers. And also Genesis had nothing about the temple. The temple was so prominent in after the exile they' lost their temple. Nothing was mentioned about the temple, the priesthood in Genesis. Okay. But then you have sometimes when Moses did not edit like for instance as the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon in the direction of Gath far as Gaza in the direction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now think about this. If you saw a tourist guide book for New York and it tells you to go towards the Twin Towers, when was that book written? Exactly. Before the terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers. So clearly it was written when the Twin Towers were still a landmark before 911 as you say. So it means that this was written when Sodom and Gomorrah were still landmarks. But by the time of the Exodus, they were at the bottom of the Dead Sea. So again, you got a time marker here that says the original manuscript was written when Sodom and Gomorrah were still landmarks and you could use them as reference points for directions. And I think Moses also used here are the sources where he used what's called the tolot structure. Oh, sorry if you can't read this thing. The text. Okay. When you have this structure, I'll just I'll just tell you anyway. You got this phrase in Hebrew tool which mean which is translated rightly as these are the generations of that's a phrase which introduces what follows from that. You see the these are the generations of Adam lists Adam's offspring. See what it does it takes the culmination of the previous chapter and propels it forward in the narrative in the story. So you have Genesis 2 leading up to Adam and then it tells you these are the generations of Adam. This is what follows from Adam. Then you have things like this is what follows from

Noah. It gives you Noah's descendants etc. So the so the toll dot are the natural divisions of the text. The chapter and verse numbers are artificial man-made division. The toll dots are the natural divisions. I think they were the separate chapters that Moses edited and put together to make the book of Genesis. You got these different toll dots documents listing the generations of the various patriarchs. Very systematic. In the book of Ruth, you have the same sort of structure because you have at the end of the book of Ruth, these are the generations of Perez and this is what follows from Perez leading up to King David because Ruth was the great grandmother of King David. So he and shows you these are the generations of Perez down to King David. So again the same sort of structure showing that these tall dots give you what followed from it. These are these are what this is what followed from Adam from Noah from Abraham etc. And these are perfectly natural divisions of the text and there's no see Genesis 1 11 and 12 don't come there's no told off in Genesis 12 so it's an artificial place to put the chapter divisions and I think it's a bit of m mistake to put it there. I think it spoils the internal structure. In fact, my commentary goes up to 123 because I wanted to get the Abrahamic covenant in because I think that's very important. But again, also another problem with the chapter and verse divisions. See, Genesis 10:5, in the days of Pelling, the earth was divided. Now, what does that mean? I think you easily work out what it meant if you didn't have a chapter division there because only a few verses later it says the earth had one language and one speech and that and God divided that earth that had one language and one speech into

Different languages. So the days of the division of the days of pale must mean the tower of babel division by languages. Okay. But because it's a chapter division there, people miss that. They stop reading at Genesis 10 and miss Genesis 11 just a few verses down. But quite clearly it's referring to the Tower of Babel division and not any sort of land breaking apart. So the these are some question my commentary covers all this in a lot more. Don't forget the creation magazine might be the best thing for a family to have because it keeps on feeding you. That's the beauty of it. It's it feeds you and also is a great witnessing tool and our free newsletter because it'll alert you also to things like the next video free video that drops for instance. Now I've got time for some questions if people want to ask me questions about what I've been talking about this whole weekend. I don't mind I'll try to hang on let me just find my pardon me sorry my question slide. I see you I'll get to you. >> Yes ma'am. Yes I'm go ahead please. That's good. >> Water was a thing before light. Yes, it does actually because you got the earth was cover the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters and then God said let there be light. So water was there before light was there. Yes. Yeah. Exactly what it says. Yes. Young man next to you. Right. If there was land, if God flooded the earth and like if it if they Adam and Eve didn't have buckets or anything, how would they get water? >> Well, there are springs as well. They I mean, they could have made bucket, but I think also natural springs going Eden had a river coming out which split into four. When even after they were thrown out of Eden, they could have got to one of the four rivers that came out of the river

From Eden and got water from there. Fresh water from Eden. Eden was probably a bit highly high elevation. So river one river came out and broke into these four massive rivers. That's where they got their water from I think. Yeah. Okay. Now those rivers don't exist anymore because a flood totally changed the geography of Earth. So the re the tigress and Euphrates were not the current Tigris and Euphrates. What happened when Noah and his family got off the ark? They named a lot of features by what they remember from the old world like these two probably I mean Tigris and Eupra were the two least important rivers coming out of Eden. There are mentioned sec third and fourth and the Euphrates was mentioned almost as an afterthought. Then you they come into the middle the current Middle East you got these two massive rivers coming on. They named them after the two lesser rivers coming out of the kind of coming out of Eden. I mean when you go to England you see the limeies have stolen all our place names got so many place names in England that the same as the ones here haven't we? Of course it's the other way around because people coming from England named some places here after the old world. I mean there's a lot of places like in fact I go in Florida there's a place called Deneden in Florida. There's a place called Dened in New Zealand too. There's a Melbourne in Florida. There's a Melbourne the second biggest city of Australia. Crazy. Look I'm coming back home but I'm not really coming back home because these are different places. Okay. Yes. Yes ma'am. >> On day one it says God created light >> and on day four it says God created the sun. So what was the light for the days before day four? >> Well, I think God can create light without the sun. And I think he must

Have done so. I don't exactly would know what it was, but you can have a day a dayight cycle without the sun because you have a rotating earth and you have a light source. God created light on day one. Whatever that was, I don't know what it was. It might have been the special light source that God created. But on day four, he created the sun to take over the job as light source for the earth. But before then, there was a light source and a rotating earth. So you s still have the dayight cycle before the sun. Now in the book of revelation, we see there's light without the sun. There very clearly in the new heavens and new earth, it talks about light without the sun. Because the lamb of God will provide the lamp. So God doesn't need a sun to create light. There's light without the sun there. So you don't need the sun. >> But you see, you don't need the sun there, do you? So God can create light with the sun. He's doing it there. Well, there he is there. We can do it even. If we can do it, God can do it. >> Is your Australian video on your website? >>, I can probably give you a flash drive if you want to. I can I can let you down give it take it from me if you want to. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Sir, I kind of have two questions. Go ahead. >> the first one, what's your best argument against flat earth? >> And then the second is, have you ever met Steve Irwin? And if you have, do you have any testimony of him like maybe hearing some of this stuff or >> I'm sorry to say I don't I don't know of Steve Irwin ever being a believer. I'm really sorry to say that. Of course, I wish he was. I never had the chance to meet him unfortunately because I moved back to Australia in 1996 and of course he got killed by the stingray as a terrible

Loss for everyone because quite an Australian I've been to the Australian zoo never had a chance to meet the guy. I'm sorry. Yeah. Although in my opinion I lived in Brisbane. There's a closer zoo called Alma Park which I thought was a more authentic zoo. I thought it was a better zoo, but not nearly as didn't have the publicity of the Steve Irwin's zoo, but I thought it was actually a better zoo. Let's see if my flat earth stuff. Well, I can give you even while I'm looking for the for the flat earth slides, I should point out the Bible doesn't teach flat earth and the church has never taught a flat earth. In fact, there was very well known throughout the medieval church that the earth was a globe. Thomas Aquinas in his theologia right at the beginning of his book, he was giving examples of proofs and what did he choose something obvious and well-known, the globe earth. He said physicists prove it by one means and mathematicians by another means. And he thought it was obvious and well known in those days because in the medieval times any student had to take astronomy. But before you could take theology you had to take astronomy and the astronomy textbook gave you proofs of a globe earth. Around 1230 it gave you proofs of a globe earth. So the Bible doesn't teach it. The church has never taught. And of course it's scientifically indefensible as well. Let me just find my slides on that because I used to the flat earth was quite the rage about oh five years ago. Well I can tell you why because I wrote an article in 2013 called the myth of the flat earth. That was a myth that Columbus had to fight people believing in flat earth. That's a complete lie. Washington Irving totally made that up. Unfortunately, kids are taught that myth in the government schools, but

Was totally made up by Washington Irving has no basis. In fact, because no one believed the earth was round, was flat in Columbus's day. The debate in Columbus's day was the size of the earth. And Columbus got it wrong. He underestimated how big the earth was. And his critics were right to say, "You haven't got enough food to reach your destination. It was dumb luck. There was a big continent in the way." But he didn't know he'd found her. He thought he'd reached India because he called the natives Indians. That's why we got the name Indians. So his critics were right and Columbus was wrong. But it was about it was about the size, not the shape of the earth. Okay? That's why there's actually what's been called the myth of the flat earth that people believed in a flat earth in the medieval time, which is totally utterly wrong. But I wrote that article in 2013 and people gave me good feedback. But about five years later, a similar article got a whole lot of nasty comments because a flat earth videos had reached the internet and people were taken in by that total absolute nonsense. Even though the video producer doesn't believe Jesus existed and thought the Holocaust never occurred, you got this new age video producer who doesn't believe Jesus exists and people are taking this guy seriously and swallowing his ridiculous faulty science. I mean the obvious one obvious thing is for instance ships going below the horizon. You haven't got a horizon on a flat earth. Hold down ships where you can see that ships disappear. Hold down first. That's that's observable. I've seen it myself. You can't tell me it didn't happen but it does. Now in the ancient times it was the other way around. People on ships coming in would see the hill before the beach. The hill's further away, but because of the

Curvature, they couldn't see the beach yet until they came closer, but they could see the hill in the distance. See, they knew that sailors knew. Columbus had sailors on a ship by definition, right? They knew the shape of the earth. And of course, the sun rising and setting as well. Okay, we know the sun is going below the horizon. Okay, I think this the earth rotates and from our perspective, we think sun is rising. That's perfectly valid science, by the way. There's nothing wrong with saying that. Astronomers talk about sunrise and sunset. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. So that's the thing that the medieval people knew that you could see more from higher up because you're going further across the horizon. And another thing that we see on a globe earth is that the time zones are different. Like when I talk to my parents in New Zealand, I got to make sure I'm not calling them in the middle of the night their time. So because we live on different time zones because we're on the opposite side of the earth. Okay. And my granddaughters would talk to my parents. You see granddaughters with me in America, parents in New Zealand. I could tell them this is why it looks looks light over there when it looks dark here. Here is why they could tell. Obvious reason. We obviously know the earth is round because different times of day. And Jesus understood this because he talked about this his second coming in one instant of time. One instance of time they got two people in bed, one taken, one left. That's nighttime. Then in the morning you have two women grinding corn, one taking one left. So morning and night exist simultaneously on different parts of the earth. Then you have people in the field in the afternoon one taking one left. Okay. So one moment of time you have morning, you have

Evening and you have night. That's only possible if you have around earth. And of course I come from the southern hemisphere which makes it even more obvious to you northerners because you can look at for instance the stars this is the northern hemisphere. You if you it's time lapse photography stars around this the north this is polaris in the middle basically stars are going counterclockwise anticlockwise. Now you do the same in the south and I can tell you from for a fact this is true. The stars move clockwise around the south pole. Again, this is only possible if you have a if you have a round Earth. It's not possible on a disc Earth. And of course, you see different stars down south because back down south, we can't see the Big Dipper. The Earth's in the way. But as a compensation, you can't see the Southern Cross, which is on our flag. So we can definitely see the southern cross where we are in New Zealand. It's enough to put it on the flame. You can't see here because the earth's in the way. Okay, this is only possible on a round earth. But as I say, round earth was I think medieval students could prove around earth better than today's students could. I mean today's students are told that men can get pregnant. Okay. At least in the medieval times they knew how to prove around earth. And this is long before the space program. We could see it for ourselves. So the shape of the earth was very well known before we could actually see it for ourselves from up top there. But now you got people now you got clear photographs of the earth from space very clearly showing it's this wonderful round blue ball often white clouds. It's really quite an amazing sight from space. The Bible doesn't teach it. The earth doesn't teach it. And the leading promoters today are raidly

Anti-Christian. They're not our friends. The people promote the flat earth and the science scientifically it's been known to be absurd even in the medieval church but it was known to be absurd the flat earth okay so please don't fall down this rabbit trail so we've got a few videos on our website the Dr. Robert Carter and I writt a huge article about refuting the flat earth which you can search for on creation.com and also we've done some videos together showing why it doesn't work. Okay. So, thank you for that question. Okay. Okay. I'll get you up to the first you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. >> Hi. Earth was created on day one, water on two, land on three. >> Well, if water and land weren't created until two and three, then what was Earth on day one? Well, >> actually, Earth water was created on day one actually. Oh, your slide said on two. >> Sorry, >> your slide said that water was >> No, water was separate on day two. Okay, water was separated, but water below the expanse and water above the expanse. That separation happened on day two. But water was covering the earth on day one, which is why I said the earth was cool enough to have liquid water on day one. So, it must have started cool and not very hot because if it's very hot, liquid water can't exist. It would boil off, right? So, so liquid water on the earth on day one, but on day two, you have a separation of waters, waters below. In other words, so a separation of what God had already created. Okay? And then day three, you have a further separation of water. This time allowing the dry land to appear. Okay? Thank you. So in the Bible it says that there was when God on the first day that God was hovering over the surfaces of the water.

Yes. >> Would that suggest that God did some creating before the seven days of creation? >> I don't think so. Especially when it seems that God that God created the heavens and earth in the beginning. So in the beginning God created the heavens and earth. So it looks like this is the creation when it was there at the beginning. So I don't think there is any room for creation before because it is said to be in the beginning. And also Exodus 20 the fourth commandment says that in these six days the God made the earth and sea and everything in them in those six days of creation. So once again I think there's no room for creation before those six days. God was the only thing that existed in eternity past. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in perfect love with each other. So that's why you say God is love because God is triune, which means there's there can be love that's possible between the persons of the Trinity. Okay? The Islamic God can't be a God of love because you can't have love unless you create someone with something else. But if God himself is love without any creation needed to happen, it means that God is triune. So you got love between the three persons. And also the combined love of two to a third part like father and mother combine their love towards the child. So you got this composite collective love possible with the three persons too. Okay, bit off topic but I like the Trinity is an important topic. I think it's good to talk about that sometimes but yeah I think there was no the created order began with the creation week. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to share your testimony and how science like the order of science. Were you a Christian and then you started studying creation science? >> Not too long ago the other way around. I

Can't remember that far back. My memory is no good anymore. I used to play lots of chess from memory. I'm over 60 years old now. So can't really do that so much anymore. Sorry. You definitely feeling the effects of the curse. So enlightened creation and when it happened when would is there any inkling of when angels would have shown up? Oh yeah, that's a fair question, you know. I mean, these are good questions what you're asking. Even if I might have to think about them, but these are fair questions. Now, again, because angels are part of the created order, they must have been created during creation week because you got this Exodus passage that God created the heavens and earth and sea and everything in them. So, it implies the whole created order was created in that six day creation week, which means angels were created during creation week as well. Now, what day of creation week? There's a bit of ambiguity because you have in the book of Job, it tells you that when God created the earth, the angel the sons of the sons of God shouted with joy, right? So the these are the angels. Sons of God means angels in the Old Testament, including in Genesis 6. Okay? So you have them shouting for joy. So were they created sometime in on day one when God created the planet Earth? But also God called the dry land Earth. So but did the angels shout for joy when God created the land called earth? So sometime before day three. So that's I think that's the ambiguity. Earth can mean the dry land and it can also mean the whole planet. So either day one or day three I think >> two questions. >> Oh goodness. I'm going to be your >> one once I heard someone said that angels live on the sun and if dinosaurs and other things like that ate meat not just scavening wouldn't that be murder which would be a

Sin >> okay two things but I don't know of any evidence that angel lived on the sun because the sun was created on day four I think angels as we discussed were either day one or day one or day three so angels were created for the sun. So, they don't need the sun to live. I imagine they could if they wanted to, but I don't know why they would. I don't recommend it for any of us to live on the sun, though. It wouldn't be good. Okay. So, I don't think there's any ev angels lived on the sun. Okay. What's the other the question of or animals eating meat? Well, no. Murder is taking a human life. Taking animal life is not murder. And murder is very clearly defined both in our own law and in God's law as taking a human life. And also furthermore, it has to be intentional taking of a human life, doing it deliberately, but also taking an innocent human life. So the Bible does say that murderers ought to be executed. That's part of the Noah covenant. After the flood, God said you should execute proven murderers. That's that's not murder. Capital punishment is not murder because you're not taking innocent life. So murder is the intentional taking of innocent human life. So meat eating is not murder. And also animals aren't moral agents. They don't know right from wrong. So it's not really No, the Bible's clear. God said that if an animal kills a human, you should kill that animal. Again, part of the Noic covenant, which has never been repealed. So I think that's still enforced today. Okay. I've never seen any reason why it wouldn't be. Unfortunately, we too many in the environmental movement regard humans as a plague on the earth. And therefore, if some an animal kills a human, the animal is not killed, which the Bible says they should be killed if they kill a human. But they kill a human once, it could do it again. And

Humans, not animals, are made in God's image. So, but anyway, animals killing other animals is not murder. Okay. >> Okay. So it says in Psalm 36 um6 it says, "Your righteousness is like the mountains, oh God. Your judgments are like the great deep man and beast you save, oh Lord. Does that mean that animals go to heaven?" >> Oh, that's a good question too. Actually, I don't think so to be honest. I'm sorry to say I don't I don't believe so, but it's a fair question. We've even got an article about that on our website. So it's a fair question you ask. I suspect not, but I'm not going to be I won't be disappointed if I see one of my pets in here. I'll be quite happy to see him there or her there, but I don't think so. But I don't mind if you want to believe that. Okay. I'm I'm not sure one, but I don't think so. Sorry. >> Yes, sir. >> So, you touched earlier when you were saying firmament perhaps being a poor choice of translation. So, I guess my question would be >> what might be a more accurate view of that? Because I have heard secular scientists like Bill Nye say the Earth is a closed system ecosystem and we're not getting off of it. I've seen other people that would claim they've shot rockets and it's kind of bounced off the firmament if you will. And so there's this a lot of weird stuff out there. And maybe it's because it just uses that word firm in the English. So you started to expand more about like being an expanse. Could you just clarify that a little more? >> Firmament comes from the Greek. You see when the some Jewish scholars supposedly 72 Jewish scholars around 250 BC thereabouts. Okay. Supposedly 12 set six from each of the 12 tribes. So 72. So 70 rounded translated the Hebrew into Greek. And they actually adopted some of the Greek cosmological ideas

Because the Greeks thought the earth was a sphere a tiny sphere surrounded by crystalline spheres. Okay. And the Greeks use the term stereomar which has the connotation of firmness. Then you have Josephus saying that God created a crystallos around the earth. It's interesting crystallos around the earth. He knew the earth was a was a was a globe but you have this crystallos around it. And then when it came into Latin with Jerome, the word stereoma became firmamentum which is where the English firmament comes from. So I think it goes into embibing Greek ideas of a solid crystalline sphere that was held up until the early modern period and it was only really destroyed when Tiko Bry looked at the comet and he showed from parallax that the comet was very far and then became much closer which means it would have had to have punctured those crystalline spheres if they existed. So that destroyed the crystalline sphere but that was around just before 1600. Okay. So it's quite recent that we got rid of the crystalline sphere idea but that's where the firmament idea comes from. Now Bill Nye is not a scientist. He played one on TV on children's TV no less. And now he thinks that there's no real difference between boys and girls now. So what sort of scientist is he honestly? He's a propagandist and he really doesn't know much about what he's talking about. I don't respect him. There are other people I do respect. Even if I disagree with their theology, I respect them as scientists. Bill Nye is not one of them. Okay. No, but there's no solid dome up there because people we've sent probes past the helop you know where the sun you know sun is emitting solar wind which is why we have a magneto magnetic field that protects us from a solar wind.

Okay. But we the Voyager satellites went to the end of the solar wind where the solar wind stops blowing blows way past all the planets and they found past the solar wind you have incredibly powerful cosmic ray particles. So the solar wind actually acts as a giant shield around earth protecting us from these dangerous cosmic ray particles. So the solar wind is part of God's design of the sun. As the Voyager satellites discovered only a few years ago because it took that long. They launched in the 1970s, launched about 50 years ago and they only finally reached the outer the heliosphere, the outer the helops and into interstellar space and founding that this is what the solar wind is doing. It's protecting us from this dangerous radiation coming from outside. So, but it means there can't be a solid dome there otherwise how could our satellites have reached there? How could they have reached Mars and taken photos of Jupiter and Saturn and Uranus, Neptune, gone to the dwarf planet, Pluto? Really really quite amazing stuff they found there now and then passed into inter space. Clearly, there's no solid dome out there. So, it's quite safe to send rockets out there. I don't think it want to live anywhere besides Earth because Earth God as the Bible says designed Earth to be inhabited. No one nowhere else in the universe is designed to be inhabited. This is so welld designed for life. It's incredible how well designed with the planet is you know just the right temperature for liquid water. Go a bit close to the sun, water would boil. Go a bit further, water would freeze. So Mars and Venus are dead, lifeless worlds. Okay, we have a sun that's incredibly welldesigned producing the solar wind protecting us from the cosmic rays, but it's the right temperature. It's incredibly stable. It

Rotates very slowly. There's hardly any dangerous super flares coming out of our sun. So it's almost unique among stars. Like even the tiny red stars which are maybe a thousandth as bright as the sun, they generate super flares. So any planets are orbiting a red star would be blasted by super flares and you had to get so close before to be warm enough for liquid water that you get blasted by super flares instead. Okay. So God made Earth to be inhabited, but he did he has allowed us to send probes out of the solar system. I think that's part of God's dominion mandate. God gave us dominion over the rest of creation. I think part of that is sending probes into space and finding out how space works. That's really quite exciting. I'm writing my current book is Biblical astronomy 101 and I'm about 90% through it. So you see I take I recommend to you is Biblical geology 101 and Biblical astronomy 101 Biblical biology 101. So next is Biblical astronomy 101. Okay, you had a question over here, I think. Right. Who has a question? >>, yeah. To add to the Lily's question and what is your personal belief if a young child or sadly a baby died, what would you think they'd go to heaven before you? >> Oh, again, it's a it's a very good question. I'm not sure the right answer to I mean there's some things I really can't give you a definite answer and I think these are very good questions but I don't want to say something where I think the Bible is not so clear. Now I actually do discuss it in the Genesis account commentary and I've also got a big article called why is there death and suffering where I go into what I think is probably right but I will say I think the Bible is not quite so clearcut on that. I do my best to go by what the Bible says. But there are people who are just as believing, Bible

Believing as I am, who have different conclusions about this to me. So I have to respect that we may have come have different opinions based on different understandings. Even though both of us accept the Bible as God's word, we still come to this and have different opinions about. It's a very good question. I'm sorry, I'm not really sure the answer to that. There's a young lady there as well. I saw you. Okay. >> So, I think it's Isaiah that tells us that God creates light and he creates darkness. >> Yes. >> I'm wondering if your new book. Could you give us a spoiler alert on if you talk about dark matter or what's out there in space? That's >> dark matter. I haven't got to dark matter yet. I've got to most other things in the universe. Dark matter. I've my questions about whether dark matter exists. I think it's very much a fudge factor. But there are people who Biblical creation astronomers who think that dark matter is real. So I think you can believe the Bible and think dark matter is real. I think it's more of a fudge factor because there's certain motions in the galaxy that seem to require some unseen mass. But when you do the calc creation again, well maybe there's some different physics that are needed and will solve the problem without having to resort to dark matter which by definition we can't see with any radiation. We can't detect it. We only detect its effects supposedly. But I think there are other explanations for its supposed effects. There's also something called dark energy. And the big bang model says that only about 4% of the universe is ordinary matter that we can see. About far more is dark matter and even more is dark energy which again these are things that you can't see. So it's a bit of a defeat for science that these

Are things that we can't detect scientifically. So I'm skeptical of dark matter to be honest. Now I mean I think dark by itself dark is just an absence of light and cold is an absence of heat but we can still talk about them as real things. That's perfectly reasonable. Okay. In fact in Semiconductor physics we talk about whole conduction which acts like a positive charge moving through the material behaves like a positive charge but it's really a whole it's an electron missing from the from the crystal latice it's that's what they call it's a hole but it behaves this whole conduction there's nothing there behaves like it's a positively charged particle okay so sometimes we do talk about things which are really absent absences but we talk about them as though they are real things I think evil in some ways is the is a privation of good. Not a not a real thing in itself, but a probation of good. That's one way to think about evil, too. But I think dark matter is something I'm quite skeptical of, but I would but I don't think it's unbiblical to believe in it. Okay, go ahead. So previously you mentioned that you believe that the reason why sorry the average death death age or whatever you want to call it shortened and is because Noah was is such an old father. However, there is another creationist theory that explains that the firmament provided a unique atmosphere before the flood and that after the flood or during it fell and no longer was present and due to the atmospheric changes our lifespans have became shortened. What is your opinion on that theory? And do you think that this contradicts anything that you believe or that these theories could potentially both be correct? >> No, that theory of a of a different like you're probably thinking like the canopy

Theory really, aren't you? The canopy theory. Now, I'm old enough to remember when creationists then that was a pretty mainstream creationist idea, but I think you won't find any of the mainstream creation organizations believing that anymore. Not even ICR where that this canopy theory was invented. Dr. Henry Morrison, he was a very godly man. No question. A godly man. But I think canopy theory does not work. And just for the reason I said, hang on. See, canopy the if the environment changed at the flood, how come Noah lived to 950 years? See, the third longest recorded lifespan was Noah, 950. And over a third of this was after the flood. So if the environment collapsed so badly after the flood with this canopy disappearing, how come Noah lived so long? So I think the canopy theory and this collapse idea doesn't explain Noah's super long lifespan. Okay, I think you have to look at the data provided in Genesis 5 and 11 and see that Noah's lifespan is 950. Shem's lifespan is 600. So something happened between Noah and Shem, but didn't affect Noah. An environmental collapse would have affected Noah's lifespan, but Noah being a very old father would not have affected his lifespan. So that's why I think my view is right because it explains Noah's Noah and Shem's lifespan. The canopy collapse view does not explain Noah's long lifespan. I think it also doesn't fit the science either because if you have a water vapor canopy, see, water vapor is lousy at protecting you. You know, you can get sunburned on a cloudy day. You can get sunburned while you're swimming. So, water vapor is not very good at protecting you from dangerous radiation, but it is a brilliant greenhouse gas. Don't tell the EPA because they'll try and tax your tea kettles. But water vapor is a much more important gas than carbon dioxide. So if we had a vapor

Canopy that would collapse and provided the rainfall, we would have cooked underneath it. There's no way we could escape being cooked under a vapor canopy. So it would it's would have blocked the wrong sort of radiation. It wouldn't have protected us from the dangerous stuff, but would have kept the heat in and cooked us. Okay. So now that's a scientific reason why the canopy can't be right. A Biblical reason you see if the waters above were this vapor canopy or firm that collapse. In Psalm 148 it says that the waters above us are praising God. Now Psalm 148 was written by King David probably right a th00and BC. Hang on. The waters above are still above and metaphorically praising God. So they can't have collapsed in the in the flood. Otherwise, it wouldn't be up there. Praise praising God. Okay. So, I think biblically, I think canopy theory is a bit suspect as well. Okay. No disrespect intended to Dr. Morris. He was the man who b kickstarted the modern creation movement and restored the traditional church understanding of six day creation to the world in a global flood. But I think he was wrong on the canopy theory. Okay. So my commentary does addresses the canopy theory and explains why it doesn't work and explains my theory as well which explains the Noah's lifespan and Shenm's lifespan and is also back backed up by knowledge of genetics of old fathers that we know today and the effect on mutations. So it's backed up with the science too. Yes, ma'am. So scientists have found many planets that could support life and many planets that may have supported or can have supported life back in certain dates such as Mars because Mars has ice at both of its poles which means water had to be there at some point and had to have a reasonable temperature level and in other galaxies and other stars people have found other planets which are

Possible to support life. Do you believe in aliens that could live through? >>, several questions there, but I think Mars, I mean, it's interesting that, planetary geologists believe there was a global flood on Mars. They talk about a Noaic epoch. They talk about Noah's a Noic ter Noakus terror, a Noaic terror, and a Noaic EP period on Mars named after Noah. Okay. But there's no liquid water on Mars. But they believe in a global flood on Mars and huge canyons carved by this flood on Mars. But Earth is covered by water. 70% covered by water. And if you flatten the Earth down, the solid so the mountains were flattened. The ocean basins were raised. It's perfectly smooth. The water and the ocean would cover the whole Earth to two miles deep. But there's no global flood here. There's a global flood on Mars without a drop of liquid water. Okay, that's interesting. So I believe yeah Mars once had liquid water but it couldn't hold on to it because it gravity is too low and therefore it would evaporate. So I don't think Mars has liquid water and there's no evidence that life ever existed on Mars and people would love to have found life on Mars but the Viking probes have been very disappointing about that. Now planets supporting life. I don't think other galaxy you wouldn't see them on other galaxies because the nearest galaxies what it's too many too far away to see planets around the star. Okay. Because they're quite hard to detect. The planets we see are in our own galaxy. But are they suitable for life? They talk about a Goldilocks or habitable zone where it's cool enough for liquid water. Okay. But because most stars are these red dwarfs that you can't see without a telescope, okay? And that's where most of the planets have been discovered and supposedly some planets are in the supposed habitable zone. But is it really habitable? Because that's only

One aspect. Okay, it may be that liquid water could exist temperature- wise, but it's so close to the star that you have what's called tidal locking. That the moon basically shows the same face to us all the time because it's so close that the tidal locking keeps the same face closest to us. And a planet in the red dwarf habitable zone is going to be tightly locked around the star. So one side is always day, one side is always night. So big picture that's not habitable because one side is going to boil, the other side's going to freeze. And as I mentioned, red stars are very violent and they're ejecting super flares all the time. And when you got a planet this close, you much closer than Mercury is to our sun. That's so close. And he got flares thousands of times bigger than the biggest solar flare we've observed from our own star. It's going to blast away any atmosphere or water. And because it's it's not rotating, it can't have much of a magnetic field either. And therefore, no protection against solar wind and things. So, it would not be habitable except in the narrow sense of having the possibility of a temperature part where liquid water is there. But otherwise, it's totally not habitable. And red stars are useless because you can't have photosynthetic plants on red stars because they emit mostly infrared radiation. And infrared radiation is good for warming but lousy for photosynthesis. It's just such a weak rad such a low photon energy. It can't do the job that photosynthesis needs. Our sun has it peaks in the green region of our spectrum and visible light and also our atmosphere is transparent to visible light and so is water. So and these are the wavelengths that activate photosynthesis. So our sun is the right wavelength to have photosynthesis happening and it's interesting you the

Sun's peak output is green. Our eyes peak sensitivity is green by remarkable coincidence. So I don't I'm very skeptical. And as far as aliens from a Biblical perspective, I don't think so because God created life, earth on day one, the stars and planets on day four. So the earth is clearly the center. Adam sinned on this planet. But in Romans 8, it says God cursed the whole creation. That means Adam's sin would have cursed the vulcan and cling on home worlds. But then Jesus took on human nature to die for human sin. He didn't take on vulcan nature to die for spock sin. So I think the sin of Adam the first man Adam and the incarnation of Jesus the last Adam are unique to earth as well. So again, these are problems for intelligent life on other worlds. And I say I watch Star Trek and Star Wars and a lot of science fiction, Doctor Who even. Okay. But it doesn't mean I believe I believe they're science fiction, not science fact. Okay. Maybe one more question. A couple more questions. Yeah. Like Yes, ma'am. Because you haven't asked a question. Maybe a couple questions from those who haven't asked one before. Okay. That's fair, isn't it? I did notice that you didn't say with Noah and the lifespans there was also the genetic bottleneck. Do you >> Yeah, the bottlenecks is a fair issue but again the bottleneck can't explain Shem's lifespan >> because Shem was born before the bottleneck because the bottleneck is a collapse of population but Shem was born before that collapse. So again, you got to have your theory must explain Noah's lifespan and Shem's lifespan. Shem was born before the bottleneck, but his lifespan already collapsed 600 from 950.

So the bottleneck couldn't have can't explain Shem's lifespan, but it can explain maybe the drop after that. But another thing about bottlenecks, see bottlenecks are really a problem if they are prolonged and you have inbreeding depression is what it's called. But if a population recovers really quickly from a bottleneck, it's not such a problem. And the flood recovered extremely quickly from that population bottleneck. So it wasn't as much a problem as people including myself once thought. I thought it was an issue until I realized they couldn't explain Shem's lifespan. But also, back in Australia, rabbits are a real pest. Millions, hundreds of millions of rabbits, but they all descended from 24 rabbits that were given as a nice Christmas present in the year Darwin wrote Origin of Species, 1859. Happy Christmas, Darwin. Yeah. Giving us 24 rabbits. And all those rabbits. So, you a population bottleneck of 24 rabbits. But because they expanded so quickly, there are pests that we can't get rid of. Okay. So when you when you have expansion rapidly of a bottleneck, it's not such an issue. And also in New Zealand where I where I also grew up, u one of the islands New Zealanders owns is called the Chattam Islands. And the population of black robins was so bad that it got down to two breeding individuals. But they managed to recover that population, just two breeding individuals. And they recovered the population of black robins on the Chattam Islands like the Adam and Eve of the of the of the Chattam Islands really those two black robins. And of course they are living thousands of years after the curse. So Adam and Eve had no mutations. God created them perfect very good perfect no mutations. Sh Noah would have had hardly any mutations because again only 10 generations from Adam. But even the rabbits and the black the

Black robins many more mutation but it shows that under the right conditions they can recover from a bottleneck as long as it's the recovery is quick. Now the human origin story the evol origin story is a problem because the evolutionary picture is the out of Africa model which postulates a very long bottleneck. We shouldn't have been able to survive the long bottleneck of the outs of Africa theory, but we could survive the very rapid recovery of the of the flood bottleneck. So again, the Bible makes sense of the genetic knowledge of bottlenecks and the out of Africa theory fails. One more question maybe. Oh yes, ma'am. We haven't asked one yet either, so yeah, might miss the last one. Yeah, but don't forget there plenty of resources. The creation answers book is one. My commentary is another. Have a look at my It's my design book if you like that sort of thing, which I do anyway is another one for you. And don't forget the packs if you want something discounted. The dinosaur pack kids like dinosaurs and you got dinosaur books of all ages in that dinosaur pack. Okay. Yes ma'am. >>, yes. So, you covered like the Biblical evidence for a young earth. I was curious, what do you think is the most convincing scientific evidence of a young earth? >> Okay. I mean there is an if you go to creation.com/age there's an article called 101 evidences for a young earth and universe but creation.com/age is a sub is the shortcut for you okay but my favorites are probably things like soft tissue and DNA and proteins from dinosaurs because we can measure that's my field chemistry measure how fast these things break down so you got chemical measurements and how they track with temperature. And there's no way you're going to get DNA lasting 68 million years as the specimen was

That they and they claimed this T-Rex was would die 68 million years old. That's what it told us. DNA couldn't even last a tenth of that time if it was deep frozen. Okay, so soft tissue DNA in dinosaur bones. Okay, another thing is radiocarbon in diamonds and dinosaur bones and coal because carbon 14 decays halflife of 5700 years. That's the latest measurement of its half 5700 years. Now after 20 half lives there's only is less than 1 millionth of the original amount and carbon 14 is only one in a trillion carbon atoms on earth is carbon 14. So by the time you have 20 half- livives, it's below detection level. So it means anything over about a 100,000 years should have zero carbon 14 detectable. And yet it's found in diamonds allegedly over a billion years old. Coal allegedly 300 million years old. Dinosaurs died at 66 million years old. Yet carbon 14's in the dinosaur bones. I think carbon 14 in the supposedly old samples shows that they really can't be that old. Which means the rocks there in can't be that old either because the rocks are the same age as what they're burying things in. Right. So it compresses the whole age of the rocks down to a Biblical time scale. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. >> So actually I was going to ask if you would touch on the timestamping because I know I was alive when Mount St. Helens here in the United States detonated and chucked a whole bunch of trees into water. Correct. And my understanding is it wasn't that long ago a scientist went sampled some of the now petrified wood >> sent it off to a lab and the lab said oh this is x millions of years old and he's like we watch those trees land in a lake. >> Well that's the thing when you have I you can test these radioactive data methods with eyewitness things and you

Find they often don't match up with what you know is the case and the same goes for lava flows from New Zealand volcanoes as well. Again know they happened in the 1950s sent them off to a lab and you get dates even up to three billion years using some methods. Okay, with rocks you know are only 50 years old and Mount Talons 1980 eruption the main eruptions and again they did a subsequent eruption produced a dome in 86 10 years after that they sent some samples to the to the dating lab 10-year-old samples and got dates of about 3 million years for these 10-y old samples okay so it happens and also the thing with the mountains and Helens and the trees they talk about petrified forest as though the forest were buried in place. But what they found with those trees on the lake is that the they were stripped of everything. That's one thing. Petrified forest didn't don't have any leaves or branches or roots. They're just the trunks. But the flood of course tore all that stuff off the trees and just left the trunks. But the root end still absorbs water and therefore becomes denser and sinks. So, so the logs point root in downwards and they fall roots down onto the floor of the lake and if they're buried in that position, it would look like you're burying a forest. But in fact, it can't be a forest because there's no branches. There's no soil. But this is how the trunks landed root downwards because they were floating and absorb water. So that's another thing. Mount St. Helens has given us clues about how to explain these petrified forests which one famous agnostic historian used as an excuse to abandon the Biblical faith was these petrified fries and Mount St. Helens shows how you can form those in a Biblical time scale. >> Yeah. >> Because they're saying these layers of soil are millions of years and you've

Got a tree split down several layers that becomes a problem with the mass. What you're talking about is what's called poly straight fossils. Indeed, trees go through lots of different layers. Like in coal mines, you have layers and trees are going through them. And it's ridiculous because they want to tell you that this tree was buried by all these layers. But hang on, what happened to the top of a tree when the bottom being buried? Wouldn't you love to have timber that could withstand the elements for hundreds of thousands of years? That's the thing. It must have been buried before the whole thing rotted away. So poly straight fossils are a big problem for the evolutionists and shows layers are pretty much one after the other very quickly and not much time between them. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you for >> Thank you, Dr. Saridi. Why don't you all once again just show your appreciation? Be sure to go by if you have not given to support this ministry, make sure that you prayerfully give as they are worthwhile ministry. You can support them financially also by visiting their bookstore and by signing up for their email list and things like that. Also the creation magazine as well. Thank you guys so much. Hope that y'all have a wonderful evening. Take care and God bless.