Is the Universe Young? W/ Dr. Danny Faulkner
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- *Video Description:*
Join me for an exciting interview as I speak with Dr. Danny Faulkner, esteemed astronomer, Christian apologist, and creationist, to explore the compelling question: "Is the Universe Young?" In this engaging interview, we delve into both the biblical defense of a Young Earth and the scientific evidence supporting a young universe. Dr. Faulkner brings his extensive expertise to the table, providing insights that bridge faith and science. Whether you're a believer seeking to strengthen your understanding or a skeptic curious about the Young Earth perspective, this episode promises to offer thought-provoking answers and robust discussion. Don't miss this opportunity to deepen your knowledge and challenge your thinking!
#YoungEarth #YoungUniverse #Creationism #ChristianApologetics #BiblicalCreation #DrDannyFaulkner #Astronomy #ScienceAndFaith #Christianity #RevealedApologetics #Genesis #BibleScience #CreationScience #FaithAndScience #ApologeticsInterview
Please consider supporting Revealed Apologetics by donating here: www.revealedap...
Or
Signing up for Eli’s NEW COURSE: Presup Applied: www.revealedap...
Hey Eli, thanks for the epic content, guests, and topics you host. I really enjoyed it…my only critique would be that next time he should spend more time talking about astronomy, and less time talking about geology. Either way, very informative video. Thanks again!
How do you respond to the heat problem of YEC?
What heat problem?
I’m sorry, maybe I’m missing something here but I’ve listened to 46mins of the interview so far and you still haven’t addressed the idea and argument for a young universe…? I’m interested to hear about this and hopefully you’ll get to it soon. But it would really create a better impression if you get the subject matter from the outset…then no problem to talk about other peripheral questions
Please demonstrate God.
the answer is no. concensus of the experts in the field. the only reason you deny this is because of your Biblical interpretation which you put first and THEN you bend backwards with mental gymnastics and bad science.
Maybe study how much presupposition, assumption, circular reasoning, worldview bias interpretation, lies, fraudulent evidence, and why funding is obtained in this world of consensus toting experts before calling it science.
@@spamm0145 @spamm0145 i studied philosophy, including philo of science and logic. it's the presuppers that reason in a circle, that assume the point at issue. about scientific realism; yes it's true that sometimes human factors can skew a study but in the end the empirical adequacy will previal. ( great examples in the literature of this with sugar and sigarettes and how even the all the lobbying could not overcome the biological facts of it being bad).
i am a Christian too btw, it just seems to me you must either be a scientific realist and go where the evidence leads or deny science. YEC's do neither and get in trouble because of it.
The consensus of experts in the field does not determine whether or not something is so. That is a fallacious appeal to authority.
@@hudjahulos it's induction so NOTHING “determines” it, it's about what is most likely true. and it's not an fallacious appeal to authority when i refer to experts in a specific field. (a simple google search of legit appeals to authority will show this.)
Let me be clear and concise as possible.
Apologetics exists because gods do not.
Remind me.. What position are you defending?
Another person who argues using their intelligence that their mind did not require intellect to design. Why would you trust your thoughts when it is a product of random processes without a purpose or end goal? You actually think that all the gifts God gave you that are not matter (abstract concepts, love, consciousness, etc) were inexplicably created by molecules that cannot 'think'? The evidence for God is inside you, DNA is the most complex information ever discovered, the only way matter can be arranged into information is a mind. Groves in sand, ink on paper, the code in DNA, these all require a mind. A.I. can create new information using existing data sets, what is the original source of the A.I.? A mind. You are more complex than any technology mankind has devised, your body generates more processes per second than all the computers on Earth combined and does so using a meagre 20 watts of electricity, this is possible because of the information within your DNA, to hold onto an absurd worldview you need to believe the opposite of all known observations, that the source of complexity and information is not a mind, use the most complex object ever discovered, the human brain, and realise how stupid it is to deny a creator.
Eli, shouldn't you ask why scientists don't distinguish between observational and historical science? There is a good reason, but your lack of curiosity seems to lay the path for your misguided conclusions. As a non-scientist, shouldn't you be more humble?
@@Qualier If I remember correctly, I did ask that question or at least something close to it. Not sure if you are asking this without listening to the entire interview. And even if I didn’t ask (although I believe I did or something to that effect), it would not be due to a lack of curiosity. There are a bunch of questions one could say I “should have asked.” Not asking a question someone thought I should have asked is not evidence of a lack of curiosity. Furthermore, I am not sure what you are referring to with respect to my misguided conclusions. Lastly, one could always be “more humble”, but I don’t think I said anything in this discussion from a place of pride so again, not sure how to respond unless a specific example is provided that I can look at:) Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@RevealedApologetics Tell us Eli, Do you have a single scrap of credible evidence of the god you childishly claim yet or are you still failing spectacularly with your pitiful god of the gaps argument/presupp B.S that fails so spectacularly?
Elaborate on that good reason then
@@nickjones5435 Evolution and abiogenesis are both propped up using presupposition, assumption, circular reasoning, worldview bias, lies, fraudulent evidence, wishful thinking and imagination. An averaged IQ child understands 'Johnny loves Mary' arranged using rocks must have been purposefully placed to convey specific information, but academics with a dogmatic biased worldview don't see the most complex purposefully arranged information within DNA is the evidence for a creator. Even though a simple protein folding by chance yields a number greater than all the estimated molecules in the entire cosmos, no lets pretend complexity and information beyond human capabilities came into being without the need for a mind, totally against all known observations. Lets pretend that all the vital symbiosis relationships amongst living organisms that absolutely had to exist at the same time in the same place for the life supporting ecosystem to function isn't a fact. Lets kid ourselves that the first DNA that is made out of proteins and needing to DNA to make the proteins isn't a problem. Lets fool ourselves into believing matter that has no mind created a brain that is capable of comprehending abstract concepts that the molecules building the brain do not understand. I 'think' God is most definitely needed to bridge these colossal gaps in the absurdity of naturalism and its requirement to completely abandon all known observations that the source of complexity and information is an intelligent agent.
between the 27th-30th minute that question is asked. @@RevealedApologetics