dr. faulkner said in the little video clip i showed you, there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young universe. i've said it to you before and i admit again that the reason i believe in a young universe is because of the bible's account of origins. i believe that god who has always been there, the infinite creator god revealed in his word what he did for us. and when we add up those dates we get thousands of years. but there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that. but as far as the age of the earth, the age of the universe even when it comes to the fossil record, that's why i really challenge christians if you're going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record, you got a problem with the bible. and that is you're going to have death and disease and suffering before sin. so there's no hypothetical in regard to that. you can't prove scientifically the age of the earth or the universe, bottomline. >> of course, this is where we disagree. you can prove the age of the earth with great robustness by observing the universe around us. and i ge

dr. faulkner has published in the secular journals. there's lots of creationists out there who publish. people might know that they're creationists because the topics do not specifically pertain to creation versus evolution but there's lots of them out there. if you go to our website, there's a whole list there of scientists who are creationists, who are out there doing great work in this world. and helping to advance technology. >> there's a reason that i don't accept your ken ham model of creation. it is because it has no predictive quality as you touched on. and something that i've always found troubling, it sounds as -- next time around, you can it sounds as though you believe your worldview which is literal interpretation of most parts of the bible is correct. what became of all those people who never heard of it? never heard of you. what became of all those people in asia? what became of all those first nations people in north america? were they condemned and doomed? i mean i don't know how much time you spend talking to strangers but they're not sanguine about that. to have you t

dr. faulkner's model, dr. snelling's model. and so it goes on. there are lots of creation scientists who agree with what we're saying. it's not just my model in that sense. i believe you are confusing and god created all those species. we are not saying species. we are same kinds. there's a number of papers published on our website. this one brisas on with this one. because i get papers around the world can connect them all together. as they've been doing the research, they have predicted less than a thousand times, which means over 2000 animals. it was really illustrating my point. you are talking about tree rings and talking about kangaroos getting to australia and all sorts of things like that. we're talking about the past whenever it there. we didn't see those tree rings for me. it's the ice in greenland and 46 years later three miles away from the original location with 200 on top of them. if you assume one layer here is something that back, you are assuming things in regard to the past but are necessarily true. lines and teeth, most heirs h

dr. faulkner has published in the secular journals. there's lots of creationists out there who publish. people might know that they're creationists because the topics do not specifically pertain to creation versus evolution but there's lots of them out there. if you go to our website, there's a whole list there of scientists who are creationists, who are out there doing great work in this world. and helping to advance technology. >> there's a reason that i don't accept your ken ham model of creation. it is because it has no predictive quality as you touched on. and something that i've always found troubling, it sounds as -- next time around, you can it sounds as though you believe your worldview which is literal interpretation of most parts of the bible is correct. what became of all those people who never heard of it? never heard of you. what became of all those people in asia? what became of all those first nations people in north america? were they condemned and doomed? i mean i don't know how much time you spend talking to strangers but they're not sanguine about that. to have you t

dr. faulkner has published in the secular journals. there's lots of creationists out there who publish. people might know that they're creationists because the topics do not specifically pertain to creation versus evolution but there's lots of them out there. if you go to our website, there's a whole list there of scientists who are creationists, who are out there doing great work in this world. and helping to advance technology. >> there's a reason that i don't accept your ken ham model of creation. because it has no predictive quality as you touched on. and something that i've always found troubling, it sounds as though you believe your worldview which is literal interpretation of most parts of the bible is correct. what became of all those people who never heard of it? never heard of you. what became of all those people in asia? what became of all those first nations people in north america? were they condemned and doomed? i mean i don't know how much time you spend talking to strangers but they're not sanguine about that. to have you tell them that they are inherently lost or misgui

dr. faulkner's model. it's dr. snellings model and dr. per dumb's model. and you go on that website, and there are lots of creation science that agree with what we are saying concerning the bible. so it's not just my model in that sense. there's so much they could say i t -- as i listen to you, believe you're confusing terms in regards to species and kinds. because we're not saying god created all those species. we're saying god created kinds and not saying species got on the arc but kinds. in fact there's a number of papers published on our website that says what's your breed of dog? and you can say this one combined with this one and you n lookaround and say one represents one kind but they have predicted less than a 1,000 kinds were on noah's arc and every size of land animal snood big, so there was plenty of room on the arc. there are also those who believe what you were saying was illustrating my point. you were talking about tree rings and ice layers. but we're talking about the in 1942, weren't for instance. there were some planes that landed on the

dr. faulkner said in the little video clip i showed you, there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young universe. i've said it to you before and i admit again that the reason i believe in a young universe is because of the bible's account of origins. i believe that god who has always been there, the infinite creator god revealed in his word what he did for us. and when we add up those dates we get thousands of years. but there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that. but as far as the age of the earth, the age of the universe, even when it comes to the fossil record, that's why i really challenge christians if you're going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record, you got a problem with the bible. and that is you're going to have death and disease and suffering before sin. so there's no hypothetical in regard to that. you can't prove scientifically the age of the earth or the universe, bottomline. >> of course, this is where we disagree. you can prove the age of the earth with great robustness by observing the universe around us. and i g