Відео

This is how it started ..... says who? nobody was there. so you say god but you can't prove god exists so why should anyone believe your bronze age stories. it wasn't much earlier god was a volcano or the thunder and lightning and so many other things we did not understand going on the available evidence it's more likely god doesn't exist.

@@truthgiver8286 you have a hard time telling who’s who… go back and read my post and tell me what claim I’m making

@@ethanguy82 I am not saying you made a claim the video mentioned that is how it all started and I was referring to that.

@@truthgiver8286 you replied to me. Anyway, your skepticism is like a big club with nails sticking out of it. Someday you will learn to wield it more like a light saber, young padawan.

@@ethanguy82 skepticism oh that's rich you don't believe the other thousand or so religions out there. I only believe one less than you and that makes me a skeptic.

Science and the Bible are in direct conflict. Science is based on evidence, the Bible is based on mythology. Science creates models of how the universe works, the Bible gives prescriptions on how people behave. Science only asserts things that have been demonstrated to be true with verifiable, testable, repeatable results, the Bible asserts things which have either no evidence, are unfalsifiable, or have been proven evidently not true

English translations of the Bible imply a young earth. Genesis in Hebrew doesn't.

The earth is billions of year is only because of the method of measuring it

the earth is quite young, every ancient culture believed there was a global flood. Deep time is a pagan idea dating back to ancient Hindu theology.

@@phillipharrington9201 There's still a lot of mystery involving the flood. I can't say I know for sure when and how it happened.

@@Telepian But we can know that it did happen and most cultures do not believe it was that long ago, only about 4500 years give or take. Places like Europe even trace royal lineage back to Noah. you should read a book called After the Flood by Bill Cooper, you can just search for the pdf online,

@@phillipharrington9201we can absolute not say for sure that it happened. Why would “ancient cultures say it happened” mean that it must have happened? And why don’t the ancient Japanese cultures describe a flood?

womp womp

I’m pretty sure come as you are extends to all

I don’t think it is a cult problem per se but a problem with indoctrination. Indoctrination is common in religions to keep control therefore the money flowing.

​@@lubrew5862 what is the difference between a cult and a religion? If it's only the size it is an irrelevant difference.

@@boogniche142Control. If we go by modern definitions and standards used by mental health professionals the distinction between a religion and cult is the amount of control.

@@lubrew5862 mental health professionals do not decide the definitions of words? Which dictionary states that cults have control and religions do not?

@@boogniche142I am using mental health professionals as an example because they are the experts in the field of cults. And yes cult has several meanings and has changed over time. So the relevant definition and usage in modern day would be how it is used in the mental health profession. But if it makes you feel better we can go back to the original usage of the word, which was the essentially any group that takes care of or looks after a deity. So every person who believes in a deity is a cultist.

Why did you bring Darwin into your answer? Darwin wasn’t a physicist or geologist and was not considered an authority on either subject. Do you know who Darwin was and what his work was on? Who are these Christians you are referring to that figured out the age of the earth jn the 1700 and 1800s? Your statement is so vague I assume you are repeating what you heard but never looked into it.

@@lubrew5862 Your questions make it sound like you may be new to this subject. First of all, I'll say that I agree with 80% of what the video presenter said. The purpose of Genesis is to establish a chart of relationships and not an exact timescale. Except the last minute where he presents a false dichotomy between mankind having been created by God and being genetic and biological second cousins to the other primates. Those two things are obviously not mutually exclusive. And I mention Darwin for the obvious reason I essentially stated: To exclude him as a primary reason for concluding that the Earth is very old. Because, in my 60 or so years of studying both science and religion, an overwhelming number of times that I've seen the age of the Earth discussed (and occasionally been involved in such discussions) a Young Earth Creationist presents the false claim: "You just want to believe that the Earth is old because you worship (yes, they nearly always say 'worship' here) Darwin because you want to deny God because you want to sin." When the fact of the matter is that Darwin isn't anyone's reason for considering the Earth to be at least tens of millions of years old. Darwin wasn't even the inventor of the concept of "evolution." He was only looking for an explanation for the mechanism for the evolution that had already been seen in evidence in the fossil record that apparently resulted in the diversity of life. The full name of his book shows his conclusion: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." Now back to my original thesis: The age of the Earth matters. It matters because the way we approach our search for the truth matters. And if you actually look at the totality of the physical evidence in the actual Earth and surrounding universe, you see that everything is consistent with the Earth and universe being at least tens of millions of years old. Every Young Earth Creationist presentation is cringeworthy in the extent to which they focus on a particular seeming anomaly to the exclusion of nearly the entirety of the rest of the evidence on the subject, including explanations for the seeming anomaly. If a person is not willing to question his own conclusions, then he is not looking for "the truth." He is looking for "his own truth" -- predetermined within his own human mind. Regardless of how holy and sanctimonious he is about it.

@@ThatBoomerDude56You mentioned Darwin because you heard some young earth creationist use him as an authority for age of the earth? Okay, but why would you use him as an authority? You never explained that. Your reference of him as if he was an authority you are excluding. Is it to just pre-dismiss these young earth creationist you converse with? So you going to address the whole 1700 and 1800 Christians knowing the age of the earth? Or just going to keep running from that question. The rest of your statement, I am really not sure what to make of it. Your whole superiority complex of I must be new, gave me a good chuckle though. I asked you questions because your statements make very little sense to anyone with a decent knowledge of science and its history. I am not trying to g to act superior with my statements, just trying get clarification. Even possibly help you with your arguments, understanding of what Darwin did, science and history.

@@lubrew5862 I never used Darwin as an authority for anything. And I didn't refer merely to "some young earth creationist." I said that he has been brought up by them in nearly every conversation that I have seen or been involved in over many years and I wanted to preempt the claim that THEY use him for. Your not being familiar with this argument & tactic is what makes you look new to the subject. There is nothing at all unclear about any of this in what I said. I am almost tempted to accuse you of lying about what I said, but that would seem a bit harsh. If you are confused about "the rest of what I said" in that: - The video producer's assertion of a dichotomy between "created by God" and "biologically related to the other simians" is a false dichotomy; - Or my statement that people must be open to questioning their own conclusions if they are actually in pursuit of truth about the real world, Then I cannot help you. Both of those are self-evident. James Hutton (1700s) was essentially a deist. But literally anyone in the world who recognized the same and even more extremely obvious evidence in the 1800s and beyond acknowledged that the Earth -- along with the rest of the universe -- must be much more than merely thousands of years old. Young Earth Creationism is necessarily a fringe belief that is adhered to only by extreme literalists and those who wish to believe them and are not interested in actually understanding geology, astronomy, etc. If you actually want to talk about true Christian believers, more recent ones entirely in the age of rather more fully developed scientific understanding would be more relevant: Georges Lemaître, Francis Collins, Mary Schweitzer. The discovery of Mary Schweitzer (a self-acknowledged Christian) is a good example of Young Earth Creationist proponents twisting the truth to an extreme extent (not her fault, but the fault of others who use her discover in their arguments.) She discovered elementary particles of components that would have been "soft tissue" in the interior of fossilized bones of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. The media picked up on this and hyped it as her having found "soft tissue" inside a fossil -- which is somewhat technically correct but extremely misleading if it's said without qualification. Young Earth Creationists have jumped on this, saying that "soft tissue" could not possibly survive for millions of years -- which is a complete misrepresentation of what was actually found, which was atoms of residue of carbon & other elements that would have originally been part of the "soft tissue" but were now part of the solidified fossilized rock. I have personally discussed this matter with several Young Earth Creationists who continue to insist that the term "soft tissue" means that the tissue is still intact and is currently still "soft" -- which is essentially a lie. Anyway, if you want to continue to reply based on your assumption that I don't know anything about this subject, then go ahead. I may or may not respond again, depending on whether you say anything interesting and what else I'm trying to do at the time.

@@ThatBoomerDude56I have watched dozens of “debates” on young earth. I have yet to see anyone refer to Darwin as proof or reasoning for their position or against the other person. Maybe sampling of posts and videos is different than yours. I asked for clarification. Just because you think you have watched a lot of videos on this topic doesn’t mean that they or your view on them is universal to everyone. You can call me a lier or whatever name you want to and it will not matter to me. No offense but you are just somebody on the internet that I am trying to have a simple conversation with. My remark on not know what to think about the rest of your post was simply because it was just a series of tangents that didn’t address the questions I asked or really the topics of discussion. That was all. I posted that in hopes you would clarify how you think that ties into your remark about Darwin or Christians from the 1700 and 1800. But if you don’t want to, okay. Again this is just a simple conversation and not my intent to offend you.